The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

Originally posted by Observor
Congratulations to TupacShakur on an excellent thread.

However, I am not really sure what the "truthers" intend to achieve. If those who defend the "official story" understand basic physics they already know it is impossible. If not, why should they trust some random physicist over NIST? Since those who understand physics already know that the collapse was impossible exclusively from the causes listed, it is obvious the scientists at NIST were deliberately lying. All those who could actually be trusted by the public to be experts and express the impossibility of the events have refused to do so. What makes you think the integrity of the "debunkers" is any higher than the experts at NIST?

Even if the "truth" movement succeeded in persuading the majority American public about the impossibility of the official version of the events, what difference does it make to what they can do? Can all the "truthers" agree on an exact sequence of events, individuals involved with evidence to back it up that can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law, that you can actually convince some public officials to take action the against accused? No , they cannot. So all the "truth" movement can achieve is what version of events people believe. It is actually very convenient for Americans to believe the official version of events, because it gives them a license to go around murdering and plundering Muslims to gain what all Americans know they are desperately dependent on, oil. So why would Americans to choose to believe a version that has no practical implications for what they do over one which is beneficial to them?

edit on 23-7-2011 by Observor because: Filled a missing word

Pardon? Even, if "we, truthers" can talk louder, helping others to open their eyes and mind, so they would finally start to think for themself and stop being a sheep in the overcrowded mass, we won't archieve something? Imagine that foreign governments dare to speak loud about the misleading official version, i would applaud the pressure against the US and whoever behind this scheme. Facts are facts, what happened can't be undone, but does that mean we should let it go? Who are you, ffs? Crawl back in your cave!

btw, i m tired that people here feel the need to put everyone in some labeled box....i m not part of ANY movement....i can think clearly for myself


thank you

reply to post by dilly1

I'm pretty sure at one point we were all debunkers.

I know I was.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


you (and a few others) like to ignore what you can't debunk, right?

Nicely done....keep putting it out there,but I will tell you this one will never be "solved" or admitted to by anyone involved....just aint gonna happen

Originally posted by bing0
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

you (and a few others) like to ignore what you can't debunk, right?

What are you talking about? The only people who've ignored anything in this thread are truthers. They seem to attempt answers, and then as soon as they see something the don't like one is suddenly a "troll" or "OT" and that exonerates them from having to think about the illogical nature of their arguments or answer questions thereon.

Originally posted by bing0
Pardon? Even, if "we, truthers" can talk louder, helping others to open their eyes and mind, so they would finally start to think for themself and stop being a sheep in the overcrowded mass, we won't archieve something?

There are some pretty big assumptions you make there about the "debunkers", talking about "opening their eyes and mind" and calling them sheeple.

Do you expect to teach basic physics to the scientists and engineers at NIST? Would you call them "closed minded" or "sheeple" whose eyes and minds you can "open"? If eminent scientists and engieers like those at NIST can pretend basic laws of physics don't apply, why couldn't those "debunking conspiracy theories"?

Imagine that foreign governments dare to speak loud about the misleading official version, i would applaud the pressure against the US and whoever behind this scheme.

What makes you think they haven't already put together what a bunch of guys put together using evidence available in public domain?

What good it would do them speaking loud about the lies of US government? After all, the George W Bush government admitted as lies its reasons for invading Iraq and Americans voted him back to power with glee. From all available evidence it stands out very clearly that Americans love liars and murderers. It is not as if foreigtn governments are capable of installing a government in the US that Americans don't love. So why would anyone bother?

Facts are facts, what happened can't be undone, but does that mean we should let it go?

Who said anything about "letting it go"? I am trying to understand the motivations of the "truthers".

Who are you, ffs? Crawl back in your cave!

I am someone with commonsense who doesn't mind calling a spade a spade. There are no caves near where I live, which is a big city. Nor do I own any caves which are far either. So I guess I am stuck with living in my house despite your suggestion.

reply to post by dilly1

What I don't understand about half-brain debunkers, is where does there logic come from when reasoning how all the steel beams(all) snapped? And how all the concrete was pulverized.


You think fire and weight did all that? And please don't say, " you forgot the plane impact". How does a plane, any plane, affect the structure. The plane weights 116 tons. The tower is about 400,000 tons. How could you believe your own crap.


Seriously where does your logic/physics come from?

It’s thinking like this that allows this myth to continue. If you were to look up some real world facts you might see things like the real world does.
Most of the real world agrees that real planes hit the towers. So let’s look them up.
Plane
That’s 315,000 lbs max take off weight. Not your lower number. So I’ll give it 300,000 lbs at impact.

Then look up building floor loading.
Typical loading

Approved Floor Loading (Data obtained from Engineer/Architect) = 50 lbs/sq ft.

We’ll run with that number since I expect WTC will close to the same.

Now WIKI show WTC as having 4.3 million sq feet of floor space.
Divide that by 100 stories equals 39,090 sq feet per floor. I’ll use 40,000.
Divide that by four sides to the building equals 10,000 sq feet.

Now back to the floor loading page and choose ‘Legal size documents’ as a middle of the road number for a typical office setting. 30lbs per sq foot.

Now divide the plane weight by the sq footage of the floor. That’s 300,000 by 10,000 equals 30 lbs per sq foot. Add in the existing office goodies of 30 lbs gives you 60 lbs per sq foot. Which is over the accepted number of 50lbs sq foot.

Even if my numbers are off by a bit the floor was close to maxed out. If you factor in the connectors that were severed in the impact you are right at the edge of what the floors could take.

Now add the fire. Yes the fire. There are those on here who say the fire could not have affected steel. Go ask any auto mechanic. When your head gasket goes, your head will warp from the heat. And that’s only just over 200 degrees. Plus there are links in this thread of a church who’s steel structure had warped in an all out fire.

The fire was likely the coup de gras for the floor. Once the first one goes all the ones below will go.

You can sit there and argue the minutia all you want. But the major facts speak for themselves
.
Molten metal doesn’t change the fact that a plane hit the building. The floor were overloaded
.
Thermetic material may have been found by others but the fires did weaken/warp the steel.

Saying the minutia proves a conspiracy is like trying analyze a stink while ignoring the elephant in the room.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


The steel in WTC was 5inches thick. Fire cannot do anything but make it hot. It won't bend thick steel and it won't snap thick steel.


A couple pages back I was arguing with another debunker and he posted pictures(good quality pictures) of a church that burned to a crisp. The only thing standing was the steel frame. The steel was bent and twisted,but still standing. The steel was not the same size,grade or thickness. Mild steel doesn't bend. Look it up.
5 inch mild steel beams are impossible to bend. They need to be cut at certain positions.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

5 inch mild steel beams are impossible to bend.

Really? Are you certain of that?

So if I dropped a 5 inch mild steel beam into the sun it would emerge undamaged?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Odd that you call me a troll. It happens a lot here when people struggle to answer questions posed, I notice.

I called you a troll for other reasons which I expained in several posts, not because I struggle to answer some questions.

Obviously I'm sure you consider your expertise more advanced than theirs. But leaving that aside for a moment, do you think it plausible that they would lie?

I don't know and I don't care, it's not about what you think, it's about what you know. Where are these interviews of the firefighters that explain signs of an imminent collapse? Because I'm having a hard time finding any. Here's an interview with a New York Fire Department Lieutenant:

We had heard reports that the building was unstable, and that eventually it would need to come down on it's own or would be taken down. I would imagine it came down on it's own.

That's far from verifying signs of imminent collapse.

What I know compared to the historical precedents, that building did not have enough fire damage to make it collapse. I don't know why the firefighters said what you claim they said, but it doesn't matter to me, because the fire damage of that bulding compared to other skyscrapers speaks for itself.

The building fell at free-fall speed for 100ft from some fires. That is impossible according to the official story.

Impossible meaning that you could re-create those conditions 1,000,000 times, and the building wouldn't fall. You could torch the entire building instead of certain floors for the same amount of time, and it still wouldn't collapse.

Here are some more interviews with firefighters, and they discuss explosions and "bombs" going off in the buildings, not signs of an imminent collapse in WTC7:

So where are these firefighters that you claim said the building was going to collapse because of the fire damage? I can't find any interviews with them.

reply to post by dilly1

Your novice math is for NOVICES ...You sir are a complete moron. Let's use your number 315,000 pounds which equals 150 tons. Do you how much one WTC tower weights? 500,000 tons.
Plane(one):315 tons(with 11,500 gallons of jet fuel)

Tower(one):500,000 tons(of mild steel and concrete)

No math here bird brain just look at those numbers. Look at them real good and tell me how the f*** the plane/with fuel can cause total destruction on a massive tower.

If calling me a moron is what it takes to make you feel better about your position so be it.
But if you are trying to say it all comes down to weight then you are being blinded by your conspiracy thoughts.

By using your logic:
A piece of foam can’t cause the destruction of shuttle Columbia.
A .25 inch piece of ice can’t bring down a modern jetliner.
A torpedo can’t cause the loss of a ship.
A virus can’t kill a human.

But if you used real logic you will see just how a small thing can cause the loss of something much larger.
No the airplane didn’t bring down the tower.
No the fuel didn’t bring down the tower.
No the fire didn’t bring down the tower.
But when you combine them together you end up with a pile of rubble.

The one question that I have is that if this was a controlled demolition, how come the dust and smoke stayed around for as long as it did? Has their been any other building that would demolished in the past that left smoke and dust plumes like we saw on 9/11? Plus how about the fires burning as long as they did? My stance on the whole things is that at the very least, there are holes in the official story. As far has the government being responsible, you give them way too much credit. They can't even budget or manage the post office correctly, much less pull off something of this caliber without everybody knowing they did it.

reply to post by samkent


So you are implicitly agreeing with the conspiracies, well done for coming over to the good side, a small amount of explosives could have brought down the towers, that is what you are agreeing with in your assessment.


Plus 911blogger.com...

The FBI "overstated the strength of genetic analysis linking the mailed anthrax to a supply kept by" Ivins; the Washington Post headline summarized the impact of those findings: "Anthrax report casts doubt on scientific evidence in FBI case against Bruce Ivins."

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ontarff

 

Yes, I agree, compartmentalization of information is generally used on covert operations

Proof please. Just how many covert operations have you been a part of?

Yes, and as demonstrated in the video I posted, WTC7 fell in less than free fall time in air due to the implosion creating a vacuum.

Uhhh explosives creating a vacuum? That’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one. Besides gravity doesn’t care about the air in that circumstance.

You have no knowledge of physics or covert anything.

I have worked with a "Top Secret" security clearance. I will not tell you which projects I worked on. I am not going to prove it to you. Anyone with a security clearance understands "A need to know"...

The use of the word vacuum was only used to explain a lower air pressure inside the building after the explosions occurred. Of course there wasn't a true vacuum (no air). FYI, an explosion causes a sudden difference in air pressure. The use of the word implosion is sometimes misunderstood...

The term building implosion can be misleading to laymen: the technique is not a true implosion phenomenon. A true implosion usually involves a difference between internal (lower) and external (higher) pressure, or inward and outward forces, that is so large that the structure collapses inward into itself.

Here is another link for a better understanding...
911review.com...

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Mild steel melts at 2730 degrees F.... Fire from jet fuel and all the other crap that can burn in an office , will never get to even 2000 degrees. It just can't. There is no video either to prove that. So don't send me some video of a guy trying to burn a single beam of steel.

Why would even think of rhetorically asking such a stupid question about the SUN melting mild steel. Your not very smart are you.


Believe what the government tells. Its your life . Enjoy your fantasy.

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Mild steel melts at 2730 degrees F.... Fire from jet fuel and all the other crap that can burn in an office , will never get to even 2000 degrees. It just can't. There is no video either to prove that. So don't send me some video of a guy trying to burn a single beam of steel.

Why would even think of rhetorically asking such a stupid question about the SUN melting mild steel. Your not very smart are you.

Believe what the government tells. Its your life . Enjoy your fantasy.

Yes dilly1, I agree...

In the popular imagination, the jet fuel was the biggest factor in bringing down the towers. News reports emphasized that the transcontinental flights were fully loaded with fuel, while later government reports stated that the 767s were carrying about 10,000 of their 24,000-gallon capacity, and that most of the jet fuel likely burned off within five minutes. Thus, the jet fuel primarily served to ignite the post-crash fires rather than sustain them.

911review.com...

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by dilly1


Please stop arguing like that with these people, it's not the least bit helpful.