Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


And you have a much greater grasp of these laws of physics than 90 percent of all the other engineers.

Oh, wait you did not say you are an engineer. My mistake in ASSUMING anything like that.

Oh, wait. You also ASSUME because you work in an office, all other offices are as clutter as yours.

Of course, we all know that a relatively small amount of paper and cardboard debris can greatly increase the temperature of a fire.

I was simply trying to point out some of the discrepentcies which the Official Story has "built" into it's own narrative.

Some times you have to trust your own lying eyes to see the truth.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


5 pages 8 flags, prolly given by OSrs and alt accounts. Those numbers should be your hint to retreat from this joke and let go off your ignorance, maybe there is still something to salvage from your ignorant image.
Ah, that you say something is not true does not mean it is not true, however, it shows how far your ignorance and denial has gone, just FYI.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious




watch in your video how they dismember it in the middle...that is so that the top part will have the same mass as the bottom...because the top dissapates too as it is falling into the bottom...if they dismembered it closer to the top like the twin towers, then most of the building would still be standing......

reply to post by Saltarello


In typical Truther fashion you see a conspiracy where none exists.

HEY MODS, CAN YOU CONFIRM I'M NOT USING MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS?

Though with the Truther mindset I'm sure if the mods did you'd just suddenly assume ATS was part of the the "9/11 inside job super neo-con NWO conspiracy thingy",

This guys post is SUCH a good example of why the whole "inside job" thing won't ever result in a new investigation.

reply to post by hdutton


Sorry, but unless you can show me how all the Engineers that DID write the WTC reports are wrong about physics, and debunk how the French can demo buildings without explosives, and explain how demos can be created so that they accelerate as they progress, then this is a silly conversation. Nothing that happened on 9/11 broke any laws of physics. 1/1oth of 1% of engineers, who can't even agree what they think DID happen, disagreeing isn't exactly compelling evidence. Neither is a bunch of poorly put together youtube videos full of basic math and phyics mistakes.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by spav5

 

I want some honesty from the Truthers.

I know too many people who believe this crap for no reason and it's detrimental to such much.

Do skyscrapers have to hold themselves up?

Doesn't that mean every level down has to support more weight?

Doesn't that mean more steel on every level down to support the greater weight?

So why don't we have the honesty specifying the tons of steel that were on every level of the twin towers? What is your problem with that? So how could the top 15 stories destroy and force down the stronger and greater mass below in less than 18 seconds?

Why hasn't an engineering school built a model of that in TEN YEARS?

www.youtube.com...

Talking about honesty and 9/11 is ridiculous. The demand for accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete should have occurred within weeks on 9/11.

But many Truthers keep talking about the government and conspiracies instead of engineering and physics. Don't all buildings have to holds themselves up? Doesn't that get more complicated the taller the building?

psik

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Just show us all how wrong we all are and how right you know you are by demonstrating one floor of an office building falling onto the one below and not encountering any resistance to it's mass.

I really don't think I am asking for much. Just a demonstration of how the total collapse of these three building could have happened in such a like manner with no common cause.

Building 7, if damaged so badly by debris, should have fallen over in the direction of the damaged and therefore weakened side.

But it fell "relatively" straight down, just as the two which were "damaged" by a large plane flying into them.

The first two fell from the top down. THe one not struck by a plane, building 7, simply collapsed when it should have fallen over.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Love your glaring ignorance, yet you call others idiots. Has to be hard to be you really, keep the kool aid flowing. Its all already been said, your rant will lead none of us anywhere.

reply to post by spw184


Even if we ignore all the facts & theories & believed as you do, the one fact still remains, the American Gov't is not innocent & your best case scenario is this attack was blow-back from all the meddling, killing, playing both sides, over throwing Gov't via black ops, occupying their soil, etc, in the middle east. Make no mistake about, the west has created [Arab] terrorism. It was birthed in 1948 & really started to walk & talk in the 1950s until the 1970s when it could really start to run & the rest is history.

So whether you believe America was attacked by only terrorists or not, it was still her fault for being attacked in the first place. And she continues to have every reason to be attacked in the future with her non stop middle eastern wars, & everything else we, the citizens, are not privy too know thanks to alphabet agencies & black ops.

But in reality, 9/11 was an inside job but we will not convience you nor will you convience us otherwise. So the best outcome for this shameful thread is to agree to disagree

I like how you left out thermite entirely, im not going to repeat it again, youtube can do that adequately.

your points however OP are valid, and I can only find fault with number 2, and techincally your right, but. people who we're at ground zero did infact say they heard 'bangs' that did not originate from the impacts. however you are technically correct, because no one said they heard hundereds of bangs.

ed: I could however be wrong, others have indeed said when the floors went all they could hear is 'boom, boom,boom' so, make of that what you will.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

"No other sky scrapers have been hit full speed by planes that size"


Except you left out another building in NYC? Maybe you never knew the Empire State building was hit by a slightly smaller plane? It forgot to collapse!


The first CNN reporter on the scene at the Pentagon said "There's no evidence of a plane crash at the Pentagon".

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by spw184

 

Totally agree.

The neo-cons under Cheney saw a golden opportunity and used 9/11 for all the wrong things... but that's certainly no proof of foreknowledge.

But they would surely never engineer such a "golden opportunity" for themselves.

The Empire State Building was hit by history1900s.about.com...

I stopped reading your BS after that.


reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

NOT TRUE!

Keep that disinfo comming, seems like you're on a roll...

Troll

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


I have never partaken in any discussions regarding this topic, ever, but I would like to point something out.
Forgive me if it's been said but I haven't read all the posts yet.

1] The video you posted with the demo technique is kinda bad for your argument.It shows that if the Twin Towers did collapse under their own weight that the freefall time would have been much slower than the actual time in which they collapsed.

The video you posted shows that the building being demoed falls relatively slower in comparison to the towers,which have to be at least 3 or 4 times larger, but that's just my perception.

2] Also, just thinking logically, what is the probability of 3 buildings falling down into their own footprints, on the same day, in the same city on the same block? The likelihood is the equivelent of everyone in NY winning lottery on the same day.

To me it seems virtualy unrealistic and almost impossible, but that's thinking logically.

reply to post by spw184


1 hard core fact?

Hitler burnt down the Reichstag, to grow public opion enough that they
Wouldn't object to going to war.

" people who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it "

Sir Winston Churchill

There's 2......

Do the math....

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
if you ever want to be excepted by the mainstream.

rolling on the floor laughing...

Sorry to nitpick your thread (that includes zero links and no substantial proof of anything) but...

6. 1/10th or 1% of active engineers in America is a meaningful amount. - NOT TRUE

1/10th is not 1% - 10% of active engineers is quite significant compared to 1%

Cap, I'm not going to bash you in any way for speaking your mind, your beliefs of what happened that day, you have that right. But, what happened on that day , just does not add up. First of all, that silly video that was released of a "plane" hitting the pentagon, nowhere in that video do I see a plane, Please, can someone show me one. Second of all, many, many, firemen, policemen, bystanders have said they heard multiple explosions, well after the planes had hit the twin towers. Now, all things being equal, those explosions were the result of combustible objects inside the buildings, or some other type of planted ordinance. If the first one is true, what was exploding inside the buildings? If the second one is true, that means this was a planned event from the beginning.

I just don't know, I find it very hard to believe the official story. Call me skeptical, call me what you will, something just does not seem right

One Question for Truthers: Why was building 7 demoed? What possible function could it serve? What was the agenda behind doing that? I've never heard a good explanation for that. We keep being told that building 7 is the smoking gun, that you can't possibly explain how building 7 collapsed, but what nobody has ever explained is what possible strategic significance could knocking building 7 have? It would have been a completely pointless action on the part on the 9 11 cabal, adding even more jeopardy to the although INSANELY complicated plan of trying to synchronize hijacked airplane collisions with some kind of controlled demolition charges. The problem with the Truther argument is it just doesn't make a lick of sense. Why would anyone bother knocking 7, when they were already knocking 1 and 2?