WTC collapse videos exposes the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist movement

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
How convenient. So now even when it is admitted to you that there were bombs in the towers by the "Commander in Chief", which is what he was the other day when I said that Cheney ran the White House, now Bush is a moron and we shouldn't listen to anything he says.

I think your gig is up.

Bye byeeeeeeeee

Let me get this straight. You think it's more plausible that Bush, the complete moron, let slip an international criminal conspiracy to murder 3000 Americans. As opposed to him making a stupid mistake in speaking? Something he's well known for?

PS. If you think I get paid to be here, you're wrong, but you're welcome to send me money!

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
How convenient. So now even when it is admitted to you that there were bombs in the towers by the "Commander in Chief", which is what he was the other day when I said that Cheney ran the White House, now Bush is a moron and we shouldn't listen to anything he says.

I think your gig is up.

Bye byeeeeeeeee

Let me get this straight. You think it's more plausible that Bush, the complete moron, let slip an international criminal conspiracy to murder 3000 Americans. As opposed to him making a stupid mistake in speaking? Something he's well known for?

PS. If you think I get paid to be here, you're wrong, but you're welcome to send me money!

No, he didn't let anything slip. He was pulling a CYA in case it was ever proven that bombs were in the building. And the cover story was... as hysterical as this is, that "operatives" somehow got in there and wired up the towers while nobody was looking. Here's the exact quote from a press conference at the Rose Garden of the White House on September 15, 2006:

"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

Now of course, you guys have been railing for years how there were no bombs, the firemen and witnesses were delusional, et al, and now here you have "the moron" (I concur completely!) saying that there were indeed explosives in the towers.

Just to solidify this guy's place in the annals of history as a world-class imbecile, any 4 year old can figure out that if you want to trap more people, you would put the bombs LOWER in the building. But not Dubya. It seems he cut most of his classes to masturbate on Hitler's silverware and Geronimo's skull at his little boys club Skull n' Bones at Yale Probably was cutting classes since kinnygarten

Now I will tell you what exponent, I will take your word for it that you're not getting paid for this, ok? But it's a fairly safe assumption that if the big towers were wired, so was #7. Considering all the personal attacks the OS camp has levied over the past few years at anyone who suggests there were bombs in the building, I think its about time that maybe, instead of attacking each other, if you're really not a shill, that we start treating each other with mutual respect in order to get to the truth so we can hang the bastards who were really responsible for 911, Because I have a sneaking suspicion that if we can exterminate them from the planet, the vast majority of all the problems and threats that we face as a species will miraculously disappear.

Whattaya think, compadre?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
No, he didn't let anything slip. He was pulling a CYA in case it was ever proven that bombs were in the building. And the cover story was... as hysterical as this is, that "operatives" somehow got in there and wired up the towers while nobody was looking. Here's the exact quote from a press conference at the Rose Garden of the White House on September 15, 2006:

I really don't think this is remotely covering his ass. It just seems like a total moron who is barely able to speak.

Now of course, you guys have been railing for years how there were no bombs, the firemen and witnesses were delusional, et al, and now here you have "the moron" (I concur completely!) saying that there were indeed explosives in the towers.

We've called no witnesses delusional. Please try and be a bit more accurate man, it's not legit to be saying false things about your opponents position.

Now I will tell you what exponent, I will take your word for it that you're not getting paid for this, ok? But it's a fairly safe assumption that if the big towers were wired, so was #7. Considering all the personal attacks the OS camp has levied over the past few years at anyone who suggests there were bombs in the building, I think its about time that maybe, instead of attacking each other, if you're really not a shill, that we start treating each other with mutual respect in order to get to the truth so we can hang the bastards who were really responsible for 911,

If you look at my thread history, you'll see that I have repeatedly tried to push people into organising, into finding the most damning evidence and presenting it. I don't think there'll ever be damning evidence of controlled demolition, but I do think Bush is potentially a war criminal and needs to be tried for starting wars on the basis of flimsy intelligence.

So I'm all for that. I will help in any way you think I can, but that does not include adding in a bunch of easily disproved claims that would destroy the case for treason etc.

Because I have a sneaking suspicion that if we can exterminate them from the planet, the vast majority of all the problems and threats that we face as a species will miraculously disappear.

This is definitely wrong though. A good book to read is "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer. A large proportion of the human race shares Bush's essential attributes, and I'm not a fan of massive eugenics programs (don't want to suggest you are either)

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by thegameisup

 

You didn't post the link correctly.

edit: Found it, this the one you meant? www.metacafe.com...

edit on 7/7/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)

What do you make of the explosions that can be seen, and the talk of weapons of mass destruction coming through on the radio?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
No, I'm not saying that terrorists were remote controlling the aircraft. I'm saying that they were remote controlled by the rogue faction within the US Government that did 911.

The total evidence you have for this is nothing. There is literally no evidence of this whatsoever.

I don't know what hit the north tower because all we have is the Naudet Brothers video which is very blurry. But the 757 that hit the south tower was supposedly a 300 series, significantly longer than a 200 series. The south tower impact videos show a 757 that is clearly a 200 series which has a much shorter fuselage than the 300 series.

Are you joking?

en.wikipedia.org...

At least some of it should have rained down on the street directly below the impact.

What makes you think it didn't?

Many eye witness report it was not a commercial plane


It certainly was not a commercial jet, I'm inclined to believe all these genuine witnesses, than any video footage fabricated by the media.

IMO, the 2nd 'plane' was designed to be viewed 'live' for maximum effect.

Have the news covering it as soon as the first 'plane' hit, then have the same footage shown on all channels, so they can then beam the 2nd 'plane' live.

What people saw on the ground, does not match up with the 'live' footage.

Highly suspicious.

reply to post by thegameisup


I assume you'll believe this video is fake then?:



and this video?:



All of these?:

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Lol, what planet are you living on?

Mate, if you think a few cave dwelling muslims did 9/11 then you seriously need your brain examined. Either that or you are a shill looking for biting fish.

9/11 was 100% an inside job and if you think there is no conspiracy then what in gods name are you doing on a conspiracy forum???!!!!

Rofl, one born every minute I guess. I guess you are one of those people who cant handle the truth

Psychiatrists explain why people go in to denial about 9/11



www.youtube.com...

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by TheMindWar


Personally I think it's a lot more comforting to think that 9/11 was carried out by a few nasty, powerful men close to home.

A world where America can be struck at will by remorseless and unscrupulous enemies who are diametrically opposed to it and implacable? Much more frightening in my book. And a clue to why the Truth Movement even exists. After all, it's not like the movement actually does much - there are very few people actually trying to get the information out, or researching and organising and agitating. A better example of a psychological comfort blanket I think it's hard to find.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You know what...i just got it.....Your a fixing salesman......Sorry i am being a bit obtuse but you keep going on about your abilities...but your not the only one....you are on one side...and i could say the very similar things in my trade....but guess what....I am on the truther side...interesting that isn't it.

Close but NO CIGAR I am not in sales I advise and test I dont sell, I give a recommendation based on requirements and the product is sourced by the builder/contractor.

QUOTE from George W Bush posted by SimontheMagus..........He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

SimontheMagus
The above comment is totally absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that the entire 9/11crimes were falsified in every possible respect I will say that IF they really were to have carried out such a preposterous scenario as the one described: The operative word here should be “LOW” enough – not “HIGH” enough. A lower hit would have insured a higher death toll and a much less effective route for escape.

reply to post by wmd_2008


wmd, first and foremost, i fully respect your background and experience in the field, and am totally welcoming of your viewpoints, but please do not imply that i am stupid. this sort of thing only functions as a way for you to become entrenched in your own line of argumentation. let's keep this civil, as i humbly respect your views. be that as it may, you have given me very little evidence to prove the claims you have stated.

pictures may work well for you to articulate your point, but when it comes to freefall, i'd like to be sure that i'm right about something like that - therefore, pictures do nothing. seeing in motion is believing:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

two simple youtube presentations focus my claims into the mathematics that you might require in order to consider something like this. you may choose to challenge the math, in which case i have many more sources for you, from diverse sources.

let's just call it like we see it. there was downward acceleration on all 3 towers. it is readily observable by all who see it. show me evidence of deceleration, and then maybe you can hold some weight to your claims, because in all honesty, a picture does absolutely nothing to substantiate what you're saying.

also, a 20 foot hole, or a 20 floor gash as you'd like to call it, is an arbitrary distinction. there were 20 floors of damage, let's say, to one side of the building. if there is damage on one side causing gradual structural failure, shouldn't the building fall towards the path of least resistance, through the path of destruction? in other words, shouldn't it fall OVER, not DOWN? the same line of thinking here goes for towers 1 and 2. if there was an unequal distribution of damage, how is it possibly for all 3 buildings to collapse in an equal fashion? please consider this with an intention for analysis, because as far as i know, that is the only instance in history where 3 modern steel buildings came straight down with and without planes, with relatively minimal fires (when i say relatively little fires, i am addressing the previous buildings in history that have mostly caught fire, burned for longer hours, with fires visibly spanning across more than 30 floors, that were still left completely intact).

and lastly, if you really mean to say that you don't give a "hoot" about what i think because i don't have 30 years of structural engineering experience, don't say anything to me at all. the only thing you're doing by saying things like that is further trying to bring me and my message below you and yours. for the record, there are large numbers of structural engineers like yourself who are saying that there is no way those buildings collapsed due to 2 planes and fires. what's your major malfunction?

Originally posted by Vitruvian

QUOTE from George W Bush posted by SimontheMagus..........He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

SimontheMagus
The above comment is totally absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that the entire 9/11crimes were falsified in every possible respect I will say that IF they really were to have carried out such a preposterous scenario as the one described: The operative word here should be “LOW” enough – not “HIGH” enough. A lower hit would have insured a higher death toll and a much less effective route for escape.

edit on 11-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: edit

Vitruvian, you make a good point - a point that barry jennings can vouch for.

www.youtube.com...

points were set off high enough, and low enough.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by wmd_2008


wmd, why must you constantly take shots at my character? in every single one of your posts so far, you make at least one disclaimer about how i'm stupid, or am making mistakes, or that i'm a little boy spewing nonsense. this makes for relatively nasty conversation, and will not get us anywhere. please stop it. i think i've made a note of this a couple of times already, and it's getting tiring.

the link you posted is a piece of video i must have seen 200 times over again upon close examination. have you even bothered reading my whole post and checking out the two links i sourced? i mean, you didn't even give a solid rebuttal to anything that i have written. it makes me think that you're just waiting for your turn to speak without actually looking at what is being presented. it is exceedingly obvious that you are an emotional person, and i think a part of that is what's stopping you from having an honest, informed discussion about this.

once again i will state what i have already stated, and wait for you to either take it seriously so that we may have a positive back and forth, or just keep calling me a little kid and think that it actually makes some sort of impact.

tower 7 fell in about 4-5 seconds, and it fell straight down (coinciding with the fact that all 3 buildings came down the same way). if there was a disproportionate amount of damage to one wall, the building should have fallen over. this is simple physics, and is an observation nobody would have a problem with if it weren't for the fact that it happened to the world trade towers. there were explosions going off inside world trade center 7 pretty much throughout the day. once again, if you have been actually "looking forward" to my replies, you would have noticed that i posted these up literally about 5 posts or so above this one.

now that i think about it, your claims are WAY more rash than mine, since you're not presenting anything, once again, to substantiate what you're saying. the crux of your last response was "yes there was freefall, but not throughout the whole process, as part of the building came down first, and then the rest followed. it actually took longer because of this." honestly this is a deceptive argument from top to bottom. it makes me think someone's paying you for this.

the reason it makes me think that is the fact that i put up a whole lot more than that one little footnote you thought was incredible enough to put this matter to rest. let's run it back, and this time actually go through what i post if you have any interest in "looking forward" to my replies.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

please take the time to go through these if you really want to have an open discussion about this, and please stop focusing your line of argumentation on how terrible my reasoning is, or how little i am (which you literally can't possibly know). i have not been rude to you thus far, so please respect that and do not be rude to me. we will get nowhere with this kind of attitude.

tl ; dr - the whole of wtc7 fell downwards (not over, through the path of destruction, as would be expected) in under 7 seconds. barry jennings testified time and time again to there being explosions going off all day long in wtc7. cut the bs, and let's talk facts. if you can challenge any one of these, i'm all ears.

The collapse of the twin towers was a very messy one, the easiest way to understand how each towers top sections overwhelmed the below sections, is to appreciate that the floors and connections in each structure were designed to support a static load, also live loads not however a dynamic one of the magnitude we see on 911. The top section cannot be arrested by the uppermost floor of the bottom section, as the floor and connections were sheared, I believe if anything once the collapse progressed there was several collapse fronts, which smashed through floors and connections, dont forget that the core and perimeter columns are connected to the floors, so once these connections are sheared the columns dont have much chance of staying upright, hence why the perimeter columns fall outward and the core columns are stripped and later collapse.

Also most engineers agree that there was more than enough potential energy to collapse and destroy each tower, which we observe a large part of the PE was converted into heat, light and kinetic energy which broke up the structure.

I would be interested in any replies to my post for or against.

Thanks

Originally posted by AvadaKedavra14
The collapse of the twin towers was a very messy one, the easiest way to understand how each towers top sections overwhelmed the below sections, is to appreciate that the floors and connections in each structure were designed to support a static load, also live loads not however a dynamic one of the magnitude we see on 911.

If the top sections overwhelmed the bottom section then what happened to the top section, especially the massive hat truss?

The argument about dynamic loads ignores Newtonian physics. ALL collision between two objects is a dynamic load. The collapse should have slowed and arrested due to building resistance, but the opposite happened meaning more energy was involved than gravity.

Also most engineers agree that there was more than enough potential energy to collapse and destroy each tower, which we observe a large part of the PE was converted into heat, light and kinetic energy which broke up the structure.

What 'most engineers'? Most engineers have not even expressed an opinion on the collapses.

If they did they're wrong. Every time a floor assembly hits resistance it would lose Ke to deformation, friction/resistance, heat, sound etc. So every floor impact you lose Ke, you don't gain Ke. Loss of Ke means the collapse would slow and stop.

If it happened the way the OS claims there would still be intact floors assemblies in the footprint, not to mention the hat truss which would be sitting on top of the pile. But the rubble was spread in a360 arc around the towers, which means mass was being lost, not gained, during the collapse. Loss of Ke and loss of mass means the collapses could not have been complete without another energy acting on them that has not been investigated for by NIST.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by AvadaKedavra14
The collapse of the twin towers was a very messy one, the easiest way to understand how each towers top sections overwhelmed the below sections, is to appreciate that the floors and connections in each structure were designed to support a static load, also live loads not however a dynamic one of the magnitude we se on 911.

If the top sections overwhelmed the bottom section then what happened to the top section, especially the massive hat truss?

The argument about dynamic loads ignores Newtonian physics. ALL collision between two objects is a dynamic load. The collapse should have slowed and arrested due to building resistance, but the opposite happened meaning more energy was involved than gravity.

Also most engineers agree that there was more than enough potential energy to collapse and destroy each tower, which we observe a large part of the PE was converted into heat, light and kinetic energy which broke up the structure.

What 'most engineers'? Most engineers have not even expressed an opinion on the collapses.

If they did they're wrong. Every time a floor assembly hits resistance it would lose Ke to deformation, friction/resistance, heat, sound etc. So every floor impact you lose Ke, you don't gain Ke. Loss of Ke means the collapse would slow and stop.

If it happened the way the OS claims there would still be intact floors assemblies in the footprint, not to mention the hat truss which would be sitting on top of the pile. But the rubble was spread in a360 arc around the towers, which means mass was being lost, not gained, during the collapse. Loss of Ke and loss of mass means the collapses could not have been complete without another energy acting on them that has not been investigated for by NIST.

People such as Frank Greening and Zdenek Bazant. I dont think the hat trusses would survive the collapse in one piece do you? All the connections are going to withstand the collapse?

Each floor was not destroyed as one if you like, as I say there would more likely be local crush fronts some ahead of others. The mass although some is being ejected laterally is gaining as each floor and its contents gets destroyed. The momentum increases and each floor is subjected to a bigger mass than the one before it.

Lets go back to basics, how do you expect the top floor on the lower section, knowing its not designed to deal with even one floor falling onto it, to survive several floors (the whole top section) falling on it? How are the connections supposed to withstand this dynamic loading?