9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

...

And, you know, even if WTC 1&2 and 7 were brought down through a kind of controlled demolition, that doesn't mean OBL or terrorists of his kind were not involved. It's just a smoke screen.

I wish I could grab the truthers and shake the nonsense out of them but I know I can't.

Start by explaining how the scientific method isn't applicable to government organizations and then you might get somewhere.

edit on 12-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post

Here's the thing; HOW can Osama Bin Laden get 19 guys with boxcutters to not only fly planes with just a few lessons and hit their targets -- but ALSO rig the demolition charges, force the Bush government to NOT investigate the crime, remove their names from the flight manifests, get the military to "stand down", force Dick Cheney to get NORAD to run drills all day, make Silverstein double his insurance premiums, and of course, make George Bush and his fascist PNAC NeoCons push to invade Iraq and Afghanistan AND plant the evidence that He did it in such a way as to make it so preposterous.

Osama probably ALSO stole that $7 Billion in cash that the Bush operatives lost in Iraq.

-- the ONLY conclusion I could make is; Allah is a greater God than our God and he's obviously on the side of the terrorists.

Because THAT is some damn Miracle Terrorist fairy dust right there if you think that Osama set the buildings up to fall ahead of the planes -- AND he told the Mossad he was going to do it so they'd be on hand to videotape, AND he was sure that nobody would listen to that guy at the FBI who sent in 72 notices; "Osama determined to attack."

reply to post by TupacShakur


Tupac, I'm sure that what he was "trying" to use was the "Chewbacca defense"!

Whenever you have nothing to argue with -- make sure you bundle your opponents thoughts with your own references to nonsense.

I'm surprised he didn't ALSO mention the Stay Puff'd Marshmallow Man -- no wait, he did.

>> For future reference -- you have to REFERENCE the other person to actually be debating what they said. The "Truthers" are not mentioning the Marshmallow Man -- only REBUTTING the Marshmallow Man.

reply to post by Varemia

You have to admit that WTC 7 was hit by debris from WTC 1 when it collapsed, and it was on fire for those entire 7 hours. Those are givens. It is not like WTC 7 was just standing perfectly intact when it came down. Firefighters had even cleared a collapse radius around it, which ended up leading to survivors under some of the rubble dying, because they knew that WTC 7 was going to come down.

Yes the building was on fire, but as described in the OP, every comparable steel-framed skyscraper fire throughout history has not even caused a partial collapse. But 9/11 was special, and a single core column magically failed and magically pulled the entire building down symmetrically at free-fall speed, and just happened to match up with 10 characteristics of a controlled demolition.

How can you believe that fire caused it to collapse? Seriously dude, just think about how ludicrous that is. Look over the part of the OP that covers WTC7 and consider how it matched up with a controlled demolition, how fires haven't caused skyscrapers to collapse, and ask yourself "Why do I think fire caused this building to collapse?"

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Tupac, I'm sure that what he was "trying" to use was the "Chewbacca defense"!

Chewbacca defense, I love it. OP successfully debunked

Whenever you have nothing to argue with -- make sure you bundle your opponents thoughts with your own references to nonsense.

Yeah there's really not too much debating going on, I'm a little suprised that some of the usual 9/11 thread suspects aren't in here.

I guess that shows you can't argue against the scientific method.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

...

And, you know, even if WTC 1&2 and 7 were brought down through a kind of controlled demolition, that doesn't mean OBL or terrorists of his kind were not involved. It's just a smoke screen.

I wish I could grab the truthers and shake the nonsense out of them but I know I can't.

Start by explaining how the scientific method isn't applicable to government organizations and then you might get somewhere.

edit on 12-9-2011 by TupacShakur because: to edit my post

How did OBL steal the money in Iraq when he MOST CERTAINLY was never welcome in Iraq and he'd better not even think about setting foot in Iran. I'm just wondering. been watching this thread all day and it get's loopier and loopier by the minute.


Here's the thing; HOW can Osama Bin Laden get 19 guys with boxcutters to not only fly planes with just a few lessons and hit their targets -- but ALSO rig the demolition charges, force the Bush government to NOT investigate the crime, remove their names from the flight manifests, get the military to "stand down", force Dick Cheney to get NORAD to run drills all day, make Silverstein double his insurance premiums, and of course, make George Bush and his fascist PNAC NeoCons push to invade Iraq and Afghanistan AND plant the evidence that He did it in such a way as to make it so preposterous.

Osama probably ALSO stole that $7 Billion in cash that the Bush operatives lost in Iraq.

-- the ONLY conclusion I could make is; Allah is a greater God than our God and he's obviously on the side of the terrorists.

Because THAT is some damn Miracle Terrorist fairy dust right there if you think that Osama set the buildings up to fall ahead of the planes -- AND he told the Mossad he was going to do it so they'd be on hand to videotape, AND he was sure that nobody would listen to that guy at the FBI who sent in 72 notices; "Osama determined to attack."

sooo...how did OBL "probably" steal the $7 Billion in cash that the Bush operatives lost in Iraq? He was never welcome in Iraq, and if he was still alive he still wouldn't be welcome in Iraq. he wasn't no where near welcome in Iran, either. has to do with the fact he is from a tribe that isn't particularly liked in either one of those countries. so how did he accomplish that? if i'm not mistaken, Saddam Hussain was rounding up and killing Al Qaida operatives as quickly as he could find them.

and you might not know...but you'd need something like 4 or 5 53' trailers to move $7 Billion dollars.

i been watching this thread all day and it just gets loopier and loopier as the hours go by. ain't no tellin what people are gonna be saying by midnight.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

I see you're still posting 911 threads with false info.

Why not ask this: of all the buildings built like the Twin Towers, in the whole world, how many of them were hit by jets? What percentage of those hit by jets then collapsed? The answer is that there were only ever two buildings built like the twin towers. Both were hit by jets and 100% of then collapsed.

Why not then ask the 99.99% of Engineers that DID NOT SIGN the petition why they didn't. Are they not capable, of using the scientific method?

This thread is just more dishonesty from the Truther camp.

In other words;

Will all the people NOT supporting my argument please be ON THE RECORD about NOT BEING ON THE RECORD?

And furthermore, all the people of this supposed blog -- could you please burn buildings that are like the WTC so that we can show that 99.9% of them are NOT going to stand up to airplanes? No? Because there ARE no more buildings like the WTC? Oh wait -- no, it may actually be the template for super skyscrapers -- so we are REALLY in bad shape.

You say they engineered it in response to an airplane hitting the Empire State Building?

Well, will any Stupid Engineers please go on record for how stupid engineers can be? Anyone?


>> In order for us to SUSPECT a government conspiracy with 9/11 -- the Goal Post just KEEPS GETTING MOVED!

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by wecanthandlethetruth
Hmmm so as long as OBL or terrorists were involved, it would be oOK somehow if a planned demolition was involved?

So what then, the demolition was set up just in case the planes being flown into them didn't bring them down?

Which would defer to the post that Flight 93 may have been intended for WTC 7.

Why do those who believe the planes brought down the planes ever provide any validating evidence as to why WTC 7 fell later that day with no plane having struck it?

You have to admit that WTC 7 was hit by debris from WTC 1 when it collapsed, and it was on fire for those entire 7 hours. Those are givens. It is not like WTC 7 was just standing perfectly intact when it came down. Firefighters had even cleared a collapse radius around it, which ended up leading to survivors under some of the rubble dying, because they knew that WTC 7 was going to come down.

Yes, but it only made very minor damage to the left side of building 7 and the damage sustained does not even compare to that of buildings 3,4,5 or 6. Those buildings stood for months and were eventually brought down by a controlled demolition. The fires were very, very minor:




You cannot have a symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical damage.

The people who believe the official story will probably do so no matter what. you got a better chance of convincing an evangelical christian god doesn't exist. Like I posted earlier, psyops is at work. reasoning won't work for the most part. the people who are on the fence are people who already know the story is false, but are afraid of making the leap. get as many fence-sitters as you can, but the hardcore official story believers will never come off it. they've been programmed not to.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by wecanthandlethetruth
Hmmm so as long as OBL or terrorists were involved, it would be oOK somehow if a planned demolition was involved?

So what then, the demolition was set up just in case the planes being flown into them didn't bring them down?

Which would defer to the post that Flight 93 may have been intended for WTC 7.

Why do those who believe the planes brought down the planes ever provide any validating evidence as to why WTC 7 fell later that day with no plane having struck it?

You have to admit that WTC 7 was hit by debris from WTC 1 when it collapsed, and it was on fire for those entire 7 hours. Those are givens. It is not like WTC 7 was just standing perfectly intact when it came down. Firefighters had even cleared a collapse radius around it, which ended up leading to survivors under some of the rubble dying, because they knew that WTC 7 was going to come down.

No denying debris hit WTC 7, or that there was a small contained burning presence throughout the day. But compare that to this fire

"As an intense fire consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid's
business district, the press reports all began with the words "fear
of collapse." After 24 hours, however, the tower, which was a similar
construction to the twin towers of the World Trade Center, remained
standing."
whatreallyhappened.com...

Her's a video of the fire on youtube, sorry can't seem to work the upload page yet, will have to watch a tutorial, as it only takes me to step 1?

youtu.be...

So this fire burned for over 24 hours while consuming the entire steel structure, and yet did not collapse like WTC 7 or the Twin Towers for that matter, and you want to equate that to the demolition style collapse of any of these 3 structures?

Here's an article on found on Yahoo Spain with some amazing closeup pictures of the flames engulfing the building.
www.firehouse.com...

To be honest, I haven't watched the documentary yet, I will watch it tomorrow when I have more time.

However, from the discussion here (and the endless discussions and documentaries), I have two problems with both stories:

Why I think the official story sucks:
911research.wtc7.net...

Summarizing: We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F). Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse. It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

Ok, I'm not a scientist, but that makes sense to me.

The problem with all the conspiracy documentaries on the other hand:
You have about 100 tonnes of crap smashing into a relatively narrow building (400,000 square meters) at maybe 250 knots or more horizontally, that's a hell of a force which all documentaries (that talk about buildings that survived fires) ignore, not to ignore the force of the EXPLOSION that took place when the fuel EXPLODED as a result of IMPACT.

Anyway, I will watch the documentary, maybe it sheds light on this.

Originally posted by ModerateSkeptic
To be honest, I haven't watched the documentary yet, I will watch it tomorrow when I have more time.

However, from the discussion here (and the endless discussions and documentaries), I have two problems with both stories:

Why I think the official story sucks:
911research.wtc7.net...

Summarizing: We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F). Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse. It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

Ok, I'm not a scientist, but that makes sense to me.

The problem with all the conspiracy documentaries on the other hand:
You have about 100 tonnes of crap smashing into a relatively narrow building (400,000 square meters) at maybe 250 knots or more horizontally, that's a hell of a force which all documentaries (that talk about buildings that survived fires) ignore, not to ignore the force of the EXPLOSION that took place when the fuel EXPLODED as a result of IMPACT.

Anyway, I will watch the documentary, maybe it sheds light on this.

So your saying the impact alone brought down the twin towers, or somehow contributed to it? Your argument wouldn't apply to WTC 7 as no plane actually struck it. Funny thing though, none of the official versions focused on your arugement either!

Here's an article on found on Yahoo Spain with some amazing closeup pictures of the flames engulfing the building.
www.firehouse.com...

Well...

Earlier in the day, several top floors collapsed onto lower ones. Firefighter official Fernando Munilla said the entire building _ which at about 106 meters (350 feet) high is among the 10 tallest in Madrid _ could collapse. ''If the partial collapses keep happening, it would be lying to say it's impossible that the whole building couldn't fall down,'' he said.

Again, unless it's an identical building to the WTC, you can't judge. As there were partial collapses, and the building was in danger of collapsing.

It was a different building, different structure, design.. etc.

reply to post by wecanthandlethetruth


Not the impact alone, but contributed to it yes.

And you're right about WTC 7, it doesn't make sense to me:

On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the WTC collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm.[1] The collapse began when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of the east mechanical penthouse at 5:20:33 pm

I'm not saying there is no cover-up, I'm just looking for scientific facts.

My point:
Everybody is focusing on one possibility, while they are endless:

1. The govt. knew of the attacks, and let them happen.
2. Inside job, controlled demolition
3. Official story
4. Official story + somebody who's building (WTC7) was damaged and on fire on 9.11 and wanted to cash in on insurance ?

How on earth could I have missed this absolutely amazing thread. Just got it sent to me. Never before have I seen so much scientific proof that 9/11 was an inside job. I've always known that it was. Now when I meet a doubter I will direct them to this thread. S&F hardly seems enough for the incredible amount of research and work that went into this epic.Thank you ,thank you, thank you.

Tupac,

You are my 9/11 truth hero. FANTASTIC work.

You have just given me all my ammo in one place, and for that I thank you. Now I'm off to lose some more friends.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

I have seen all the evidence, including a lot of the made-up evidence you like to post, and none of it is conclusive.

None of it.

Dude, get over it already!

You have been owned in every reply, give up.

Tupac has put together an astounding piece for all to read, and i bet you haven't glanced over it, not even once.

You haven't brought one decent argument to this forum, only Wiki links and "official story" bs.

Time to call it a day champ...

Oh btw, its all very conclusive - you just have to forget the made up parts of the official story, and accept the truth for a change.

Excellent post. So good I havn't seen any of the regular professionals here trashing it, although i havn't seen every page yet. good job

Originally posted by ModerateSkeptic

Here's an article on found on Yahoo Spain with some amazing closeup pictures of the flames engulfing the building.
www.firehouse.com...

Well...

Earlier in the day, several top floors collapsed onto lower ones. Firefighter official Fernando Munilla said the entire building _ which at about 106 meters (350 feet) high is among the 10 tallest in Madrid _ could collapse. ''If the partial collapses keep happening, it would be lying to say it's impossible that the whole building couldn't fall down,'' he said.

Again, unless it's an identical building to the WTC, you can't judge. As there were partial collapses, and the building was in danger of collapsing.

It was a different building, different structure, design.. etc.

I don't believe I ever said it didn't collapse in any sense of the word. This building was engulfed in flames, unlike the WTC 7 or the Twin Towers for that matter that had very little evidence of any flames whatsoever. So what exactly caused the metal to heat to such a degree that caused 3 buildings to crumble demolition style into itself?

Partially crumbled, completly demolished?

Engulfed in flames for over 24 hours, limited fires barely visible to the naked eye?

Originally posted by Edgecrusher26
Oh btw, its all very conclusive - you just have to forget the made up parts of the official story, and accept the truth for a change.

Fortunately, this is not how the nature of science functions. Rarely is anything ever actually accepted as absolute truth. We work with the evidence available to us, and then draw likely conclusions based off of it, attempting to reduce our bias as much as possible.

Each of us have different bias which makes us each see different things in the evidence. What may seem crystal clear to you is a completely different painting in the eyes of a different individual. This is a difficult concept to grasp, but I assure you, that this is something that I have witnessed a hundred times over.

Never assume that you are absolutely correct. Always leave room for error and accept a possibility for reversal of your view. This is how I get along, and it has worked fairly well so far. With regard to 9/11, I have personally found the evidence to lean in favor of the official story (in terms of mechanics) rather than the conspiracy with explosives. I like to think I'm open to new evidence, but so far it has not shown itself.

The problem inherent is that the Controlled Demolition theorists here do not know how to convince my mind. Using "It's obvious" and "anyone can see that this is etc." and "it looks similar to this..." will not cut it. I need proof of demolition such as residue or opportunity for the planting of it, an explanation of how the fire and damage could have done nothing (my brain refuses to think that large holes and lengthy fire are harmless to steel). So please, don't assume I'm an idiot and just say "Open your eyes, man!" My brain doesn't work through emotion and assumption-based physics. I work through evidence and greater likelihood based on previous instances of this occurrence (unfortunately, literally nothing like 9/11 has happened before. We have plenty of burning buildings, some with partial collapses, yet we have no damaged burning buildings of the variety of 9/11. It is simply something which never happened before.)

reply to post by Varemia


Um, have you even seen the film yet that OP posted?

Have you seen "9/11 explosive evidence: experts speak out" yet? Probably not.. Please take the time to watch both these films, as anyone in their right mind would fully realize after watching these that there were explosives in all 3 buildings.

Explosive evidence seen here:
www.youtube.com...