How people respond to 9/11 evidence counter to the official conspiracy theory

a reply to: MALBOSIA

You like word games? Let’s phrase the core argument like this. You think impact damage/ fire / thermal stress as the root cause is erroneous? Then what root cause is must support by the video/audio/picture/seismic record of the towers’s collapse?

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: neutronflux

It is clear the energy far exceeded the gravitational potential energy of the building.

It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times.

So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.

On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity.

Wow thats the dumbest thing i think ive ever heard. Seriously whats next on 9/11 water was much wetter then wet??

Here you need this

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You like word games? Let’s phrase the core argument like this. You think impact damage/ fire / thermal stress as the root cause is erroneous? Then what root cause is must support by the video/audio/picture/seismic record of the towers’s collapse?

Im sorry that you think my disbelief in your silly conspiracy theory is a "word game". Your citing a bunch of amatuer researchers that were not part of the original investigation. You cherry picking what ever you can to support your theories.

I hold your theories in the same regard I would hold the no-plane/hologram/nuke theories. A bunch of bullsnip.

I dont want to come up with my own theory. I want real professionals to investigate this.

Take your half-baked theories to the gray area. Come back when you have something proven and credible.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Nice try to create a false argument that thermal stress / fire damage is some fringe theory. When it is the most researched and peer reviewed root cause? Whould you like to cite peered reviewed journal articles that lists something other than fire / thermal stress damaged as the root cause of the WTC building collapses?

So, absolutely no “professionals” investigated the WTC? Then what do you call cops, cop bomb squads, fire fighters, constructing crews, crews with demolition experience, engineers, metallurgiests, and various experts shifting through WTC rubble? Identifying WTC tower steel by the columns ID tags? Collecting samples and evidence? Creating research that was peered reviewed and published concerning the towers collapse with impact damage/fire/thermal stress as the root cause? Are you saying that never happened. Along with the sworn testimonies by experts that fire / thermal stress damage was the root cause of WTC 7’s collapse?

amp-reddit-com.cdn.ampproject.org... 331AQECAEoAQ%3D%3D

By r/skeptic?

So I was just over in /r/911truth and, during the course of a conversation, I took it upon myself to, once and for all, create a master list of the peer reviewed literature that supports NIST's WTC 7 methodologies and conclusions. Since it'll likely just get buried and ignored over there, I thought I'd spiff it up a bit and post it here for posterity as well.

www.quora.com...

By Meredith-Lesly

The reports themselves were not. However, papers that drew extensively on significant portions of them were published in Fire Technology, which is peer-reviewed:

Overview of the Structural Design of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 Buildings
Structural Response of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7 to Impact and Fire Damage
Structural Analysis of Impact Damage to World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7

The articles are available in pre-published format at the NIST site.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

You still going with no professionals investigated the WTC? And you still never cited any thing or any argument why the investigation would have followed a path of planted explosives at the towers?

www.scientificamerican.com...

Instead, the team of more than 200 investigators gathered all the evidence they could to reconstruct the situation the buildings faced before and after the catastrophe. They analyzed 236 pieces of steel obtained from the wreckage, representing all grades of steel used in the buildings and including several pieces impacted by the aircraft or affected by fire. They obtained some 7,000 photographs and roughly 7,000 video segments totaling in excess of 150 hours from the media, public agencies and individual photographers. They compiled and reviewed tens of thousands of pages of documents and interviewed more than 1,000 people who had been on the scene or had been involved with the design, construction and maintenance of the buildings. They conducted lab tests involving large fires and the heating of structural components.

The above to contrast the study below?

So the only serious study by Architects and Engineers 9/11 truth who supposedly sports 3000 “professionals” was to beg $300,000 to fund a study by a civil engineer who’s expertise was bridges and two of his students? And one student bailed? With the study on hold indefinitely?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

And, again....

Inward bowing causing buckling leading to collapse is more than theory, its validated by the video recorded. There is no proof of columns cut to initiate the towers’ collapse. Is that false.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

And, again....

Inward bowing causing buckling leading to collapse is more than theory, its validated by the video recorded. There is no proof of columns cut to initiate the towers’ collapse. Is that false.

We all think our theories are "more than theory"

So you watched some video someone took and conformed your silly conspiracy theory on that?

You must be a super duper scientist or something, eh?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

And, again....

Inward bowing causing buckling leading to collapse is more than theory, its validated by the video recorded. There is no proof of columns cut to initiate the towers’ collapse. Is that false.

We all think our theories are "more than theory"

So you watched some video someone took and conformed your silly conspiracy theory on that?

You must be a super duper scientist or something, eh?

And, again....

Inward bowing causing buckling leading to collapse is more than theory, its validated by the video recorded. There is no proof of columns cut to initiate the towers’ collapse. Is that false? Would you like to cite the physical evidence of cut columns?

And you watched a video on how impact / fire / thermal stress damage as the root cause which is the most researched, most peer reviewed, most pointed to root cause among professionals in the firefighting and engineering communities is wrong?

Can you cite a peered reviewed cause published in a major professional journal that list something other the fire / thermal stress as the root cause?

If you are going to present totally false arguments with no crediblity, make fakse allegations about posters, backed only by biased views founded on a totally dogmatic view based on nothing but fantasy, and the blind deviation that enables the charlatans to exploit the truth movement, might as well be debating with a a rock labeled conspiracy.

What root cause as cited by professional groups like ANSI, NFPA, and AIA is more excepted that fire thermal stress as the cause of the WTC buildings’ collapse?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Architects Shy From Trutherism
Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.
www.architectmagazine.com...

The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,” Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told me.

The former employee of the Walnut Creek, Calif.-based architectural firm Akol & Yoshii is a full-time 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but Gage tries to maintain a façade of being a scientist asking scientific questions. He does his best to avoid the murkier political questions of who could have orchestrated a conspiracy theory and cover-up of the size and scope that the 9/11 conspiracy movement alleges, but his technical views are actually quite mainstream within the Truth movement.

Is the above a professional view?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I find it odd that more AIA members voted no to opening a new investigation into WTC 7 than what number AE 9/11 Truth cites as the number of their professional supporters?

www.aia.org...:26

Resolution 17-5: Investigation of the Total Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, sponsored by Daniel Barnum, FAIA, and 50 Members of the Institute, failed with 4113 votes against and 182 votes in favor (with 179 abstentions). The resolution’s sponsors questioned the conclusions offered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2008 about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. They argued that the Institute should support “a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC7.”

I find it odd that anyone would believe anything they see on a tv screen!!
The television it is nothing but a propaganda machine - producing a zombie nation.
rense.com...

a reply to: MALBOSIA

From NFPA...

High-Rise Building Fires

www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics/Occupancies/oshighrise.ashx

When American adults think of high-rise fires, we often think first of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City’s iconic World Trade Center, the deadliest high-rise fire in world history. As part of a terrorist attack, two hijacked airplanes flew into the 110 story towers, setting them on fire and compromising the towers’ structural integrity. The fires and ensuing building collapses killed 2,666 civilians and firefighters. The 157 passengers and crew on the airplanes also perished.2

a reply to: neutronflux

CIA Pilot Swears Oath: Planes Did Not Bring Towers Down On 9/11
Former CIA officer and commercial jet pilot John Lear has sworn an affidavit stating the Twin Towers were not bought to the ground by planes crashing into them on 9/11.

In Lear’s expert opinion the official claim that two planes crashed into the towers is actually “physically impossible.”yournewswire.com...

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
I find it odd that anyone would believe anything they see on a tv screen!!
The television it is nothing but a propaganda machine - producing a zombie nation.
rense.com...

Because what was captured live and by basic video equipment is backed by eyewitness accounts, investigations, and peer reviewed research into the WTC.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Because the man is an engineer? The man is a fraud? The actual root cause is damage from the fires initiated by the impacts, and the resultant thermal stress. I wouldn’t keep posting you fell for the fraud that is Lear.

a reply to: neutronflux

In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun ‘telescoping’ when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center.

The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground. The engines when impacting the steel columns would have maintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building.yournewswire.com...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Why would the outer wall instantly stop all momentum into the tower. I would stop with the debunked bounced of the tower theory before the picture of the ping ball ball shot through the paddle picture is posted......

Both jets had sufficient momentum to make the aircraft pass into the towers. Especially in the context a slow moving WW II bomber crashed into the interior of the Empire State Building. The lighter bomber breached the Empire State Building and ended up inside.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Why would the outer wall instantly stop all momentum into the tower.
Both jets had sufficient momentum to make the aircraft pass into the towers.

It will be argued that given enough speed the 6-ton engines will punch through the WTC structure.., but they can't explain the Wings. Absolutely no way fragile lightweight wings and tail could penetrate steel columns, as the video clearly shows them disappearing/ morphing into the WTC structure. No Crash is visible. Use your common sense.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

~Abe Lincoln

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Why would the outer wall instantly stop all momentum into the tower.
Both jets had sufficient momentum to make the aircraft pass into the towers.

It will be argued that given enough speed the 6-ton engines will punch through the WTC structure.., but they can't explain the Wings. Absolutely no way fragile lightweight wings and tail could penetrate steel columns, as the video clearly shows them disappearing/ morphing into the WTC structure. No Crash is visible. Use your common sense.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

~Abe Lincoln

Pretty sure those aircraft were destroyed in the impact