Looks Like AE911 is Throwing in the Towel !!

originally posted by: Infoshill

a reply to: neutronflux

Please quote the NIST reports that make such a statement.

You know full well there is no such statement in the NIST Dossier, like any sacred scripture it is open to interpretation...

Then by all means quote what NIST states was the sequence of events for the WTC 1,2, and WTC 7 collapse initiation.

I can find video evidence of the twin tower outer columns bowing in and buckling to initiate collapse.

Can you post an actual video of a WTC column being cut by thermite or a cutting charge of the outer load bearing columns to initiate collapse. The truth movement claims there was external columns at WTC 1,2, an 7 that had to be cut to a achieve the witnessed collapse speeds, is that a false statement.

a reply to: firerescue

You mean like my Youtube link showing an office fire causing the building to collapse …??

Sorry...We've been told Youtube videos weren't actually evidence anything...

a reply to: openedeyesandears

Phone calls supposedly made from cell phone in a plane at 40,000 ft altitude. Proven impossible.

Yea there were not any CELL PHONE calls from 40,000

The calls were made on the in flight AIRFONE system, which was designed to work on airliners in flight

They were 38 phone calls logged from Flight 93 - only 2 were cell phone These calls came when pane was at 8000, ft

a reply to: Infoshill

WHAT !!!!!

A conspiracy loon who doesn't believe YOU TUBE ??????

There is a difference between news video posted on YOUTUBE and edited cherry picked videos posted by the lunatic conspiracy fringe

So what is the problem ?? Is it you cant tell difference between fact and fantasy

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: openedeyesandears

Phone calls supposedly made from cell phone in a plane at 40,000 ft altitude. Proven impossible.

Yea there were not any CELL PHONE calls from 40,000

The calls were made on the in flight AIRFONE system, which was designed to work on airliners in flight

They were 38 phone calls logged from Flight 93 - only 2 were cell phone These calls came when pane was at 8000, ft

18 years later and there's still people who don't know this?

a reply to: firerescue

There is a difference between Main Stream News videos posted on YOUTUBE and edited conspiracy videos ...

Does that include CNN...

a reply to: Infoshill

What does this have to do with actual video evidence from 9/11?

a reply to: Raggedyman

No they did, they all fell on their own footprint, unheard of in history, never been done outside of controlled demolitions seve anywhere Otherwise prove it

just google the images and see the proof you ask for.

if you think the footprint of a building include numerous other buildings surrounding it then there is nothing to discuss.

I dont need to explain the obvious, do the research for yourself

ahhh

the do your own homework line.

No one but you was asking for things to be shown, yet when someone mentions the numerous building outside of the footprint of the towers were destroyed or badly damaged you resort whining like a child.

Not even remotely interested in an argument over this believe as you wish

No one is arguing

you brought up and expressed ignorance

a few words were posted and buildings named and you need run along with your tail in between your legs?

A plane so they say crashed into the pentagon, no debris, yeah right A plane crashed into a field with no debris, yeah right

There was quite a bit, you can google images again and see how stupid the things you parrot from YouTube videos or other idiots that say the same nonsense.

over 90% of the plane that crashed at Shanksville was recovered

but it didn't land softly at a very slow speed, what happened to a bullet when it hits something more dense, does it not shatter into many pieces?

What I don’t understand about the “people” who follow the terrorist narrative is they don’t have any questions

Now you down right lying or haven't even looked an read the many threads where many here that go against the demolition nonsense or the hologram nonsense or the nukes nonsense actually point out their concerns on many issues surrounding the day.

Its just easy to dismiss as everyone that actually can think as shills in your mind.

Don’t question the narrative, are like mindless lemmings who follow

You have a lot of knowledge in that don't you.

I don’t get why some people just unquestionably accept the mainstream narrative completely

can you point to any ATSers that does?

you make it sound like you have looked yet all you are posting shows you haven't or like I said are lying.

So which is it

Agenda or ignorance?

a reply to: neutronflux

What does this have to do with actual evidence from 9/11?

Exactly, Thats why we propose that only ex post facto evidence subsequent to the memory hole and officially sanctioned by NIST be considered....

originally posted by: Infoshill

a reply to: pteridine

Nanothermite again? Paint on? This is one of the theories that can be embraced only by those truly ignorant of thermodynamics. Steven Jones is one of them which is surprising because he is supposed to be a physicist.
Ask your brother what the Cp of structural steel is and ask him to estimate the mass of the structure. Then calculate the quantity of heat produced from a thin later of painted on thermite. Knowing this, he can determine that the steel would only warm slightly if the reaction could even be sustained on a heat sink like a steel beam. .

Well the official story states that sustained office fires alone warmed the steel above slightly, triggering the total heat sink failure...

Apparently, the fires heated the steel significantly such that the combination of heat and unsupported load caused the start of structural collapse. Given that there is no evidence of anything other than fire to initiate collapse, that is he conclusion that must be reached.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Infoshill

a reply to: pteridine

Nanothermite again? Paint on? This is one of the theories that can be embraced only by those truly ignorant of thermodynamics. Steven Jones is one of them which is surprising because he is supposed to be a physicist.
Ask your brother what the Cp of structural steel is and ask him to estimate the mass of the structure. Then calculate the quantity of heat produced from a thin later of painted on thermite. Knowing this, he can determine that the steel would only warm slightly if the reaction could even be sustained on a heat sink like a steel beam. .

Well the official story states that sustained office fires alone warmed the steel above slightly, triggering the total heat sink failure...

Apparently, the fires heated the steel significantly such that the combination of heat and unsupported load caused the start of structural collapse. Given that there is no evidence of anything other than fire to initiate collapse, that is he conclusion that must be reached.

Not to mention some load-bearing columns were damaged or completely severed by the plane impacts.

originally posted by: Infoshill

a reply to: neutronflux

What does this have to do with actual evidence from 9/11?

Exactly, Thats why we propose that only ex post facto evidence subsequent to the memory hole and officially sanctioned by NIST be considered....

Really, because the actual pre collapse conditions of WTC 1 and 2 were reported by radio. And the collapse initiation of each tower was caught from various camera angles.

Got to love conspiracists that get there programming from the lies of AE 9/11 truth when the evidence of impact/fire related collapse is right in the video record.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Infoshill

a reply to: pteridine

Nanothermite again? Paint on? This is one of the theories that can be embraced only by those truly ignorant of thermodynamics. Steven Jones is one of them which is surprising because he is supposed to be a physicist.
Ask your brother what the Cp of structural steel is and ask him to estimate the mass of the structure. Then calculate the quantity of heat produced from a thin later of painted on thermite. Knowing this, he can determine that the steel would only warm slightly if the reaction could even be sustained on a heat sink like a steel beam. .

Well the official story states that sustained office fires alone warmed the steel above slightly, triggering the total heat sink failure...

Apparently, the fires heated the steel significantly such that the combination of heat and unsupported load caused the start of structural collapse. Given that there is no evidence of anything other than fire to initiate collapse, that is he conclusion that must be reached.

And the jet impacts making it impossible for control demolitions systems to survive to initiate the towers’ collapse at the sites of the impacts. Why let reality get in the way of a conspiracy fantasy.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Infoshill

a reply to: pteridine

Nanothermite again? Paint on? This is one of the theories that can be embraced only by those truly ignorant of thermodynamics. Steven Jones is one of them which is surprising because he is supposed to be a physicist.
Ask your brother what the Cp of structural steel is and ask him to estimate the mass of the structure. Then calculate the quantity of heat produced from a thin later of painted on thermite. Knowing this, he can determine that the steel would only warm slightly if the reaction could even be sustained on a heat sink like a steel beam. .

Well the official story states that sustained office fires alone warmed the steel above slightly, triggering the total heat sink failure...

Apparently, the fires heated the steel significantly such that the combination of heat and unsupported load caused the start of structural collapse. Given that there is no evidence of anything other than fire to initiate collapse, that is he conclusion that must be reached.

And the jet impacts making it impossible for control demolitions systems to survive to initiate the towers’ collapse at the sites of the impacts. Why let reality get in the way of a conspiracy fantasy.

The other part is, if you were gonna controlled demo them, and controlled demo was a perfectly logical explanation that no one would question, why even bother with planes? Whether it was legitimate terrorism or an inside job, the inclusion of the planes makes no sense if your plan was to demo the buildings. It introduces too many variables. What if the planes didn't hit the spot you needed them to? What if one of the pilots balked?

Same thing with the whole Pentagon thing. If it was a missile, why say it was a plane? Why not just say the terrorists bought a cruise missile on the black market or something? The flight path took it right over I-395. Thousands of people would've seen a missile. Not one person saw a missile. Lots of people saw a plane though.

a reply to: face23785

The truth doesn’t sale conspiracy books, or get you speaking engagements. But lies and innuendo makes you king of the conspiracy world.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Infoshill

a reply to: pteridine

Nanothermite again? Paint on? This is one of the theories that can be embraced only by those truly ignorant of thermodynamics. Steven Jones is one of them which is surprising because he is supposed to be a physicist.
Ask your brother what the Cp of structural steel is and ask him to estimate the mass of the structure. Then calculate the quantity of heat produced from a thin later of painted on thermite. Knowing this, he can determine that the steel would only warm slightly if the reaction could even be sustained on a heat sink like a steel beam. .

Well the official story states that sustained office fires alone warmed the steel above slightly, triggering the total heat sink failure...

Apparently, the fires heated the steel significantly such that the combination of heat and unsupported load caused the start of structural collapse. Given that there is no evidence of anything other than fire to initiate collapse, that is he conclusion that must be reached.

Nope, the towers exploded and turned to dust which is clear on all of the videos.

Everyone can see that the word "collapse" is hilarious at best, these buildings pulverized more entirely than anything in world history.

Watching metal ejecting, falling and vanishing into clouds of dust before it hits the ground, is impressive and also impossible at the same time.

Like it or not real scientists would realize the theories they accept are woefully inadequate, but since they are mostly dogmatic they end up following the shepherds, like all good religious nutters do.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Infoshill

a reply to: neutronflux

What does this have to do with actual evidence from 9/11?

Exactly, Thats why we propose that only ex post facto evidence subsequent to the memory hole and officially sanctioned by NIST be considered....

Really, because the actual pre collapse conditions of WTC 1 and 2 were reported by radio. And the collapse initiation of each tower was caught from various camera angles.

Got to love conspiracists that get there programming from the lies of AE 9/11 truth when the evidence of impact/fire related collapse is right in the video record.

Reported by what radio, by whom ?

How would they know what a pre-collapse condition is lol, seeing as no experience in the entire world or with these structures had ever occurred.

And stop calling it a collapse this was utter annihilation, when you say collapse you sound like a fool.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: face23785

The truth doesn’t sale conspiracy books, or get you speaking engagements. But lies and innuendo makes you king of the conspiracy world.

The truth doesn't sell anything which is why it is never told.

In a world full of nothing but lies and innuendo you see blatant truth in 9/11 official story and the websites innumerable movies documentaries and stories used to try to tell the ones who have eyes to see that something was not right off the bat.

10's of thousands of hours of news and years of shows trying to tell the smarter people a theory that can explain the destruction scale and using effective repetitive false claims to program their minds.

Lying to everyone that all this evidence exists and never proving hardly a shred of it...

And you believe the truth has been told to you.

Well sorry but noone cares what you believe, your religion is as pathetic as all the rest,

originally posted by: samkent
If you go to their site and look for 'events' all they have are web events.
Not one external conference for all of 2019.

Looks like his self supporting conferences are no longer self supporting.

The Youtube crackdown has to have put a crimp in his new web hits.

Way to go Youtube !!!

They're still scamming money though

"Help Raise $30,000 by April 1st to Support Our Historic Legal Action"

action.ae911truth.org...

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Infoshill

a reply to: pteridine

Nanothermite again? Paint on? This is one of the theories that can be embraced only by those truly ignorant of thermodynamics. Steven Jones is one of them which is surprising because he is supposed to be a physicist.
Ask your brother what the Cp of structural steel is and ask him to estimate the mass of the structure. Then calculate the quantity of heat produced from a thin later of painted on thermite. Knowing this, he can determine that the steel would only warm slightly if the reaction could even be sustained on a heat sink like a steel beam. .

Well the official story states that sustained office fires alone warmed the steel above slightly, triggering the total heat sink failure...

Apparently, the fires heated the steel significantly such that the combination of heat and unsupported load caused the start of structural collapse. Given that there is no evidence of anything other than fire to initiate collapse, that is he conclusion that must be reached.

Nope, the towers exploded and turned to dust which is clear on all of the videos.

Everyone can see that the word "collapse" is hilarious at best, these buildings pulverized more entirely than anything in world history.

Watching metal ejecting, falling and vanishing into clouds of dust before it hits the ground, is impressive and also impossible at the same time.

Like it or not real scientists would realize the theories they accept are woefully inadequate, but since they are mostly dogmatic they end up following the shepherds, like all good religious nutters do.

Real scientists look at data and draw conclusions. World history being what it is, how do you show that " these buildings pulverized more entirely than anything in world history."
Do you have any evidence that the metal didn't merely fall into the dust cloud rather than being magically "dustified?" Is this a replay of Judy Woods' fantasy?

I think that the shepherd you follow tripped on the way to a plausible theory.