poptart wrote:You may be aware that there are many engineers who scoff and laff at the idea that the three buildings fell that way because of planes and fire.
I work in a profession where I can find 10 different engineers give me 10 different forsensic opinions on why some time of engineering system or design failed or was flawed which resulted in some type of damages or loss. At the very least, with 9/11 there is clear, indisputable evidence that 2 planes full of jet fuel hit 2 buildings, automatically weakening the structural load capacity within those buildings. Before anyone starts with conspiracy bullshit, realize there was a clear, evident catalyst to the weakening of 2 the buildings. A controlled demo of those buildings would have to take into account all the variables of what a plane crash MIGHT do to change the outcome of a controlled demo. That's almost impossible to predict.
jiminphilly wrote: That's almost impossible to predict.
Your position is that 2 planes brought them down. How would adding some thermite make it any less likely they would come down? Your argument makes no sense.
jiminphilly wrote: That's almost impossible to predict.
Your position is that 2 planes brought them down. How would adding some thermite make it any less likely they would come down? Your argument makes no sense.
Because the opinion of many of the engineers who think it came down with thermite is that the buildings had fallen as if it was a controlled demo. A controlled demo of a building would mean bringing it down a certain way with thermite exploding at different intervals. The problem with that opinion is when a building (that is normally guttted to the bones) is going to come down, those pre-set explosive devices are set at spots to make the building fall a certain way.
Crash a heavily fueld passenger plane into a building, taking out unknown structural components, weaking the load capacity of the entire building would make it virtually impossible to know how the building would fall since controlled demos take into account an otherwise gutted but untouched building.
KC Scott wrote:add to that 100 + news cameras / cell phones etc were recording them fall and there were no mysterious explosions on the lower floors recorded, seen or reported
It's a waste of time arguing with lunatics
Indeed, yet nuts like LTS and seemingly Moving Sale choose to ignore all of this continue to dive headfirst into the seas of conspiracy.
Jim,
In your conspiracy theory the plane caused a near vertical collapse. So how can you argue that a bit of thermite here and there is inconsistent with that idea? Again, it makes no logical sense.
KC Scott wrote:add to that 100 + news cameras / cell phones etc were recording them fall and there were no mysterious explosions on the lower floors recorded, seen or reported
I get that. How? If the planes, in your mind, made it fall almost near vertical, then how would thermite placed to make it fall near vertical change that outcome?
You tedious doughnut boys are dead on the run. You know perfectly well the three towers could only fall in that perfect controlled demolition fashion through careful preparation. And you should know--though you probably don't--that the "official" report on the matter has abandoned any specific theory relating to "fire" as a cause, realizing that none make any sense. And why, for example, was the "pancake" theory abandoned by the official NIST report? (wait, you knew it had been abandoned, right?). Well, because they had to admit that if indeed the floors all "pancaked," it would still leave the core structure in place!
Similarly, the "official" version of the WTC7 collapse is simply comical, bordering on the supernatural. NIST actually announced that it was a "unique and unprecedented" phenomenon. Indeed, over 100 support columns all breaking at exactly the same time. Because of a "fire."
Of course the three towers were not rigged in the usual fashion--as with an old hotel in Vegas--but rather utilized thermite. Access to the towers was secured by Silverstein under the guise of asbestos examination and so forth. http://www.rense.com/general68/mreproof.htm
Of course many explosions were reported in the basements of all three towers immediately before the collapses--by firefighters and police among others. http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html
Here's some info from various engineers (from Stanford and MIT and so forth) explaining the obviousness of the controlled collapses.
I agree, so as to approach this thread again properly and with an open mind, it's a given I need to run to the store and by an x-tra large box of Reynolds Wrap. "It's not just for cooking anymore!"
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Of course the three towers were not rigged in the usual fashion--as with an old hotel in Vegas--but rather utilized thermite. Access to the towers was secured by Silverstein under the guise of asbestos examination and so forth. http://www.rense.com/general68/mreproof.htm
So this is your hero:
Oh, and his website is hideous.
Joe in PB wrote:
Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote:
They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
goobs, yer image isn't appearing. But, instead of the usual silly name calling, try dealing with the plain facts as presented. If you dispute them, let's see it. If you actually have an opinion on just why those three towers collapsed in obvious controlled demolition, let's hear it. But the kiddie cat-call nonsense is tedious, right? We can all agree on that.
Moving Sale wrote:
Thermite doesn't explode dumbass.
A YouTube video of some idiots that say they are exploding thermite? Yes you can blow up thermite but it doesn't explode when used correctly you dense fuck.
It's not your friend. You googled "thermite explosion" and found two tards. Can you link to any relevant evidience that thermite explodes when used as intended?
Of course there were explosions down below just before the collapse of each of the towers...here's the actual witnesses..
Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.
Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 28]
The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.
Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 202]
But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.
Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.
Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11]
You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down.
Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8]
... you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions.
Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
... and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
...
I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down.
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
.. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.
Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.
Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion ...
Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode.
Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
... the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out.
Michael Donovan -- Captain (F.D.N.Y.)
I thought there had been an explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there.
James Drury -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building.
Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)
Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing it, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building.
...
My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.
Gary Gates -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of the collapse. It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both sides. I'm looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said, like the top of a volcano.
Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
... I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes.
Gregg Hansson -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)
Then a large explosion took place. In my estimation that was the tower coming down, but at that time I did not know what that was. I thought some type of bomb had gone off.
Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118]
You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.
John Malley -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
I felt the rumbling, and then I felt the force coming at me. I was like, what the hell is that? In my mind it was a bomb going off.
James McKinley -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
After that I heard this huge explosion, I thought it was a boiler exploding or something. Next thing you know this huge cloud of smoke is coming at us, so we're running.
Joseph Meola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 91]
As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out.
Kevin Murray -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 18]
When the tower started -- there was a big explosion that I heard and someone screamed that it was coming down and I looked away and I saw all the windows domino
Janice Olszewski -- Captain (E.M.S.)
I thought it was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet -- plane exploding, whatever.
Daniel Rivera -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) [Battalion 31]
At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that.
Angel Rivera -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous explosion. I still can hear it. Everything shook.
Kennith Rogers -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.
Patrick Scaringello -- Lieutenant (E.M.S.)
I started to treat patients on my own when I heard the explosion from up above.
Mark Steffens -- Division Chief (E.M.S.)
Then there was another it sounded like an explosion and heavy white powder ...
John Sudnik -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
Then we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down. Crazy.
Jay Swithers -- Captain (E.M.S.)
I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
David Timothy -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
The next thing I knew, you started hearing more explosions. I guess this is when the second tower started coming down.
Albert Turi -- Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out.
Thomas Turilli -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
... it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came.
Stephen Viola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
... that's when the south tower collapsed, and it sounded like a bunch of explosions.
William Wall -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47]
At that time, we heard an explosion. We looked up and the building was coming down right on top of us ...
As for thermite being used in the obvious controlled demolition, let's consider some actual expert analysis..(i.e., not some bizarre "debunking" crew like Gerald Posner or Popular Mechanic)..
Interesting that all goobs and the other head-in-the-sand deniers can offer is pissy playground name-calling. Notice, not a single effort to actually defend any part of the palsied official story. How pathetic.
Why is it a crack pot anything? Do you doubt that these are real people who actually reported hearing these explosions? Okay, so why would there be explosions down below because of a fire way up on the 90th floor?
Have you actually considered the ridiculous theories offered by NIST? For example that in WTC7 a giant tank of diesel fuel was for some mysterious reason being continuously pumped up to the 36th floor and caused the tremendous fire to melt the 100 or so support columns at exactly the same time?
And the official reason of "an unprecedented phenomenon" as the cause?
Can you possibly accept any part of that?
What do you accept? You never say.
As for it being covered up, let's bear in mind just how muzzled the mainstream media really is. Has the absurd falsity of the Warren Commission report been properly revealed? I say not even close. As for hundreds of people involved, so what? It was a mission of purpose and principle, one which would entail actual allegiance, not just a paid operation. But moreover, the onus is upon the purveyor of the official story to substantiate it. And that's been a joke. After all, you can't begin to support any part of it. And the media won't even try, and the government of course has been completely compromised.
LTS TRN 2 wrote: But moreover, the onus is upon the purveyor of the official story to substantiate it. And that's been a joke. After all, you can't begin to support any part of it.
This is the funniest thing you've ever written Nick
You have that rare combination of stupid and crazy that is usually only seen in TV sitcoms
Why? Why is it inappropriate for someone standing by the official story to defend it in any way? Why is this site to be dismissed at "crackpot"? http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html
You only offer hollow smears, and then you run and hide. After all I've offered plenty of expert analysis--MIT engineers, pilots, etc.--to demonstrate the falsity of the official story, and you've offered nothing to support it. Are you really so cornered or treed?
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Why? Why is it inappropriate for someone standing by the official story to defend it in any way? Why is this site to be dismissed at "crackpot"? http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html
Why? It's a crackpot sight because only a crackpot would read or value it. It supports a biased viewpoint based on crackpot science that only a crackpot would ride like a rented mule. That's the main problem with you Nick, you rely on sources like bad Youtube videos and unsupported, junk websites so that an internet scavenger like you can easily find the garbage opinions that support your own overplayed and ridiculous theories.
Do some actual research on the other side of the argument, read all you can find and then balance the information.
Of course, I know you won't do that because it requires actual effort and you're a lazy, delusional dunce.
First, the site offers no scientific defense or explanation to maintain its viewpoint. It ignores actual science and studies and fairly much sits there on the web thumbing its nose and waggling its fingers in its ears with a big old neener neener. If you aren't going to offer a counter scientific method or theory, why bother? Because it appeals to conspiracy whacks like LTS.
Second, there is the continued harping on of ground level explosions, which were never seen or photographed. The eyewitness testimony that Nick cut and pasted, if they were real, would be from people in shock by the collisions and the collapses. They didn't know in detail what they were seeing or hearing. You're a lawyer MS, you know better than anyone that many witnesses are unreliable, especially during traumatic events.
Third, if Nick Frisco says it is, it really isn't. Nothing is more logical than that.
First, the site offers no scientific defense or explanation to maintain its viewpoint. It ignores actual science and studies and fairly much sits there on the web thumbing its nose and waggling its fingers in its ears with a big old neener neener. If you aren't going to offer a counter scientific method or theory, why bother? Because it appeals to conspiracy whacks like LTS.
Second, there is the continued harping on of ground level explosions, which were never seen or photographed. The eyewitness testimony that Nick cut and pasted, if they were real, would be from people in shock by the collisions and the collapses. They didn't know in detail what they were seeing or hearing. You're a lawyer MS, you know better than anyone that many witnesses are unreliable, especially during traumatic events.
Third, if Nick Frisco says it is, it really isn't. Nothing is more logical than that.
Bullshit. The site is packed with expert analysis by engineers from MIT and Stanford. All manner of the official story's blatant violation of basic physics is detailed. Moreover, you've not offered any specific refutation at all, just a blanket dismissal.
As for the witnesses to the explosions, these are mainly firefighters and police--who are not prone to "shell shocked' distorted memories.
As for NIST completely back peddling on the "pancake" theory--and other initial assertions--you've got nothing to say.
As for attempting to accept the official story just because i disagree with it, well this is simply childish nonsense. I'm not among the hundreds of pilots and engineers who've called total bullshit on the palsied official story. Where's your supposed dismissal of them? Each is a loon? Really?
And let's be clear, this is whose story you're claiming to believe...
That wasn't one thing, but I'll pick the only one where you actually applied any semblance of logic, the eyewitness testimony.
Yes, eyewitness, or in this case mostly earwitness, testimony can be a bit tricky. Timing gets fucked up in your head. You think you hear a gun and it was a backfire. That is all well and good but it doesn't refute what they are saying. It only serves to explain why they might be mistaken.
That's not what I am taking about. Is there one, just one, assertion made on that site that you can refute?
It isn't needed, there is nothing but suppositions with no basis in reality. It's just an attack piece that offers no explanations for what it is supporting, so what is there to refute? It's just nonsense. If this is the sort of drivel that you are wanting to buy into, go right ahead, be my guest.
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Interesting that all goobs and the other head-in-the-sand deniers can offer is pissy playground name-calling. Notice, not a single effort to actually defend any part of the palsied official story. How pathetic.
If a child tried to convince you that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were real, would you put forth a sincere effort to dispute his claims? Of course not. You'd just mess his hair and tell him to run off. This is pretty much on that same level.
Jay in Phoenix wrote:It isn't needed, there is nothing but suppositions with no basis in reality. It's just an attack piece that offers no explanations for what it is supporting, so what is there to refute? It's just nonsense. If this is the sort of drivel that you are wanting to buy into, go right ahead, be my guest.
So that's a no. I figured as much. Thanks for playing.
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Interesting that all goobs and the other head-in-the-sand deniers can offer is pissy playground name-calling. Notice, not a single effort to actually defend any part of the palsied official story. How pathetic.
If a child tried to convince you that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were real, would you put forth a sincere effort to dispute his claims? Of course not. You'd just mess his hair and tell him to run off. This is pretty much on that same level.
That is want is called a false dichotomy. See what happens when you try and use your feeble brain?
That's not what a dichotomy is you short statured simpleton. In any event, this isn't a court room, it's a smack board, and a stance rooted in such a high level of nut jobbery doesn't warrant a more serious response.
Scott wrote:You, the gnome and paranoia tart keep failing to answer the most glaring question - how could an operation that would have taken dozens, if not hundreds of individuals to pull off not have a single leak exposed well over 13 years later?
When did I ignore the question?
You never asked me?
lol
Further, I never made the claim that the buildings fell by controlled demolition.
I said that is what it LOOKED LIKE.
And I said I question whether 2 planes and fire really brought down (straight down) 3 towers totaling 267 floors.
You may or may not know that the official 9/11 report said...
-- The interior core of the buildings (2 main towers) was a hollow steel shaft --
But the truth is, it consisted of 47 massive steel columns.
If you trust the gov to tell you the real scoop, you're a very foolish man, indeed.
Okay, no more use exposing your utter lack of substance in anything you say--Jay, goobs,--you've had ample opportunity to offer something--anything--to back up your tedious droning of...well what is it, after all? Do you actually believe the NIST report? The Gerald Posner book? The 9/11 Commission report? The weird assertions of Donald Rumsfeld? Regardless, you've had your ass handed to you, and all you can offer in response is your own pissy insistence on me being a kook? And yet I'm not the MIT engineer claiming bullshit. You can't smear him. Or the firefighters who calmly reported explosions. Or the pilots who insist on the truth.
You're the pathetic cowards, the brain-dead limp-dick losers who are like sludge built up in the nation's fuel lines. You're the ring-around-the-collar of basic moral decency. You're the herpes sore on the phallus of the planet. You're the flat tire on an otherwise functioning automobile. You're a disgrace to smack boards, as well as rational and responsible citizenry.
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:That's not what a dichotomy is you short statured simpleton. In any event, this isn't a court room, it's a smack board, and a stance rooted in such a high level of nut jobbery doesn't warrant a more serious response.
Dismiss it all you want it only shows how stupid and indefensible your stance is.
And please stop thinking about my body so much. It's creepy.
Moving Sale wrote:That wasn't one thing, but I'll pick the only one where you actually applied any semblance of logic, the eyewitness testimony.
Yes, eyewitness, or in this case mostly earwitness, testimony can be a bit tricky. Timing gets fucked up in your head. You think you hear a gun and it was a backfire. That is all well and good but it doesn't refute what they are saying. It only serves to explain why they might be mistaken.
That's not what I am taking about. Is there one, just one, assertion made on that site that you can refute?
The link Goobs posted is a point by point 'controlled demolition' of every half-witted woo-woo bullshit theory you and Licks Turd2 have ever offered.
Here it is again in case you missed it. Read it or don't. I don't really care. Neither one of you has a clue.
How many of you conspiracy numb nuts have ever been in a structural testing lab?
What do you think a it sounds like when a simple #8 rebar fractures? About as loud as 44 magnum.
How about fracturing the weld of smallish W8 section beam column joint? or the web plate of a built up wide flange shear link? Yes it sounds like an explosion and shakes the entire building.
Multiply that by the hundreds if not thousands of beam, column and connection failures that occurred pretty much in quick succession and I am sure it sounded like a whole fuckton of explosions going off.
I'm pretty sure they would have been heard pretty quickly down in lower levels and basements before people would of realized what was going on. Those primary vertical columns were essentially continuous sections, sound waves would have traveled at a speed of ~200,000 in/sec whereas through air only ~13,500 in/sec, so almost 15 times faster.
Sorry to interrupt the bullshit with some simple facts, carry on.
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Okay, no more use exposing your utter lack of substance in anything you say--Jay, goobs,--you've had ample opportunity to offer something--anything--to back up your tedious droning of...well what is it, after all? Do you actually believe the NIST report? The Gerald Posner book? The 9/11 Commission report? The weird assertions of Donald Rumsfeld? Regardless, you've had your ass handed to you, and all you can offer in response is your own pissy insistence on me being a kook? And yet I'm not the MIT engineer claiming bullshit. You can't smear him. Or the firefighters who calmly reported explosions. Or the pilots who insist on the truth.
Complete and utter tripe. What A-dad just wrote was spot on. No matter how many times you link the same idiotic conspiracy web sites, you're just singing the same sad song Chicken LittleNick. Yes, the buildings fell, but not because they were blown up by explosives. Mvscal and others have repeatedly sited the enormous difficulty, even implausibility of planting materials all over these buildings without anyone detecting it. I realize logic and rational thought are impossible for you Nick, but your mouth-breathing and nonsense are tired. You've been refuted over and over, getting your ass handed to you again and again on a platter, yet you still won't quit.
Pathetic.
You're the pathetic cowards, the brain-dead limp-dick losers who are like sludge built up in the nation's fuel lines. You're the ring-around-the-collar of basic moral decency. You're the herpes sore on the phallus of the planet. You're the flat tire on an otherwise functioning automobile. You're a disgrace to smack boards, as well as rational and responsible citizenry.
Since this is still somewhat of a smack board, why don't you try running some? The flat tire and planet phallus lines were juvenile at best. Your sad and lonely existence would be pitiable if your weren't so laugh out loud stupid.
