Proving Spontaneity of Post-Impact WTC Towers Collapse

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I have presented how the collapse at the towers took place. Listed contributing factors. Listed events. Cited sources.

You didn't list the event of the outward force that I presented in my post.

Now. If it was not explosives.

Absolutely not! You have scripture that rules that out entirely.

Now. If you don’t think it was jet impact/fire/thermal stress related.

Well... I suppose that can happen... if you design a model to make it happen.

You explain what was the cause of the collapse and the bulge you keep going on about. Time to lay your theory on the line. Time to show how intelligent you are?

Buddy, relax. I really wish you would just get me. I'm not pushing a theory. You are. I presented a few photos and a video that I thought didn't fit with you diety of absolute knowledge demanding subservience and you became unglued a bit.

I don’t think you can, because you are a hack.

No I can't, but I would have expected that those that could, held a higher responsibility than those claim themselves most knowledgeable and virtuous.

The clear evidence is the buckling caused the collapse of the towers. No matter how many false arguments and dishonest arguments you post out of ignorance will change that.

If you make a computer model that says so and look through a straw, maybe.

You actual don’t care about the truth. You like to think yourself wise when your postes show your ignorance.

HEY! ... you got me.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: MrBig2430


If your willing to dismiss all visual evidence to follow some old geezer with bad eye sight be my guest.

This Reply is astonishing.

I said that’s there’s close up video of the columns shearing off and the bottom edge kicking to the left. And that Bazant explains it.

So rather than doing a little research and seeing if what I’m saying is correct, we get this little peek into the paranoid mind of someone in denial.

What will happen if I supply a link to the video and Bazant?

My prediction says more denial and/or dismissal of facts.

The video I posted and time to start watching is on page 7.

Well, I don’t see what you see.

And here’s how everyone knows you’re delusional- the laws of physics can’t be suspended, and gravity can’t be shut off.

If it’s your observation that the left edge isn’t applying weight or force to the lower part, other than for some fraction of a second, then your observation is WRONG, for your observation requires that gravity isn’t working.

IOW, you need to reassess your observation and make sure it is reality based. What you’re doing now is digging in your heels 👠 and not changing your beliefs according to new information.

If this is why you say you have so many unanswered questions and/or request for evidence- you dismiss every answer and your questions can’t be answered cuz they have no basis in reality- then this is a waste of my time and I predict another 15 years of you wandering the internet looking for these answers.

Good luck with that

a reply to: MALBOSIA

One, don’t thrown terms around trying to falsely implement me in cult like behavior.

You...

“Just cause you cite things from your cult does not make it true.”

Then what truth has the truth movement to offer:

1) The towers were brought down by thermite paint / ceiling tiles. Jones thermite research being fraudulent.

2) Architects and Engineers 9/11 Truth / Richard gauges mythical fizzle no flash explosives?

3) Dr Wood and the power of Dustification harnessed from a hurricane?


If you don’t think the structural failures at the towers were rooted in jet impact/fire/thermal stress initiated, then you outline a cause of collapse.

Time to stop being a hack, and time fore you to disclose what you have determined through honest research.

All you can do is create false straw man arguments, and not present a more credible argument to supersede that jet impacts/fire/and thermal stress lead to structural failure causing collapse at the towers.......

You are such a hack and so lazy, you will not even clearly state the significance of the outward swelling in the tower wall. Or list the explanations offered off the internet that have been pointed out to you that they do exist.....

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Then you state and build an argument on what brought down the towers if what is offered is wrong.

If you cannot, then jet impact/fire/thermal stress is more credible than the crap you provide.

a reply to: MrBig2430


Nonsense. It doesn't matter whether at the beginning or at the end, their statement was very clear: "We were set up to fail".

And that doesn't even count the brouhaha with Max Cleland and other members of the commission. It was a political document, and YOU have already agreed on that point. Now you're trying to walk it back? No surprise here.

Senator Mark Dayton said NORAD was lying, which it was. This was an inside job all the way.

So hoping again for a straight answer from you: If a person puts on his "Analytical Thinker" hat, how shall that person assess the heads of the government commission saying the commission was set up to fail? What does that mean to an analytical thinker like yourself? That Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter?

a reply to: Salander

What is with you and the commission? Individuals are arguing actual video evidence, actual testimony, and actual science?


You are the one that cannot present credible explanations to supersede:

1). The towers fell because of impact damage/ fire initiated inward bowing and buckling of the vertical columns leading to collapse.

2) The damage at the pentagon was caused by a large commercial jet.

3) the DNA evidence, scorched trees, the buried jet wreckage, the large debris field of remains/wreckage/luggage was left by the crash of a large commercial aircraft.


Can you cite the truth movement narratives with more credible evidence to supersede what actual happen at the WTC, The Pentagon, and Shanksville?

You worry about the commission, that few reference, while your arguments are based in the total BS from the truth movement? You are the one enabling con artists to exploit 9/11 for personal gain. To spread true disinformation. You are the enemy of the truth.

Iike to push your false narrative of nukes at the WTC again. A narrative totally void of fact, and only based on pseudoscience.

a reply to: Salander

Senator Mark Dayton said NORAD was lying, which it was. This was an inside job all the way.

Can you show us his proof ?
Or are you going on blind faith on this one too ?

a reply to: MrBig2430

I said that’s there’s close up video of the columns shearing off and the bottom edge kicking to the left. And that Bazant explains it. 

So rather than doing a little research and seeing if what I’m saying is correct, we get this little peek into the paranoid mind of someone in denial. 

What will happen if I supply a link to the video and Bazant? 

My prediction says more denial and/or dismissal of facts. 

you have said a lot of things. That doesn't make them true.

And let me get this straight. If I don't believe what you say, I am paranoid and in denial?

You happen to belong to the same cult as neufuk, do You?

This is starting to make sense now.

Well, I don’t see what you see. 

That's because you look through a straw at only what your cult told you to see.

And here’s how everyone knows you’re delusional

EVERYONE!?!?!? So Im isolated and alone? Wait no I'm not. That's you and your cult members. I think you just tried to trick me into believig what you believe. You cheeky cultist, you.

If it’s your observation that the left edge isn’t applying weight or force to the lower part, other than for some fraction of a second, then your observation is WRONG,

No. Sorry. I know it doesn't fit into your cult scripture and it makes you upset.

 for your observation requires that gravity isn’t working. 

Whoa! Ok now your saying that your cult beliefs are the only ones that adhere to the laws of physics?

You are becoming more and more radicalized by the day. You should talk to someone. This is no joke.

IOW, you need to reassess your observation and make sure it is reality based.

The video I posted was not real?

What you’re doing now is digging in your heels 👠 and not changing your beliefs according to new information. 

That's rich. You just want me to ignore all information except your information. Typical conspiracy theory cult behavior but more radicalized.

If this is why you say you have so many unanswered questions and/or request for evidence- you dismiss every answer and your questions can’t be answered cuz they have no basis in reality- then this is a waste of my time and I predict another 15 years of you wandering the internet looking for these answers. 

Good luck with that

Nah. I'm not that hung up on 9/11. I was just walking by and noticed you being high and mighty douchebag. Thought I would say hi.

Hi!!

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

One, don’t thrown terms around trying to falsely implement me in cult like behavior.

You...

“Just cause you cite things from your cult does not make it true.”

Then what truth has the truth movement to offer:

1) The towers were brought down by thermite paint / ceiling tiles. Jones thermite research being fraudulent.

2) Architects and Engineers 9/11 Truth / Richard gauges mythical fizzle no flash explosives?

3) Dr Wood and the power of Dustification harnessed from a hurricane?

I Just pointed out some traits that you and a few others demonstrate that are very much like cult behavior. I surprised you wouldn't embrace that more.

If you don’t think the structural failures at the towers were rooted in jet impact/fire/thermal stress initiated, then you outline a cause of collapse.

I think we have enough amateurs claiming to be experts in the 9/11 collapse. I just asked how a few images and part of video fit into your amateur conclusion.

Time to stop being a hack, and time fore you to disclose what you have determined through honest research.

Disclose? Have I gave the impression that I am withholding information. I showed you what I had and asked you what it meant. Now I'm being constantly harassed to either make a theory as to what happened or go away.

I won't succumb to bullying. I'm allowed to ask questions and I am allowed to make judgement on the answers that are given or the nature they are ignored.

All you can do is create false straw man arguments, and not present a more credible argument to supersede that jet impacts/fire/and thermal stress lead to structural failure causing collapse at the towers.......

Nope. That's not my job. Not yours either but you appear to have adopted this absolute responsibility as some sort of guidline to your cult membership.

You are such a hack and so lazy, you will not even clearly state the significance of the outward swelling in the tower wall. Or list the explanations offered off the internet that have been pointed out to you that they do exist.....

I posted that to show that you are not thinking for yourself. You are peddling cult scripture and when information arrives that is not part of that scripture, you break down mentally and start rambling in circles.

The pictures are of nothing. But you couldn't explain it with the cue cards your cult supplied you with and that affected your behavior.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Then you state and build an argument on what brought down the towers if what is offered is wrong.

If you cannot, then jet impact/fire/thermal stress is more credible than the crap you provide.

If I cannot provide any argument then the one your peddling is better than the "crap" I provided?

But I didn't provide it, how can "it" be crap if there is no "it" ?

I think your starting to break down on me.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: MrBig2430


The video I posted was not real?

!

The video is real.

But your observations are not reality based.

This is what makes you delusional.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


It doesn't matter whether at the beginning or at the end)

When you’re not desperate then it does matter.

But if your goal is to cherry pick quotes in order to prolong the delusion that 9/11 was an inside job, then it doesn’t.

Keep up the good work, Mr Poe

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Then you state and build an argument on what brought down the towers if what is offered is wrong.

If you cannot, then jet impact/fire/thermal stress is more credible than the crap you provide.

If I cannot provide any argument then the one your peddling is better than the "crap" I provided?

But I didn't provide it, how can "it" be crap if there is no "it" ?

I think your starting to break down on me.

The crap you are proving are the straw men arguments against the only credible explanation to the tower’s collapse.

Unless you want to argue and prove something other than impact/fire/thermal stress related collapse?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

One, don’t thrown terms around trying to falsely implement me in cult like behavior.

You...

“Just cause you cite things from your cult does not make it true.”

Then what truth has the truth movement to offer:

1) The towers were brought down by thermite paint / ceiling tiles. Jones thermite research being fraudulent.

2) Architects and Engineers 9/11 Truth / Richard gauges mythical fizzle no flash explosives?

3) Dr Wood and the power of Dustification harnessed from a hurricane?

I Just pointed out some traits that you and a few others demonstrate that are very much like cult behavior. I surprised you wouldn't embrace that more.

If you don’t think the structural failures at the towers were rooted in jet impact/fire/thermal stress initiated, then you outline a cause of collapse.

I think we have enough amateurs claiming to be experts in the 9/11 collapse. I just asked how a few images and part of video fit into your amateur conclusion.

Time to stop being a hack, and time fore you to disclose what you have determined through honest research.

Disclose? Have I gave the impression that I am withholding information. I showed you what I had and asked you what it meant. Now I'm being constantly harassed to either make a theory as to what happened or go away.

I won't succumb to bullying. I'm allowed to ask questions and I am allowed to make judgement on the answers that are given or the nature they are ignored.

All you can do is create false straw man arguments, and not present a more credible argument to supersede that jet impacts/fire/and thermal stress lead to structural failure causing collapse at the towers.......

Nope. That's not my job. Not yours either but you appear to have adopted this absolute responsibility as some sort of guidline to your cult membership.

You are such a hack and so lazy, you will not even clearly state the significance of the outward swelling in the tower wall. Or list the explanations offered off the internet that have been pointed out to you that they do exist.....

I posted that to show that you are not thinking for yourself. You are peddling cult scripture and when information arrives that is not part of that scripture, you break down mentally and start rambling in circles.

The pictures are of nothing. But you couldn't explain it with the cue cards your cult supplied you with and that affected your behavior.

I am part of a cult because I can cite sources and science to back how the the tower’s collapse. While calling out those that have faith in the arguments of the truth movement which are based on lies and pseudoscience?


Might want to check the definition of cult?

a reply to: neutronflux

If I am citing from erroneous sources, then quote from the sources I have provided, prove why you think it is wrong.

You can start with this.....
www.implosionworld.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

Truthers will not be willing to respond to implosion worlds report, it destroys their narrative. They will instead resort to the whack a mole game, and bring up some arcane point that doesn't mean anything.

The real conspiracy lays in the events leading up to 911, the failings of the CIA and the FBI.... I wish there was more talk about that instead of nukes, space rays, holographic planes, missile hit the pentagon, nanothermite bs....

It's like that group, 911 for truth, 2500 architects and engineers, likely none of them built anything larger than a high school gymnasium begging for donations. I think there is like 800,000 or so people in the US alone with the same credentials that don't doubt the physics of the day.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

That is what I don’t get? All the time spent on fakes narratives that take about an hour of research to debunk. Narratives that prevent real dialogue on the meat of the conspiracy. Like why were the terrorists allowed into the USA, and allowed to stay. Or if the government controls everything, then they are allowing these truths to be aired out for a purpose.

Maybe death rays, fizzle no flash CD, and nukes are purposeful disinformation?

I don’t get the people that enable such things though, as in the individuals that literally bought into DR Woods Dustification from a harnessed hurricane by buying her book. The same people that gloat in their ignorance.

Concerning AE, I thought this was interesting....

Thanks to all the hard work by individuals at metabunk. Research you will not find at ATS.

By: oystein

www.metabunk.org...

could-girder-a2001-possibly-have-got-past-
the-side-plate-on-column-79.t9069/page-4

www.metabunk.org...

One of the most interesting developments I have seen on AE911Truth is that they lost three quarters of the signatures from architects with the title "FAIA". "FAIA" is an acronym for "Fellow of the American Institute of Architects". This title is bestowed as a medal of honour to members of the AIA who have distinguished themselves with lifetime achievements. Richard Gage, himself an ordinary member of the AIA, is always very keen on flaunting his title "AIA", and apparently was proud of the 19 FAIA signatures (out of, I think, about 3,000 current FAIAs), for about half of them were listed at the very top of their list of now 2,900+ signatories.

But 13 of these 19 FAIAs have been deleted from the list recently (about 2 months ago, if memory serves), and of the 6 remaining (do a local search of the string "FAIA" in the above linked page), 1 (Eason Cross) has had his profile appended with the word "Deceased".

The best explanation for this is that AE has recently done an audit of their FAIA signatories and found that only 5 of 19 actually still support them (if they ever did) and are alive. If this is true, then this calls very much into question the validity of that "2,900+" number - could be as little as 800.

a reply to: samkent


After reading the report, Dayton noted numerous errors in timelines for various events as reported by NORAD. He thought them incredibly inaccurate, and said it appeared NORAD was a bunch of liars.

NORAD could not help it, really, trying to document a bright and shining lie.

Many citizens knew it was a bright and shining lie before Dayton did.

a reply to: MrBig2430


So you reject the notion that you ever put on an Analytical Thinker hat? It does appear that way, and I understand.

Would you like to also retract your earlier acknowledgement that the Commission report was indeed a political document? Effectively, you have.

In a world where analytical thinking rules, the heads of a commission stating they were set up to fail means something.

In a world where loyalty to government stories rules, such contradictory statements have no meaning, as you have demonstrated.

I prefer the world of the analytical thinkers, you prefer the political world. That speaks volumes.