Is there any real counter argument to the Conspiracy theorists of 9/11

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But if it is IMPOSSIBLE for airliners and fires to have produced the rapid destruction of those buildings....

Wow! Making some progress here! Now at least you admit it is possible that the crash, explosion and fires caused the collapse. What changed your mind?

So why did all of the WTC rubble/destroyed metal get packed up so quickly and shipped over seas instead of being sent to labs for study...

And what youre telling me is that NORAD is so incompetent, such that anyone with knives can hijack an airplane and drive-it/fly-it into any building in America...

Originally posted by Dinogur
So why did all of the WTC rubble/destroyed metal get packed up so quickly and shipped over seas instead of being sent to labs for study...

And what youre telling me is that NORAD is so incompetent, such that anyone with knives can hijack an airplane and drive-it/fly-it into any building in America...

Google the clean up. It took over 8 months. I don't consider that 'packed up so quickly'.

Norad has nothing to do with air traffic or box cutters.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But if it is IMPOSSIBLE for airliners and fires to have produced the rapid destruction of those buildings....

Wow! Making some progress here! Now at least you admit it is possible that the crash, explosion and fires caused the collapse. What changed your mind?

I have not changed my mind. The problem is explaining to people why it is impossible. But in order to do that one must try to see the perspective of people who have not figured it out.

psik

And why is the Empire state Building still standing when a B-52 bomber hit it in 1945.... B-25 Empire State Building Crash

It says that this incident is the only in which such a fire at such height has been controlled... why couldn't we control the fires that were set off by the two planes in the two towers and in Building 7. We could have at-least saved Building 7 from that "fire" someone would have noticed to call or at-least alert the authorities already present at the site. If i recall correctly a "fire" was started in building 7 at around 9 am for about 8.5 hours. much after the towers' had collapsed and debris had settled, with the amount of officials and authorities in the area, what your are telling me is that no one noticed a fire the was on going since 9 am?

reply to post by samkent


But isnt it NORAD's responsibility to keep our airspace clean of foreign threats? Or were they to busy playing war-games, such that they forgot how to handle a hijacking?

Originally posted by Dinogur
So why did all of the WTC rubble/destroyed metal get packed up so quickly and shipped over seas instead of being sent to labs for study...

And what youre telling me is that NORAD is so incompetent, such that anyone with knives can hijack an airplane and drive-it/fly-it into any building in America...

It's 2012 right?? What's with the questions from 2006????

Dude... GOOGLE: "Fresh Kills Land Fill - 9/11" That should help you with the first part of your post.

What the hell does NORAD have to do with someone taking over a plane?

Originally posted by Dinogur
So why did all of the WTC rubble/destroyed metal get packed up so quickly and shipped over seas instead of being sent to labs for study...

And what youre telling me is that NORAD is so incompetent, such that anyone with knives can hijack an airplane and drive-it/fly-it into any building in America...

It didn't. Plenty of WTC steel at hangar 17 JFK for you to study. :-

www.911memorial.org...

You think NORAD's prime issue was internal domestic flights ??

Originally posted by Dinogur
And why is the Empire state Building still standing when a B-52 bomber hit it in 1945.... B-25 Empire State Building Crash

OMG... Dude... it was a B-25. Your link even states this.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Dinogur
And why is the Empire state Building still standing when a B-52 bomber hit it in 1945.... B-25 Empire State Building Crash

OMG... Dude... it was a B-25. Your link even states this.

This man knows that it could withstand multiple plane hits.


There is no reason for them to collapse, other than controlled demoliton.

Originally posted by Dinogur
And why is the Empire state Building still standing when a B-52 bomber hit it in 1945.... B-25 Empire State Building Crash

It says that this incident is the only in which such a fire at such height has been controlled... why couldn't we control the fires that were set off by the two planes in the two towers and in Building 7. We could have at-least saved Building 7 from that "fire" someone would have noticed to call or at-least alert the authorities already present at the site. If i recall correctly a "fire" was started in building 7 at around 9 am for about 8.5 hours. much after the towers' had collapsed and debris had settled, with the amount of officials and authorities in the area, what your are telling me is that no one noticed a fire the was on going since 9 am?

You obviously haven't thought this through very carefully. The B25 bomber which hit the Empire State building in 1945 was roughly 10 tons. It was lost in poor visibility and travelling at an estimated 200 mph.

The Boeing 767's which hit the Towers were in excess of 100 tons and , in addition, were carrying over 30 tons of fuel. So the fuel alone was three times the B25 weight.

The 767's were also travelling at approx 500 mph so I will leave you to work out the comparative kinetic energy of the strikes if you can.

The buildings are of course of completely different construction anyway.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by thegameisup
Goto 07:52 and you will see 2 flashes below the impact zone, and you hear the first flash, which is evidence of explosives.

This video has also had crucial points edited out, seems they missed the explosives at 07:52 though.

Watch full screen and turn it up, the video was taken a little distance from the towers, so was on zoom when this was taken.

Your alleged explosives and flashes at 07.52 are singularly unimpressive and what do you suppose the relevance was some time before the collapse.

This video was taken in the North Tower lobby as the South Tower collapsed; so much closer to the scene than yours. It is relatively quiet; you can hear ordinary conversation until the ominous rumble intrudes and grows :-

www.youtube.com...

No obvious pre-rumble detonations.

I didn't rig the towers with explosives, so I cannot say why they went off when they did, you'll have to ask Bush and Co that question.

They cannot be disputed as explosive flashes, but then you will never agree on anything that proves the OS for the lie it is, because you are here to defend it at all costs.

I posted for those that were interested, I know people like you would try to pretend that they weren't explosives going off.

Originally posted by Classified Info

Originally posted by thegameisup
BTW, don't pay attention to member 'classified info' they are trying to defend the OS and will bait you with disinfo, as will 'samkent' and 'waypastvne'.

The link of the video that I posts with R.Gage in it is a video that truthers have been posting for some time now and still post to this day as proof of a CD. What you need to ask of the game is up is this----If the video is proof of a CD when a truther post it then why is it disinfo plot if somebody else posts the exact same video. Usually a truther will get stars from other truthers for posting that video.

Also I will not tell you what to think about this issue, unlike a lot of truthers , no I will present the "evidence and and trust you to make up your own mind.

edit on 7/22/2012 by Classified Info because: (no reason given)

You're an OS defender masquerading as a 'truther' it's very easy to see which side you support, you work against real truthers, not with them. You're research is null and void and your lies not welcome.

We don't need your videos thanks, we can tell from the evidence in all the available videos that it was a controlled deomolition job, and we can tell from physics that fires did not bring the buildings down. If you say it was not a CD, then you are an OS defender, no question.

All real 'truthers' as we're called, believe it was a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Dinogur
And why is the Empire state Building still standing when a B-52 bomber hit it in 1945.... B-25 Empire State Building Crash

It says that this incident is the only in which such a fire at such height has been controlled... why couldn't we control the fires that were set off by the two planes in the two towers and in Building 7. We could have at-least saved Building 7 from that "fire" someone would have noticed to call or at-least alert the authorities already present at the site. If i recall correctly a "fire" was started in building 7 at around 9 am for about 8.5 hours. much after the towers' had collapsed and debris had settled, with the amount of officials and authorities in the area, what your are telling me is that no one noticed a fire the was on going since 9 am?

You obviously haven't thought this through very carefully. The B25 bomber which hit the Empire State building in 1945 was roughly 10 tons. It was lost in poor visibility and travelling at an estimated 200 mph.

The Boeing 767's which hit the Towers were in excess of 100 tons and , in addition, were carrying over 30 tons of fuel. So the fuel alone was three times the B25 weight.

The 767's were also travelling at approx 500 mph so I will leave you to work out the comparative kinetic energy of the strikes if you can.

The buildings are of course of completely different construction anyway.

Yes, bringing up that B-25 business as though it is supposed to be evidence of something is ridiculous. Emotional physics debating crap.

But a skyscraper is a skyscraper and the designers must make them hold themselves up and get the distribution of mass correct. So how does mass fall on mass and accelerate it without slowing down and destroy the supports at the same time? How did the north tower come down in less than 26 seconds?

Just saying that the structure is different is more emotional physics debating crap.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

I have not changed my mind.

Sure you have! You used to say that you determined it was impossible within two weeks of 9/11. Now at least you are saying what IF its impossible. Meaning, of course, you believe there is a possibility that the impact, explosion and fires were the cause of the collapse. That's progress!

The problem is explaining to people why it is impossible.

Well, of course. Because in order to do so you would have to lie to them.

But in order to do that one must try to see the perspective of people who have not figured it out.

Huh?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But a skyscraper is a skyscraper.....

Really? That statement answers a lot of questions about your questions. So all buildings that you unilateraly determine to be skyscrapers are exactly alike in form, function, strength and weakness? Amazing.

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Dinogur
And why is the Empire state Building still standing when a B-52 bomber hit it in 1945.... B-25 Empire State Building Crash

OMG... Dude... it was a B-25. Your link even states this.

This man knows that it could withstand multiple plane hits.

There is no reason for them to collapse, other than controlled demoliton.

The man you posted died on 9/11 which doesn't speak much for his insight. Patently to suppose that the Towers could sustain multiple plane impacts is nonsense. How many ? 2,4, 50 ?

This is what Leslie Robertson, who should know a thing or two about it, had to say. Have a look at "impact of a plane ".

www.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by Alfie1
[
The man you posted died on 9/11 which doesn't speak much for his insight. Patently to suppose that the Towers could sustain multiple plane impacts is nonsense. How many ? 2,4, 50 ?

This is what Leslie Robertson, who should know a thing or two about it, had to say. Have a look at "impact of a plane ".

www.bbc.co.uk...

Typical insensitive OS defender, not interested in people that died, why not ridicule more dead peopel eh.

Well he had faith in the building, and there was no reason for it to come down, but he cannot build a building to withstand it being rigged with explosives can he!

No thanks to your link, the video I posted is more relevant than anyone else, the man knew the building, so stop trying to divert away from the video I posted.

The man knew the building would take multiple plane hits, but explosives are a different kettle of fish.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I have not changed my mind.

Sure you have! You used to say that you determined it was impossible within two weeks of 9/11.

I CONCLUDED it was impossible within two weeks.

The problem is getting other people to come to the same conclusion when they don't even agree or understand the necessary data to do the analysis. How does the steel in a 1300 foot skyscraper have to be distributed just so it can hold itself up?

What OFFICIAL SOURCE has provided that data in human readable form or even discussed it in TEN YEARS.

And then the Physics Profession can't be bothered with asking that question either. Not even David Chandler that I have heard. But he can talk about tons of steel hurled horizontally 600 feet.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I am glad you agree that the B25/Empire State business is irrelevant crap. Perhaps you could explain that to Dinogur who seems to think it is important.