Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

a reply to: madenusa

Like to play the audio vs the near silence WTC 7 fell in?

Like to tackle the reports that WTC 7 showed signs it’s walls were bulging and would fail structurally through the day?

What is with conspiracists and the hiding of obvious facts.

Thanks for enabling those like DR Wood and Dustification that exploit 9/11. Shame on you.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: madenusa

Then debunk and refute something like this account by civil professionals in the demolitions field.

www.implosionworld.com...

All you have is innuendo and a statement by the media. I knotice conspiracists claim how untrustworthy the media is?

Please cite any evidence charges powerful enough was ever set off that would cut steel? Audible evidence? Shrapnel/ windows blowing out? Pressure wave?


There is a reason Architects and Engineers 9/11 Truth was forced to fabricate the mythical fizzle no flash bombs narrative?

I cant I only believe with my own eyes I could careless what the paid media or any investigation comes up with.

a reply to: madenusa

I asked you to refute personal accounts in the field. There is no evidence of CD. Like to create a actual argument.

The paper I linked to tackes the “look like aspect”

. Like to refute the paper with an actual argument. Or just keep laying on the innuendo....
www.implosionworld.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: madenusa

Like to play the audio vs the near silence WTC 7 fell in?

Like to tackle the reports that WTC 7 showed signs it’s walls were bulging and would fail structurally through the day?

What is with conspiracists and the hiding of obvious facts.

Thanks for enabling those like DR Wood and Dustification that exploit 9/11. Shame on you.

I only believe what I see ,I don't fallow the media.
I was driving a truck that day my dispatcher sent me a message don't get off the road forget about hours of service.
When I saw the towers go down that day I said wow looks like controlled demolition.
so don't blame everybody for believing what they read.
I only believe what I see with my own two eyes I could careless about science.

a reply to: madenusa


Peter Jennings watching the towers come down had the same impression as you did. So did I.

Yes, it was controlled demolition.

a reply to: Salander

Based on what evidence?

It looked like CD? Funny the start of the collapse everything was pulled in, not blown out.

Let’s go with you debunked basement bombs.

They tried that in 93. It failed. But still made lots of noise and blew a wall onto the street if I am not mistaken. If an explosion in the basement is what triggered the collapse on 9/11, then every floor would have dropped down at the same time. Or from bottom to top. Windows and walls would have blown out.

You have never explained what is seen in the videos leading up to and the moment of collapse.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

The inward bowing and buckling was on the outer columns which were pulled in. Very localized.

Again, there is no video, audio, or physical evidence of CD. Why do you think AE 9/11 Truth came up with mythical fizzle no flash explosives?


And remember, the cry of the truth movement was resistance of every floor had to be removed to see the witnesses collapse rate. A collapse that was slower that the rate of free fall. A collapse where a majority of the vertical columns remained standing seconds on end offer the complete collapse of the floor systems.

a reply to: madenusa

Looks like CD?

Then refute the explanation in this paper of accounts....

www.implosionworld.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Can you refute or debunk anything in this account by individuals?


www.implosionworld.com...

A paper of accounts and arguments how the WTC steel was handled, and why there is NO evidence of WTC CD.

It's obvious that they are attempting supporting the official story. However, they - or at least the authors - do not seem to accept it entirely. They do not try to dispute it, but to me, I believe they understand WTC 7 was a CD.

Here's the clue to their actual beliefs, imo...

They state that there was no evidence of explosives, nobody heard charges go off, and that they spoke to people on site, who said they knew the building was going to collapse, because of 'intense fires' (right, like I have an 'intense' fireplace). Those fires were hardly intense, and the building was hardly 'consumed' by fires. I'm tired of this lie. Images and videos prove that the fires were very small. It's funny to compare this to REAL fires, like the Madrid building, and the highrise fore in Philly. Both of those buildings never collapsed to the ground, like WTC 7. But the WTC 7 fires were so 'intense'. The WTC 7 building was built like a tank, compared to those buildings, but it falls like a house of cards. Yup.

Anyway, back to the clue I see...

As I said, they started off defending the WTC 7 collapse as a non-CD - mainly, by referring to comments of a few people who were there. And they mention that they have not seen or been shown any evidence of explosives used in the WTC 7 collapse.


Here is the summary, which I find interesting..

"We do not know exactly how or why WTC 7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here. All we can offer is that, from a demolition and structural failure standpoint, available data does not rule out the possibility of the building collapsing as a direct result of the structural conditions detailed above."


They do not want to suggest it was a CD, or outright state it was a CD. I am absolutely sure that they - of all people - know it was a CD. And I also believe they'd like to say it was a CD, but cannot.

The first clue is that they do not know "exactly how or why" WTC fell 'when it did". And they 'decline to hypothesize here'. Why would they suddenly "decline to hypothesize"? Why would they refuse to tell us what they think happened? Anyway, I'm sure if they were pressed on it, they would recant 'any suggestion that they do not believe the official theory of WTC 7's collapse'. I know what they are saying here, and I know they will never cross past that line. Saying what you believe, or know to be true, is often hidden in what you do NOT say....


As seen in the last comment, which is in bold...

They 'do not rule out the possibility' of WTC 7's failure being due to 'the structural conditions'. They say that available data allows for that possibility.

And that is 'all they can offer'. from their viewpoint.


How does one go about putting across to others what they believe, yet cannot directly say what they believe? I would present the above statements as a perfect case.

They decline to say what they think happened. If they think it was not a CD, and caused only by fire/damage, which is the official story, then they'd obviously have no possible reason to decline saying so.

If they don't believe the official story, they would decline saying so.

And that's the ONLY reason why they would ever refuse to hypothesize on it.


Then the last part - they do not rule out the 'possibility' it was caused by structural conditions. And the only reason they even mention why it cannot be ruled out? Because the 'available data' gives it a chance.

In other words...

'We cannot say with 100% absolute certainty that WTC 7 was a CD, because we cannot rule out the possibility it was due to structural conditions'.

In saying what they do NOT believe happened, they have only one other option. The one option they cannot, will not, ever mention.


I find they are trying to defend the government story, while knowing it is bs, and making it clear that they know it. Again, if pressed, they will steadfastly support the official story.

What kind of world is it when people can't say the truth, are terrified of their government, and pretend to agree with government bs?

That's our world, unfortunately.

As for the steel shipped to China -

The steel first was cut in smaller pieces, and it was staged in a pile outside the area. This is the first time evidence is actually being removed from it's location at the crime scene. From there, it was loaded onto trucks, and carried to the docks, where it was loaded onto barges.

I'm sure the mob has nothing to do with these trucks, or cleanup crews, and have no dock connections, and no access to any barges. Not in NYC, right?!!

I don't care how much steel has to be removed, it is ALL CRUCIAL EVIDENCE. If you want to preserve this evidence, you don't hire mafioso cleanup crews to remove evidence of a crime scene! It's ridiculous.

At that point, the evidence is tainted. It is a mafia-connected removal of evidence, at very least, and that alone calls it into question.

Afterwards, the steel was stored at Fresh Kills site in a separate area.

And then, it was 'examined and cataloged by a series' of different groups. Forensic investigators, city officials, and site managers.

How did they 'examine' the steel? It seems they examined where the steel came from, and cataloged it. There is no actual 'examination' of steel here. Unless you can prove otherwise. If you have no proof, then you need to stop claiming it.

And that's when the steel was shipped to China. They don't say some of the steel was shipped to China, which suggests none of it was saved at the site. Otherwise, it would likely be mentioned.

So why would all of this steel be shipped to China, without any ACTUAL investigation? Examining steel sounds better than looking for numbers on pieces of steel, and sorting it, but that's not what I'm talking about.

So here we are -

Show me documentation to prove that the steel shipped to China was actually analyzed, tested, etc.

Saying 'forensic investigators' examined the steel would suggest it has been documented, right? Any papers on the steel?.....

originally posted by: madenusa
I only believe what I see ,I don't fallow the media.
I was driving a truck that day my dispatcher sent me a message don't get off the road forget about hours of service.
When I saw the towers go down that day I said wow looks like controlled demolition.
so don't blame everybody for believing what they read.
I only believe what I see with my own two eyes I could careless about science.

I agree. To see these buildings pulverize to dust, from a plane hit, and fires, on a few floors, in a 110 floor skyscraper, is laughable. To see it twice, is beyond absurd.

The media wants us to NOT believe our own eyes, do NOT think for yourself.

Wile E. Coyote runs off a cliff, and levitates in mid-air. Until he looks down, and sees where he is...and then he plummets to ground.

A building 110 stories high, with the strongest, most massive, support structure ever known, is hit by a plane, which had
about the same effect as a flea hitting an elephant's ass.

Nobody actually thought the towers would collapse to the ground, and certainly nobody had ever seen a building pulverize into dust, either.

Nobody would think it would happen, because everybody knows it does NOT happen. Unless it's a CD.

And that's what we see, and we know, and the media swine is a pack of liars, telling us it was perfectly normal, and let's go kill those Muslim terrorists, in Iraq, okay?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: madenusa
I only believe what I see ,I don't fallow the media.
I was driving a truck that day my dispatcher sent me a message don't get off the road forget about hours of service.
When I saw the towers go down that day I said wow looks like controlled demolition.
so don't blame everybody for believing what they read.
I only believe what I see with my own two eyes I could careless about science.

I agree. To see these buildings pulverize to dust, from a plane hit, and fires, on a few floors, in a 110 floor skyscraper, is laughable. To see it twice, is beyond absurd.

The media wants us to NOT believe our own eyes, do NOT think for yourself.

Wile E. Coyote runs off a cliff, and levitates in mid-air. Until he looks down, and sees where he is...and then he plummets to ground.

A building 110 stories high, with the strongest, most massive, support structure ever known, is hit by a plane, which had
about the same effect as a flea hitting an elephant's ass.

Nobody actually thought the towers would collapse to the ground, and certainly nobody had ever seen a building pulverize into dust, either.

Nobody would think it would happen, because everybody knows it does NOT happen. Unless it's a CD.

And that's what we see, and we know, and the media swine is a pack of liars, telling us it was perfectly normal, and let's go kill those Muslim terrorists, in Iraq, okay?

They were NOT pulverized into dust what could be crushed into dust was so we have thousands of sq mtrs of sheetrock, hundreds of cubic mtrs of sprayed on fire protection, vermiculite from behind the aluminium cladding and of course concrete dust from the thin concrete floor slabs.

You people know nothing about construction

Use this link to see some real hi res images of the debris at the towers you can left click on the images twice to see the highest res now please show how everything was turned to dust I see plenty of steel and other building components

Hires Debris Images

Whats obviously pitiful is your lack of understanding of physics of high speed collisions

Lets try a little test a car doing 30 mph weighing 3200 lbs hits a huge solid tree the car crushes by 2 feet at impact what is the load generated, lets see post what you think.

Also if you think soft objects cant go through harder objects I will show you this again.



Velocity makes all the difference

a reply to: wmd_2008

Don’t waste your time with someone that is delusional.

Somebody that is purposely intellectually dishonest.

Somebody that cannot even understand the outer vertical columns were one of the only two points the floors of the towers tied into the steel supports. And tried to falsely argue otherwise.

Compared to buildings that collapsed just from earthquake damage, the towers collapse did not make too much dust.

The individual never has refuted cited works like this...

Nutty 9/11 physics www.uwgb.edu...

No amount of evidence will dissuade a conspiracy theorist, but when they appeal to scientific evidence, they're fair game. And the 9-11 conspiracy sites have some very strange science.

I bet there will be another long and intellectually dishonest rant around Friday night. Full of proven false arguments with no citing of actual documented evidence.

a reply to: Salander

Well....if Peter Jennings said it, it must be true. Despite the complete lack of physical evidence......if he said it, it MUST be reality.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596


We're talking in the past tense here. Peter Jennings is dead of course, but the very same thought went through my mind as I watched it happened on television. Occam works here--it looked just like a CD as you see on television because it WAS a controlled demolition as you see on television.

Common Sense often pays off. Try it some time.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: cardinalfan0596


We're talking in the past tense here. Peter Jennings is dead of course, but the very same thought went through my mind as I watched it happened on television. Occam works here--it looked just like a CD as you see on television because it WAS a controlled demolition as you see on television.

Common Sense often pays off. Try it some time.

And here is a paper explaining why “looks like” is a false argument.

www.implosionworld.com...


Like to explain why there was no demolitions shrapnel, no audible evidence, lack of a shockwave with the power to cut steel, no video evidence of an explosion capable of cutting steel, and no metallurgical evidence the steel was worked on by explosives?

a reply to: turbonium1

Interesting to see if you post a long rant full of falsehoods this Friday.

Here is an Idea? Instead of a long rant, base a debate off this paper.

www.implosionworld.com...

List If there is anything false in this paper, and cite sources proving actual facts. If you are a actually after the truth.

I but you will not. The only thing you do is create long rants of truth movement lies and falsehoods to deceive yourself the truth movement is full of BS. Groups like AE exploit 9/11 for a bit of fame. Shame you enable the lies.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: cardinalfan0596


We're talking in the past tense here. Peter Jennings is dead of course, but the very same thought went through my mind as I watched it happened on television. Occam works here--it looked just like a CD as you see on television because it WAS a controlled demolition as you see on television.

Common Sense often pays off. Try it some time.

Looked like damaged buildings collapsing. William would disapprove of you inventing unnecessary magical explosives to explain the collapse

a reply to: mrthumpy


Please see if you can find me some other pictures or video of other modern steel buildings collapsing from fire. You cannot.

What you will find if you search is pictures of numerous modern steel buildings burning for hours and remaining standing.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy


Please see if you can find me some other pictures or video of other modern steel buildings collapsing from fire. You cannot.

What you will find if you search is pictures of numerous modern steel buildings burning for hours and remaining standing.

See if you can find any examples of these listed items other than your false 9/11 narrative:

A high rise building over 50 floors brought down by explosives in a CD.

A high rise building ever brought down by a top down CD using explosives.

A high rise building ever brought down by thermite.

So never before 9/11 equals impossible. The truth movement has some explaining to do......

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy


Please see if you can find me some other pictures or video of other modern steel buildings collapsing from fire. You cannot.

What you will find if you search is pictures of numerous modern steel buildings burning for hours and remaining standing.

Another false argument by you. You need to define collapse.....

The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...



The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.

What did the Madrid Tower have that prevented a total collapse that the WTC did not have. Traditional concrete cores!!!!

And this example has been repeatedly ousted in various threads.