The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


Read her book "Classified Woman", and speculate to your heart's content.

What she saw in her months with the FBI makes Comey look like an altar boy.

What does that have with your inability to prove planted explosives at the WTC?

Or

Why should i read the book when you should be able to cite video, audio, seismic, data? And the two other studies other than NIST that conclude thermal stress and fire related issues initiated WTC 7’s collapse?

Sorry, double post due to horrible editing accident.

a reply to: Salander

Or just look to the truth movement for disinformation. Ironic?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

I choose reality. Maybe you will keep choosing to believe in a fantasy.

Funny and ironic from an individual that creates fantasy from impossible technology? Can’t explain how a hologram would caused an inward explosion equal to a 250,000 pound jet carrying 8,000 gallons of fuel resulting in measurable seismic activity 25 miles away? The explosion resulting in jet wreckage in the streets and on roof tops. The aftermath documented in photos, documented injuries of people being struck by jet and building wreckage, and first responders’s accounts. The wreckage recovered, and placed on display. Then you have the DNA and personal effects of people aboard flight 175? Which you tried to falsely claim was only dust samples when engines, IDs, and bone fragments were recovered.

Just keep killing your credibility.....

What do you know about "credibility"?

None of the steel reached temps high enough to fail, and that's why none of the steel was used for their investigation...

Tell me what is "credible" about that?

a reply to: turbonium1

What do you know about "credibility"?

For a conspiracy fruit loop who argued for 30 pages that the moon landings never took place find it laughable that
would invoke "credibility" ……...

a reply to: turbonium1

Aren’t you the guy that claimed the outer columns of the WTC carried no load....

And kept wanting proof of fire damage of the steel, but then would not define what you meant by fire damage? While the real argument was the fires didn’t burn the steel I guess, because you never would define fire damage? When the real argument is the scientific fact as steel heats up, its ability to hold load decreases? It becomes increasingly pliable. And thermal stress can cause loads to shift. And floor trusses bent out of shape can cause extraordinary stain when they cool and contract. And it is documented the floor connects sheared and / or stretch. They were not cut.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Aren’t you the guy that claimed the outer columns of the WTC carried no load....

And kept wanting proof of fire damage of the steel, but then would not define what you meant by fire damage? While the real argument was the fires didn’t burn the steel I guess, because you never would define fire damage? When the real argument is the scientific fact as steel heats up, its ability to hold load decreases? It becomes increasingly pliable. And thermal stress can cause loads to shift. And floor trusses bent out of shape can cause extraordinary stain when they cool and contract. And it is documented the floor connects sheared and / or stretch. They were not cut.

The steel didn't heat up enough to lose strength, that's the whole point here.

How is that not absolutely clear to you, yet?

They considered only two causes of collapse - damage and/or fires.

They ruled out damage alone caused collapse, since the structures withstood the damage.

Which left fire as the primary cause of collapse. No other option for it, but fire.


When they found out that fires did not cause steel to weaken, and fail, they did not have any other option for what caused the collapse.

And that's criminal.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Aren’t you the guy that claimed the outer columns of the WTC carried no load....

And kept wanting proof of fire damage of the steel, but then would not define what you meant by fire damage? While the real argument was the fires didn’t burn the steel I guess, because you never would define fire damage? When the real argument is the scientific fact as steel heats up, its ability to hold load decreases? It becomes increasingly pliable. And thermal stress can cause loads to shift. And floor trusses bent out of shape can cause extraordinary stain when they cool and contract. And it is documented the floor connects sheared and / or stretch. They were not cut.

The steel didn't heat up enough to lose strength, that's the whole point here.

How is that not absolutely clear to you, yet?

Thats wack! Because every degree steel heats up, it increasingly looses its ability to hold up load.

The long floor tresses with no mid span concrete supports made the towers more vulnerable.

Does steel not expand when heated too?

Why does your believe involve ignoring simple truths?

a reply to: turbonium1

They considered only two causes of collapse - damage and/or fires.

They ruled out damage alone caused collapse, since the structures withstood the damage.

What?

From the video, audio, seismic data, and the way the floor connects sheared, cite evidence for other causes?

“They ruled out damage alone caused collapse,” WTF? The damage and removal of core columns and outer columns still caused load redistribution, and increased strain on the remaining structure.

Good thing in reality it was a combination of impact damage, thermal stress, load redistribution, structural changes due to fire, and increased strain because of cooling and contraction.

a reply to: turbonium1

Now you need to produce evidence of a physical blast from planted explosives from the video, audio, seismic evidence. Or you don’t have squat.

I wonder what the probability is of 3 buildings collapsing exactly into their own footprint, not by demolition, in one day.

originally posted by: CymaticA
I wonder what the probability is of 3 buildings collapsing exactly into their own footprint, not by demolition, in one day.

I guess greatly increases when two 1000 foot towers are hit by separate jets, collapsing outside their footprints to destroy about 13 buildings total. Any more out of context and false arguments?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: CymaticA
I wonder what the probability is of 3 buildings collapsing exactly into their own footprint, not by demolition, in one day.

I guess greatly increases when two 1000 foot towers are hit by separate jets, collapsing outside their footprints to destroy about 13 buildings total. Any more out of context and false arguments?

They collapsed into their own footprints. You can clearly see them fall straight down. Then several hours later, a 3rd one never hit by a jet did the same.

How can you so blatantly ignore what your eyes can see?

originally posted by: CymaticA

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: CymaticA
I wonder what the probability is of 3 buildings collapsing exactly into their own footprint, not by demolition, in one day.

I guess greatly increases when two 1000 foot towers are hit by separate jets, collapsing outside their footprints to destroy about 13 buildings total. Any more out of context and false arguments?

They collapsed into their own footprints. You can clearly see them fall straight down. Then several hours later, a 3rd one never hit by a jet did the same.

How can you so blatantly ignore what your eyes can see?

And didn't all three collapse at free-fall or near free-fall acceleration. WTC7 seems like an obvious controlled demolition to me regardless of what NIST say.

originally posted by: CymaticA

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: CymaticA
I wonder what the probability is of 3 buildings collapsing exactly into their own footprint, not by demolition, in one day.

I guess greatly increases when two 1000 foot towers are hit by separate jets, collapsing outside their footprints to destroy about 13 buildings total. Any more out of context and false arguments?

They collapsed into their own footprints. You can clearly see them fall straight down. Then several hours later, a 3rd one never hit by a jet did the same.

How can you so blatantly ignore what your eyes can see?

The twin towers are a thousand feet tall. I see rubble arching at least 200 feet away from any given side of any give tower from any given camera angle.

If the towers fell in their own foot prints, how were all 7 buildings destroyed that made up the World Teade Center?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Other buildings
Many of the surrounding buildings were also either damaged or destroyed as the towers fell. 5 WTC endured a large fire and a partial collapse of its steel structure and was torn down. Other buildings destroyed include St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC). The World Financial Center buildings, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires. The Deutsche Bank Building, the Verizon Building, and World Financial Center 3 had impact damage from the towers' collapse, as did 90 West Street. One Liberty Plaza survived structurally intact but sustained surface damage including shattered windows. 30 West Broadway was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC. The Deutsche Bank Building, which was covered in a large black "shroud" after September 11 to cover the building's damage, was deconstructed because of water, mold, and other severe damage caused by the neighboring towers' collapse.[42][43]

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: CymaticA

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: CymaticA
I wonder what the probability is of 3 buildings collapsing exactly into their own footprint, not by demolition, in one day.

I guess greatly increases when two 1000 foot towers are hit by separate jets, collapsing outside their footprints to destroy about 13 buildings total. Any more out of context and false arguments?

They collapsed into their own footprints. You can clearly see them fall straight down. Then several hours later, a 3rd one never hit by a jet did the same.

How can you so blatantly ignore what your eyes can see?

And didn't all three collapse at free-fall or near free-fall acceleration. WTC7 seems like an obvious controlled demolition to me regardless of what NIST say.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...


3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

As far as building 7. Video shows the interior of WTC 7 started to collapse before the facade of WTC 7 even started to move. This is given testimony by the fact the WTC 7 penthouse completely drops below WTC 7’s roof line before the facade begain to drop. The only claim NIST makes, is a pixel used to measure the rate of collapse for the west facade reached the rate of free fall mid collapse, then shows the facade started to decelerate before total collapse.

a reply to: neutronflux

Of course the surrounding buildings were heavily damaged. As you pointed out, 1000 ft tall. As footage clearly shows, concrete is ejected horizontally as the buildings collapse. Quite distinguishable from a building toppling over, which one of them starts to do, then mysteriously corrects itself back into it's footprint. If you tell me those buildings did not fall into their own footprint, then we must not be watching the same footage. Nearby damaged structure is completely irrelevant if you just use your eyes and eliminate any preconceived notion of what you think should have happened.

3 buildings, falling directly down, one of which was never struck. All happened to be on the same day a similar scenario was simulated, Jets scrambled in the wrong direction and were delayed.
PNAC document describes a new pearl harbor is needed to justify middle east invasion. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and no WMDs yet this gave us justification to invade. Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. Mass surveillance now justified.
It goes on and on.

Cmon, think about it: massive power grabs justified by an event, full of strange coincidences, that was admittedly needed for justification to invade the middle east and expand the surveillance state.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Aren’t you the guy that claimed the outer columns of the WTC carried no load....

And kept wanting proof of fire damage of the steel, but then would not define what you meant by fire damage? While the real argument was the fires didn’t burn the steel I guess, because you never would define fire damage? When the real argument is the scientific fact as steel heats up, its ability to hold load decreases? It becomes increasingly pliable. And thermal stress can cause loads to shift. And floor trusses bent out of shape can cause extraordinary stain when they cool and contract. And it is documented the floor connects sheared and / or stretch. They were not cut.

The steel didn't heat up enough to lose strength, that's the whole point here.

How is that not absolutely clear to you, yet?

Thats wack! Because every degree steel heats up, it increasingly looses its ability to hold up load.

The long floor tresses with no mid span concrete supports made the towers more vulnerable.

Does steel not expand when heated too?

Why does your believe involve ignoring simple truths?

Here is the simple truth - they collected all the steel as evidence. They specifically looked for any steel which was exposed to fires, in fact.

And they found that NONE of the steel reached temps high enough to cause failure. None.


So if you are following along, you should now realize that they were studying the steel.

That they were studying steel exposed to the fires.

That they found no steel exposed to temps high enough to cause failure of any kind.


Do you really think they don't know that steel, when exposed to fires, can lose strength?

Of course, they know that.

Think, now...


If any steel failed, in any way, from fires, which you claim - it would have been found. Because they HAD all the steel, and STUDIED it.

It's all up to you, though. You say the video shows steel buckling from fires, so that's what happened, obviously! The actual steel from the building didn't show any failure, from fires, or buckling from fires - but it is completely irrelevant to the issue!

Have you read the NIST analysis?

This report doesn't mention anything of steel failure. By failure, I mean weakening to cause failure, or thermal stress of steel from fires causing failure, or 'pliability' of steel causing failure....

Simply put, if steel softened from fires, to the point of failure, it would have been identified from that same steel, which had softened to the point of failure. Same with steel that buckled, contracted, became pliable, etc. Anything you claim happened to the steel from fires is irrelevant. Fires did not cause any steel to fail, or to lose structural integrity.


You have a theory that states fires causes shifting, softening, pliable, buckling, contracting steel, that failed, and caused initial collapses.

I have the actual steel from the buildings, and the analysis of that steel, which proves your theory is worthless!


If the evidence doesn't support your argument, it's probably not a good idea to keep arguing it

a reply to: CymaticA

How does

As footage clearly shows, concrete is ejected horizontally as the buildings collapse.

Equal

They collapsed into their own footprints

Contradict much.

A false argument too....
It’s not just concrete. It was 5 to 20 ton whole pieces of building form the towers?

Can you post a video of a building implosion that has 5 to 20 ton pieces of building tumbling up to 200 feet from the implosion? From all sides of the implosion?

The below report outlines that WTC 3, 4, and 6 were destroyed by FALLING debris from WTC 1 and 2. It also outlines WTC 5 was heavily damage by FALLING debris. The report also documents the large pieces of WTC perimeter FRAMEthat fell on adjacent buildings. Sorry, the link does not allow actual coping for quick quoting. You are actually going to have to go to the trouble to click the link and study the cited material yourself.

Overview of Buildings Near Ground Zero

mceer.buffalo.edu...

WTC 7 was one block away from the towers on the other size of the street.

www.911myths.com...

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
www.firehouse.com...