Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

And what would you do if you got the evidence?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

And what would you do if you got the evidence?

There is NO evidence period. It’s been what? 17 plus years with the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 3 on video. With you unable to produce an actual video of vertical columns being actively cut. No evidence of cut columns. For the twin towers, the vertical columns came down last. No shockwaves indicative of an explosion with the force to cut steel columns. No audio of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. No demolitions shrapnel. No seismic evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. No flashing of thermite burning. Thermite gives off UV light. No indication of anyone having their eyesight damaged by UV light or sun burn. The truth movement claimed the fires never burned hotter than a normal office fire, guess that rules out thermite which burns at 3000 degrees Fahrenheit plus. The pile was never hot enough to support molten steel. No reported steam explosions from water hitting molten steel. All failures were due to bending, elongation, shear, broken welds. No failures from cutting by thermite or explosives. The differences are visible by eyesight. No way a CD system would survive the jet impacts and fires to actuate.

Richard Gage’s statement the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance is a falsehood. Jones thermite paper was fraudulent and junk science. The truth movement tried to pass off photos of columns cut during clean up as columns cut by thermite. You tired to claim thermite kept the pile hot for three months when the root cause was the smoldering of flammable materials.

What do you not get about WTC CD is a fantasy to exploit 9/11 for personal gain by the likes of Gage and Jones.

a reply to: neutronflux

That is a really good try. I understand there are lots of reasons for you to support your decision. This is just a practice imagination thing. You don't have to support it, just consider it.

What would you do if you got the evidence?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

That is a really good try. I understand there are lots of reasons for you to support your decision. This is just a practice imagination thing. You don't have to support it, just consider it.

What would you do if you got the evidence?

I have considered it. Research it. What do you not understand the truth movement only offers half truths, misquotes, hides facts, fraudulent studies, falsehoods, and right out lies.

It’s go time. State the strongest evidence for your belief twin towers were brought down by planted pyrotechnics. Go!

a reply to: neutronflux

If I could only pick one? Seeing the progression of the building turn to dust.

It is not only the truth movement that gets things wrong and makes mistakes, we all do.

a reply to: kwakakev

A building making dust? From a eight story building.



Collapsing makes dust, who knew.

Grand Central Hotel

en.m.wikipedia.org...

On August 3, 1973, allegedly due in part to illegal alterations on a basement bearing wall,[8] a section of the Broadway facade of the structure, then known as the University Hotel,[9] collapsed onto Broadway, killing four residents of the hotel.

Was the grand central hotel collapse a CD. Look at all that dust.

Or is dust just a function of collapse.

The truth movement takes expected conditions of collapse, and sales them as extraordinary to suckers.

a reply to: kwakakev

Do you have evidence of cut columns? Or just BS not concerning the structural steel.

a reply to: neutronflux

This is an aerial view of what was left.

a reply to: kwakakev

That is what happens when buildings totally collapses. Large area for buildings that supposedly fell in their own footprints. How many buildings did the collapse of the twin towers take out?

Now. Do you want to talk about the collapse of 500,000 ton buildings making expected dust out of drywall and insulation.

Or do you want to talk about the actual structural steel, and how there were vertical columns still standing after the complete collapse of the floor systems.

a reply to: neutronflux

Do you want to talk about the collapse of 500,000 ton buildings making expected dust out of drywall and insulation.

I would like to hear you talk about the concrete? Where is it? Do you have some evidence of this?

Do you want to talk about the actual structural steel, and how there were vertical columns still standing after the complete collapse of the floor systems.

I do not argue with the images you have posted of the event. I would like to hear you explanation of how all the steel beams just look like a big pile of pick up sticks in the last image I posted? Can you explain how that happens if all the steel beams where not cut.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Do you want to talk about the collapse of 500,000 ton buildings making expected dust out of drywall and insulation.

I would like to hear you talk about the concrete? Where is it? Do you have some evidence of this?

Do you want to talk about the actual structural steel, and how there were vertical columns still standing after the complete collapse of the floor systems.

I do not argue with the images you have posted of the event. I would like to hear you explanation of how all the steel beams just look like a big pile of pick up sticks in the last image I posted? Can you explain how that happens if all the steel beams where not cut.

What did you not get the WTC buildings were predominantly steel construction.

One, the WTC used less concrete than standard practice. Two, most of the concrete was lightweight concrete for the floors. Three, the concrete was hulled off with the rubble and sorted by hand at places like fresh kills.

Four, please quote how many tons of steel and concrete were hauled from the WTC.

a reply to: kwakakev

Now. What does your rant have to do with evidence of cut columns at the WTC. I want evidence of cut columns.

a reply to: kwakakev

By May 2002, when the cleanup officially ended, workers had moved more than 108,000 truckloads–1.8 million tons–of rubble to a Staten Island landfill.
www.history.com...

WTC 1 was about 500,000 tons.
WTC 2 was about 500,000 tons.
WTC 7 was about 300,000 tons.

What was missing?

a reply to: kwakakev

That's not evidence of cutting (the pile of steel pieces all about the same length). That's how it was delivered to construct the buildings (IE in convenient truck-sized pieces). It was lifted into position where it was welded/bolted together and those joints failed during the collapse rather than the steel sections themselves. There's a reasonable case there for claims of sub-standard construction but we never hear anything along those lines for some reason.

Here's a couple of those 'sticks' which were core column sections and the weld that failed is visible. The column sections are remarkably unscathed otherwise.

a reply to: neutronflux

When I started this thread I did not care what anyone else though. It is about how I live with what happened.

I am concerned about the affect this has on everyone. It is great we can talk, but to find that common ground we must also find some common understanding. I am concerned with how you live with it. I do not want to hear any other sources, just you. How in your mind do you piece together this event?

In your own words, where is the concrete?

a reply to: kwakakev

When I started this thread I did not care what anyone else though. It is about how I live with what happened.

I guess like with all the evil acts committed every day

I am concerned about the affect this has on everyone. It is great we can talk, but to find that common ground we must also find some common understanding

There is no common ground if you are building arguments like WTC CD when there is no evidence, and the truth movement creates false mythology.

I am concerned with how you live with it. I do not want to hear any other sources, just you.

I cite my sources. There are whole threads on Metabunk and Skeptics International. It’s all there for you to get a counter view of many opinions to the lies of the truth movement. How do you live basing you beliefs in the lies and cons of the truth movement.

a reply to: neutronflux

You have done some other great threads, agree with the vaccinations, that paper on CO2 is great. Lot of fresh ideas and good background. So how do you feel when one simple question becomes a struggle?

In your own words, where is the concrete?

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

You have done some other great threads, agree with the vaccinations, that paper on CO2 is great. Lot of fresh ideas and good background. So how do you feel when one simple question becomes a struggle?

In your own words, where is the concrete?

One. What does concrete have to do with evidence of cut columns.

Two, what do you not get in the construction of the twin towers minimize concrete usage was minimize at every turn beyond common practice to reduce cost and weight

Three, 1.8 millions tons of material was removed from the WTC. 1.3 million of that was from the construction weights of WTC 1, 2, and 7. What was missing?

Five, forty percent of the dust was insulation. Thirty five percent of the dust was dry wall and concrete. So you state how much of the dust was actually concrete.

Six, most of the concrete used was lightweight concrete free of the items that makes concrete high strength.

The real question was why the concrete was minimize in construction, and the towers void of concrete columns that has saved other buildings.

Too much time has passed to solve it. Never believed the official story.

I believe most of the real information is still kept a secret. They did the same thing with the JFK murder.

Bush and cronies made sure after 9/11 nobody in the media would investigate 9/11 and even stifled the 9/11 commission investigation. Even two commissioners quit in disgust about the whitewash.

Only fools believe the official story as it is told. We have clear evidence today the CIA tracked and monitored two of the Pentagon attackers while in the United States. Able Danger program- Covert US intelligence also tracked and monitored two cells of the three that carried out 9/11.

The real story is why the CIA protected alleged Al Qaeda operatives and did not arrest them before 9/11? Richard Clarke who worked in the White House and reported to President Bush about terrorism blew the whistle about this and it recieved little or know media attention.

He said clear information about the 9/11 hijackers was available but was not allowed to circulate to the right people in the FBI to investigate. It still a mystery today why the CIA was keen to protect these guys who were linked with bombings in Africa and in Yemen ie Cole ship bombing and were discovered to be agents of Al Qaeda in Malaysia in 1999.

How can you not discover these guys a week before 9/11 even days before when they are using their real names to register a stay at hotels and bought goods with credit cards in their own name. 9/11 official account is problematic and you don't have to believe demolitions brought down buildings to see it.

a reply to: neutronflux

So in your own words, this is where the concrete is

Thirty five percent of the dust was dry wall and concrete

I don't exactly know, but lets say it right. How do reconcile that with

there is no evidence

Are you comfortable within yourself with this contradiction?