The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

A reply to: neutronflux

No, even very logical. In your completely corrupted country, the younger academics realize themselves perfectly, that pursuing such a task, is asking for professional suicide in the USA of today.

That's why Prof. Hulsley first rejected a few times that WTC7 research job, knowing the repercussions far too well.
But then the guy who contacted him all those times was able to convince him, and he said to himself that he was now old enough to take the risk.
And that's when and why he accepted, old enough to at last stick his middle finger up to the Establishment.

I salute him.! He's truly a brave man.
You could learn some interesting bits from him.

Well, that's funny. One of your links has this snippet that enforces my former post on restricted access to Ground Zero in the first week and following days :

de.phaidon.com...

What happened at Ground Zero in the months after 9/11 remained a closely guarded secret.
Fenced off and classified as a crime scene, the area was closed to all photographers, and only scant information was available about the activities in the guarded enclosure that became known as the "forbidden city."

Through sheer persistence involving almost daily acts of resourcefulness and defiance, Meyerowitz became the sole photographer to have continued access to the site and describe its transformation over the next nine months from a place of total devastation to cleared bedrock.

Well, Kurt Sonnenfeld had access too, from the first days on, if I remember it right.

By the way, photo 1, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, / 24 shows the steam you asked for...

a reply to: LaBTop

Sad you are right right down delusional...

And for sure all evidence for cutting demolition was in the first three days already disappeared. By the small group of fake "first respondents", especially hired for that task, from one of your beloved Agencies.

Another blatant falsehood. How from a pile that took 3 months of heavy equipment to move? How would it be possible to get through the edges of the debris field to work the heart of the collapse and remove evidence. From 1,000,000 tons of rubble supposedly cut floor by floor to achieve the witnessed collapse rates. The areas of collapse initiation buried under at least 11 and 29 floors of rubble.

From a smoldering pile that had to be constantly sprayed and cooled with water to allow workers to move and remove debris.

Thanks for your willingness to repeat any truth movement lie.

a reply to: LaBTop

And yet, how many names of photographers can you find that worked the pile? Posted ground zero photos. And how many video clips can you find of equipment and people working the pile.

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: neutronflux

No, even very logical. In your completely corrupted country, the younger academics realize themselves perfectly, that pursuing such a task, is asking for professional suicide in the USA of today.

That's why Prof. Hulsley first rejected a few times that WTC7 research job, knowing the repercussions far too well.
But then the guy who contacted him all those times was able to convince him, and he said to himself that he was now old enough to take the risk.
And that's when and why he accepted, old enough to at last stick his middle finger up to the Establishment.

I salute him.! He's truly a brave man.
You could learn some interesting bits from him.

Really. From a group of 2000 “professionals” chomping at the bit to prove CD who’s evidence is supposedly low hanging fruit? With a study that missed at least two releases dates. A study that has been placed on indefinite delay. A study that has reneged on being released to the public for review. A study that will never be released to journals for a proper peer review as originally promised.

a reply to: LaBTop

Back to this..

And for sure all evidence for cutting demolition was in the first three days already disappeared. By the small group of fake "first respondents", especially hired for that task, from one of your beloved Agencies.

You really believe obvious lies like this from the truth movement?

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Trouble is I'm a seasoned pilot........they were sending airliners east to a ready zone over water then to airports.....and Shanksville and the pent had choppers with vdeocrews....sp.......saying not enough debris to fill a suitcase, plus a man with ABC on the ground same thing at Pentagon

I remember seeing the segment....it was a brand-new bell with the 4 color paint job.....a new Jet Ranger Long Ranger from Bell

As a helicopter pilot myself, I can remember watching and listening to the video from overhead Shanksville. That was my first clue that something was wrong with the story. We were being told an airliner had crashed in that field, but as everybody agreed, there was nothing at all to suggest that was the case.

a reply to: Salander

Please clarify

can remember watching and listening to the video from overhead Shanksville

Can you provide examples?

Because a high sped noise dive obliterated an airframe?

How identifiable was the wreckage after the Reno air crash. Like to state the condition of the pilots remains after the crash?

Plane modifications led to Reno air race crash.
m.youtube.com...

As a helicopter pilot, you don’t think a jet would totally break apart when hitting the ground at over 550 mph. And you think bodies would be recognizable after the crash? What should the crash have looked like where the jet was purposely driven into the ground? With no attempt at anything like a landing. Something from a wile coyote cartoon?

a reply to: LaBTop

BUCKLING _to bend, warp, or cause to give way suddenly, as with heat or pressure.

a reply to: LaBTop

Lets look at the picture



Have YOU ever been on a building site up on a mast or actually did any work or testing on the Facade of a structure, 4 floors of panels still more or less conected so the building FELL away from that elevation thats why they are lower panels and thats why they are against the debris pile.

We have all seen many thread and KNOW that you have not a clue what to look for in images

A few quotes from firemen etc at the scene

As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

Here a link to a video of the elevation not seen on most videos

WTC 7

I spoke to STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS on a daily basis due to my job and spent many a day on site testing structural elements for engineers, not ONE thought it was a demoltion.

People like you resort to the really well worn CONSPIRACY CLICHES when it comes to events like this ie people won't tell the truth because of fear of losing their job/life

Building codes where changed, thermal loadings due to fire were looked at more closley after these events things that people like you don't understand or have a clue about.

Before this event thermal loading wasn't designed / tested for in the same manor as stuctural and wind loads basic assumptions where made that was it.

Professor Barbara Lane, leader of Arup’s fire engineering practice says this approach is being applied globally. “An enormous amount of work has been done with computational analysis to model what’s likely to happen in a fire,” she says, adding that things are totally different from 10 years ago.

More here

WTC 10 Years on

There are hundreds of references on the net to the changes due to this, things that armchair expert keyboard warriors like YOU wouldn't hear about to well after they have been proposed.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Bernardo1871

One, there would be no pure molten anything. It would be a mixture of plastics, ash, copper, aluminum, lead, and solder.

Two, you

i mean, there are even thermal photos by the NASA (EarthData).

Please cite from that evidence where the WTC rubble was hot enough to support molten steel?

Three, the pile was smoldering from a slow combustion process. The smoldering materials would flash when exposed to fresh air.

The smoldering at the WTC was similar to

Chapter 5 - Earth pits for charcoal making
www.fao.org...
Using earth as a shield against oxygen and to insulate the carbonising wood against excessive loss of heat is the oldest system of carbonization and surely goes back to the dawn of history.

It wasn’t thermite. The reaction provides its own oxygen. Thermite would be consumed in moments.

It was not from nuclear reactions. If the heat was from nuclear reactions, you would see radiation levels higher than Fukushima. The radiation source would have had to have more material than a nuclear reactor. People would have died within hours after being at the pile.

neutron flux, are you a denier of the nuclear truth about 9/11 false flag?

9/11 was a nuclear attack, Dimitri Khalezov already explained what happened years ago yet he may be wrong regarding the no plane hypothesis, idk about that issue.

others have also gathered evidence only explained by nukes.

i get it that you don't believe that 'Ground Zero' could not have been the aftermath of a nuclear event, yet Ground Zero was indeed hot for months because what happened on september 11, 2001 was a #in' nuclear attack.

don't make me say it.. deal with it! :-)

a reply to: Bernardo1871

i get it that you don't believe that 'Ground Zero' could not have been the aftermath of a nuclear event, yet Ground Zero was indeed hot for months because what happened on september 11, 2001 was a #in' nuclear attack.

Your ignorance is beyond belief.

There is zero proof of nukes. No indication of the extrem temperatures that are produced by a thermal nuclear device. No proof of a pressure wave from a nuclear bomb. No proof of radiation from a nuclear bomb detonating. No proof of a EMP disrupting electronics. No proof of metals being activated.

The rubble at the WTC was over 1,000,000 tons. The only way to heat 1,000,000 tons of rubble for 3 months by nuclear power would be through nuclear reactions. Do you understand how much radioactive material would be needed. From a radiation source larger and as concentrated as the Fukushima reactor. If there was so much nuclear reactions taking place to produce enough heat to make items smolder, spraying it with water would not stop the reaction making heat. The trucks hauling the rubble from the WTC didn’t smolder. The yards the WTC rubble were taken to did not smolder. The radiation would be so intense, it would set off radiation monitors miles away. The radiation would be so intense, people would have became violently ill while working the pile. People working the pile would have died in hours. All workers.

There is zero proof radiation kept the WTC rubble smoldering.

a reply to: neutronflux


This thread is entitled "serious arguments". Nothing you present is really serious. It is the incessant repetition of false statements. You cannot be taken "seriously", pardon the interruption.

There was no airliner at Shanksville, and virtually every person there said that and every photograph or video taken there shows that.

a reply to: Salander

Are you trying to change the topic in there is zero proof of nukes at the WTC.....

There was no airliner at Shanksville,

Why would there be a whole airliner after going nose down into the ground at 550mph? Are you ignorant or something.

Now provide quotes from people that worked the scene where there was no wreckage, no human remains, and no remains of personal belongs consistent with a high speed crash with no attempted landing. No attempt to minimize the crash, or increase survivability.

And You ignored...
You

can remember watching and listening to the video from overhead Shanksville

Can you provide examples?

Because a high sped noise dive obliterated an airframe?

How identifiable was the wreckage after the Reno air crash. Like to state the condition of the pilots remains after the crash?

Plane modifications led to Reno air race crash.
m.youtube.com...
m.youtube.com...

As a helicopter pilot, you don’t think a jet would totally break apart when hitting the ground at over 550 mph. And you think bodies would be recognizable after the crash? What should the crash have looked like where the jet was purposely driven into the ground? With no attempt at anything like a landing. Something from a wile coyote cartoon?

We should try to prove one 9/11 conspiracy is correct and go from there.

WTC7 is what we should focus on. If we prove that building was taken down by demolition then people will be more open to the idea the twin towers were also brought down by controlled demolition.

We have many reasons to demand a new investigation of WTC7.

NIST blatant disregard for what people saw and witnessed on that day

NIST claims no sound was heard above 130db before the building fell. That's a lie Jesus a very loud bang was heard 1 second before the structures on the roof caved in.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: LaBTop

Lets look at the picture

Have YOU ever been on a building site up on a mast or actually did any work or testing on the Facade of a structure, 4 floors of panels still more or less conected so the building FELL away from that elevation thats why they are lower panels and thats why they are against the debris pile.

We have all seen many thread and KNOW that you have not a clue what to look for in images

A few quotes from firemen etc at the scene

As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

Here a link to a video of the elevation not seen on most videos

WTC 7

I spoke to STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS on a daily basis due to my job and spent many a day on site testing structural elements for engineers, not ONE thought it was a demoltion.

People like you resort to the really well worn CONSPIRACY CLICHES when it comes to events like this ie people won't tell the truth because of fear of losing their job/life

Building codes where changed, thermal loadings due to fire were looked at more closley after these events things that people like you don't understand or have a clue about.

Before this event thermal loading wasn't designed / tested for in the same manor as stuctural and wind loads basic assumptions where made that was it.

Professor Barbara Lane, leader of Arup’s fire engineering practice says this approach is being applied globally. “An enormous amount of work has been done with computational analysis to model what’s likely to happen in a fire,” she says, adding that things are totally different from 10 years ago.

More here

WTC 10 Years on

There are hundreds of references on the net to the changes due to this, things that armchair expert keyboard warriors like YOU wouldn't hear about to well after they have been proposed.

Everyone agrees the collapse started on the east side of the north side face. The bulge or gash on the southwest had nothing to do with the collapse. That damage occurred when the towers fell, least six hours earlier.

NIST theory is the collapse started on the east side when a girder slipped from its original position on (floor12 and 13) and this lead to a chain reaction of collapsing floors.

NIST theory is not accurate because it would take a substantial amount of time for every floor to weaken and collapse naturally. While if you remove the support instantly the building will fall much faster!

The actual video of the collapse shows the WTC7 building coming down 5 to 6 seconds after the Penthouse fell in. NIST model even gives a time of 20 seconds for all these floors to progressively fall away.

NIST model is a a smoking gun that disproves their anyalsis. It like nobody at NIST even studied the actual collapse video of WTC7?

Neutronflux. You are a lost case to reality.
If you by now, after all my posts in the past days, still do not want to realize that the elephant in the room is staring you right in the eyes, then you are clearly denying reality.

Reality is :
The ultimate official 9/11 research, set up after the debacles that the FEMA report and the 9/11 Commission Report was, namely the NIST investigation, came up with fire induced collapse initiations. For all three collapsed WTC towers.
And for that to work, they needed buckling of any vertical steel columns, in all three towers, as their fire induced collapse initiation events.

Any sane 9/11 researcher will understand by now, that if anyone of these three official "investigations" would have found ANY buckled vertical column, originating from the 3 collapse initiation areas, in those three debris piles, they would have triumphantly brought that up on all main stream news channels, and at that moment, all 9/11 resistance from logical thinking, sane persons, doubting their Official Story fairy tale, would have stopped.

And you really think these 9/11 planning bastards would have let such a glaring opportunity to end ALL 9/11 discussion once and for all, PASS ?

What a surprise. All officially endorsed 9/11 research institutions couldn't find ONE buckled piece of steel from the only important regions in those 3 towers, namely the on fire floors, and then the collapse initiation floors.
NIST themselves wrote that only three steel column pieces from the Twin Towers fire and collapse initiation areas were salvaged and kept for study by them. And, they were NOT buckled....
The biggest surprise to you and your ilk should be, that for the most obvious demolition example of the three, WTC7, there was not ONE piece of vertical steel WTC7 columns salvaged nor kept at all...buckled or not. More precise, not any steel at all, except the two small "swiss cheese" pieces.

And all these professional engineers, sifting through the debris at Ground Zero, and later at the Catskill Island WTC debris deposit site, would have ignored ANY buckled steel from those essential areas.?.? Anyone here, even dares to think so.?
Without any buckled steel from these three essential collapse initiation regions, all their collapse initiation theories you can definitely throw in the dustbin.
PERIOD.

Delusional trains of thought from the Official 9/11 Fake Story its stubborn and faithful followers, do not earn any attention anymore in this 9/11 forum.
Ignore from now on anything these few hardcore 9/11 truth deniers post in this forum, and when you are a genuine OS doubter, concentrate by now, solely on posting more and more new and old facts emanating from the overall consciousness regarding the real 9/11.
Don't loose precious time anymore on their stale arguments, FOCUS on the truly important snippets.!

And if you can't withhold the urge to counter their disinformation, just post from now on, every time this simple line :
SHOW UP the BUCKLED WTC STEEL from the three on fire and collapse initiation floors, or SHUT UP!

originally posted by: LaBTop

Well, that's funny. One of your links has this snippet that enforces my former post on restricted access to Ground Zero in the first week and following days :

de.phaidon.com...

What happened at Ground Zero in the months after 9/11 remained a closely guarded secret.
Fenced off and classified as a crime scene, the area was closed to all photographers, and only scant information was available about the activities in the guarded enclosure that became known as the "forbidden city."

Through sheer persistence involving almost daily acts of resourcefulness and defiance, Meyerowitz became the sole photographer to have continued access to the site and describe its transformation over the next nine months from a place of total devastation to cleared bedrock.

Well, Kurt Sonnenfeld had access too, from the first days on, if I remember it right.

By the way, photo 1, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, / 24 shows the steam you asked for...

Really. You are good at long post and posting pictures. So am an guessing they really don’t.

a reply to: LaBTop

Trying to change the subject from there is no evidence of planted charges at the WTC.

Again, cite actual direct evidence of planted charges. Evidence of a pressure wave with the force to cut steel. Somehow cutting charges that could cut exterior columns didn’t cut or effect the building’s facades in any discernible way?

And the impossibly of the CD systems surviving building damage, jet impacts, and wide spread fires. On top of the impossibilities such systems were installed.

And for sure all evidence for cutting demolition was in the first three days already disappeared. By the small group of fake "first respondents", especially hired for that task, from one of your beloved Agencies.

You don’t have the least bit of embarrassment from posting a right out truth movement lie?

And what credibility do you have if you believe straight up impossibilities and straight up truth movement lies like the above quote.

Or you trying to say there was no proof of buckling when it’s right there in the video evidence. Funny I can point to actual video evidence, and you avoid the actual video evidenced.

You are a shameless hack. You are willing to post any truth movement lie. And ignore there are at least two other studies that conclude fire related collapse in addition to NIST.

Please cite a published study that concluded fire related collapse was impossible. When is that study going to be pushed again? April 2018.....

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: LaBTop

Lets look at the picture

Have YOU ever been on a building site up on a mast or actually did any work or testing on the Facade of a structure, 4 floors of panels still more or less conected so the building FELL away from that elevation thats why they are lower panels and thats why they are against the debris pile.

We have all seen many thread and KNOW that you have not a clue what to look for in images

A few quotes from firemen etc at the scene

As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

Here a link to a video of the elevation not seen on most videos

WTC 7

I spoke to STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS on a daily basis due to my job and spent many a day on site testing structural elements for engineers, not ONE thought it was a demoltion.

People like you resort to the really well worn CONSPIRACY CLICHES when it comes to events like this ie people won't tell the truth because of fear of losing their job/life

Building codes where changed, thermal loadings due to fire were looked at more closley after these events things that people like you don't understand or have a clue about.

Before this event thermal loading wasn't designed / tested for in the same manor as stuctural and wind loads basic assumptions where made that was it.

Professor Barbara Lane, leader of Arup’s fire engineering practice says this approach is being applied globally. “An enormous amount of work has been done with computational analysis to model what’s likely to happen in a fire,” she says, adding that things are totally different from 10 years ago.

More here

WTC 10 Years on

There are hundreds of references on the net to the changes due to this, things that armchair expert keyboard warriors like YOU wouldn't hear about to well after they have been proposed.

Awesome post. Highlights how those of the truth movement ignores the actual time line of advents, how they cannot produce actual evidence of CD, and how they ignore the other studies besides NIST that conclude fire related collapse.

Thank you for truth in a sea of truth movement broken promises, lies, and delusions.

If the truth movement trolls are going to post right out lies, this forum is a waste of time.