Jump to content

9/11 was there a plane ?


James Freeman (of the land
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

Yes in the world of physics. The kinetic energy from the broken part of the building has more energy than the resistant force of the floor below. As it falls, that energy builds up, it is inevitable.

So your telling me that the architects designed a building that could withstand an impact from a large passenger aircraft  but if one or two floors would collapse the entire building would start to turn to dust in mid air , fair enough then

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Arnie said:

Lots of questions but none really relevant.  We see the building bowing and giving way. It's right in front of your eyes and impossible to miss. Right there, there ar no thunder clap noises for such a massive building, you would hear this miles away, absolutely miles. I would be staggered if during the fall, people within or below didn't hear insane loud noises.

Go and watch the vids of the buildings coming down ,focus on the area about 5-8 floors under the dust cloud  ,tell me what you see

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

fuck no it doesn't. 

 

Phuck yes it does. See what I did there? I showed a video with a computer simulation plugging in every known variable. It did exactly what we saw.

 

3 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

I generally try to keep my opinion out of these discussions and stick to a factual basis. I generally and clearly say when something I post is based on my opinion rather than something established.

 

Your opinion is based on things you have read but do not appear to have verified.

 

3 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

 

Hmm, the "go and do some research" suggestion and a link that must be the "truth". Researchgate ? Ok, you go and do some research:

 

(PDF) The Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: A Metallurgist's View (researchgate.net)

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory | Request PDF (researchgate.net)

Why did World Trade Center collapse? – Simple analysis (researchgate.net)

(PDF) Collapse of world trade center towers: what did and did not cause it? (researchgate.net)

 

 

If you only look at things that reinforce your current view you don't get to see why it is maybe wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, peter said:

Go and watch the vids of the buildings coming down ,focus on the area about 5-8 floors under the dust clout ,tell me what you see

 

No, please don't ask me to see what you think. Tell me what YOU see and give me an example. If it is puff ejections from massively compressed air seeking an exit then there is my answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arnie said:

 

Phuck yes it does. See what I did there? I showed a video with a computer simulation plugging in every known variable. It did exactly what we saw.

 

 

Your opinion is based on things you have read but do not appear to have verified.

 

 

Hmm, the "go and do some research" suggestion and a link that must be the "truth". Researchgate ? Ok, you go and do some research:

 

(PDF) The Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: A Metallurgist's View (researchgate.net)

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory | Request PDF (researchgate.net)

Why did World Trade Center collapse? – Simple analysis (researchgate.net)

(PDF) Collapse of world trade center towers: what did and did not cause it? (researchgate.net)

 

 

If you only look at things that reinforce your current view you don't get to see why it is maybe wrong.

 


You are offering nothing to the discussion whatsoever. I operate from the position that what I think is wrong, reverse confirmation bias. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, peter said:

So your telling me that the architects designed a building that could withstand an impact from a large passenger aircraft  but if one or two floors would collapse the entire building would start to turn to dust in mid air , fair enough then

Exactly, the absurdity of it. But this guy's a regular know-it-all, so it does surprise me you're giving this energy vampire any attention at all. 

 

They're trying to convince you that what you see with your own eyes is a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

And yet there were fires burning for most of the day and they all survived this? Extremely unlikely.

 

a couple of small fires

SEC Enforcement Office Is Destroyed in Attack

By Michael Schroeder and
Mitchell Pacelle Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal
Sept. 13, 2001 12:01 am ET
 

The enforcement office of the Securities and Exchange Commission was destroyed in Tuesday's terrorist attack, leaving the nation's top securities regulator scrambling to reconstruct some of its longest-running investigations.

The SEC's New York regional office at 7 World Trade Center -- a building near the huge twin towers -- housed 320 employees on three floors, by far the largest and most important SEC operation outside of its Washington headquarters. The collapse of No. 7 on Tuesday took with it documents and computer records focused on hundreds of investigations, as well as records related to broker-dealers. The New York office is well-known for handling numerous insider-trading cases, as well as small-company stock manipulation cases involving organized-crime families

Shortly after the first jetliner plunged into one of the World Trade Center's twin towers, the SEC staff was evacuated. Agency officials said they believe all New York employees are safe, though a toll-free telephone number (877-404-3222) has been set up for staff members to check in.

'Monumental Task'

"It's going to be a monumental task getting back in operation," said Wayne Carlin, New York regional director. Mr. Carlin said he and other SEC regional directors were in San Francisco when the attacks began, at a conference of the North American Securities Administrators Association, the group representing state securities directors.

 

Some of the SEC material lost in the building's collapse will be recoverable, according to one person familiar with the situation. Copies of some documents are held by the Washington office, and some computer files are backed up off-site, this person said. In cases for which the U.S. Attorney's office is conducting parallel investigations, documents are sometimes shared with that office. In addition, transcripts of deposition testimony can be recreated by the court reporters who transcribed them.

Other material is lost forever, including many raw notes taken by SEC lawyers during their investigations and audiotaped evidence that was not shared with the U.S. Attorney's office or other government investigators, this person said.

At a minimum, such losses have the potential to slow SEC cases, as material turned up in the discovery process and deposition transcripts has to be produced a second time, said John Coffee, Jr., a visiting professor of corporate and securities law at Harvard Law School. The loss of other material that cannot be duplicated could be more damaging, he said. "To the extent that you have real smoking-gun evidence, if that's gone, it's quite possibly gone forever," he said. Many prosecutors, he explained, are secretive about evidence and reluctant to send it to other offices by computer. "There's a certain paranoia among prosecutors in making sure information doesn't leak out."

The SEC will look for new office space as close to the federal court in lower Manhattan as possible, though space will be at a premium with so much destruction of office space in the financial district.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000348229290230479

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, peter said:

So your telling me that the architects designed a building that could withstand an impact from a large passenger aircraft  but if one or two floors would collapse the entire building would start to turn to dust in mid air , fair enough then

 

Nice strawman there. They designed the building to withstand a plane impact. It withstood a plane impact.

 

What it wasn't designed to do is take the impact from an almost fully fuel laden bigger plane at FULL speed that creates fires of that nature. NO building could ever contemplate that occurring at that time. It didn't turn it to dust, it does what it always does and creates significant dust clouds.

 

1 minute ago, Morpheus said:

Exactly, the absurdity of it. But this guy's a regular know-it-all, so it does surprise me you're giving this energy vampire any attention at all. 

 

How rude. I don't claim to be a know all and if you are able to explain things satisfactorily then why haven't you. My arguments are sound and as yet I'm not seeing much logical and explanatory rebuttal.

 

1 minute ago, Morpheus said:

They're trying to convince you that what you see with your own eyes is a lie.

 

No. But then again, seeing and understanding are two very different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.ifsecglobal.com/fire-news/dubai-inferno-5-historys-worst-skyscraper-fires/ - all of those didn't collapse in to their own footprint at near freefall speed. Or indeed at all.

Steel melts at 1510 degrees centigrade, these fires whilst burning all day were less than half that figure, steel doesn't melt from that even if you allowed it to burn until the sun dies out. No way, no how.

Edited by TheConsultant
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:


You are offering nothing to the discussion whatsoever. I operate from the position that what I think is wrong, reverse confirmation bias. 

 And with a gigantic wave of the hands my big post just above .... not answered by you. I am offering "nothing" except things that don't fit in with your opinions. That is why you are not properly addressing them. Now, just above that video by Mick West, time stamped, lists dozens of ways to create iron spheres without thermite. Watch it and maybe learn something new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheConsultant said:

https://www.ifsecglobal.com/fire-news/dubai-inferno-5-historys-worst-skyscraper-fires/ - all of those didn't collapse in to their own footprint at near freefall speed. Or indeed at all.

 None of them had a plane impact stripping away fire retardants and massive localised fires. None of them resemble the size and construction of the towers.

 

1 minute ago, TheConsultant said:

Steel melts at 1510 degrees centigrade, these fires whilst burning all day were less than half that figure, steel doesn't melt from that even if you allowed it to burn until the sun dies out. No way, no how.

 

And the failed straw man again. Steel didn't need to melt, didn't melt and has neveer been claimed to have melted. It weakens though and the weight above causes bowing EXACTLY at the impact points and that is EXACTLY where the building clearly gives way. Your own eyes just needs to look.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, legion said:

Arnie.. 

 

There's around 50 spinning plates. 

You can't keep them all going. 

 

Sit down. 

Have a rest. 

 

Just trying to answer posts aimed at me. It's called debate. I'm sipping tea with digestives with the telly on. I feel just fine thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

a couple of small fires

 

 

You failed to offer me the logical reason for why they brought down the WTC7? Fire was destroying the documents without anyone bothering to go do a search through rubble. That would be the least favourable way to dispose of incriminating evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, legion said:

 

Oh dear.. 

What program have you got on..?

 

 

BT sport. Oh dear?  Maybe you thought I was mindlessly watching someone filing past a coffin.

 

Laters......this stuff is soooo 20 years ago.

Edited by Arnie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Arnie said:

 

Address the content please. A better guess is you haven't.

Now, you say you're not a know-it-all, yet somehow you seem to be an aviation expert, a fully qualified pilot, an architectural engineer, astrologist, a fully qualified astronaut (fuckin space cadet more like) and anything else you'd like to add (in case I missed it). 

 

So forgive me for thinking this of you, but you demonstrate nothing else. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

No, please don't ask me to see what you think. Tell me what YOU see and give me an example. If it is puff ejections from massively compressed air seeking an exit then there is my answer.

Ok fair enough we will have to agree to disagree,however if they are indeed what you say they are, what is causing the floors above the puffs of air to disintegrate and they are not just creating dust they are disintegrating, if as you say these floors are collapsing one on top of the other internally you would expect the outside shell to be still visible for a certain amount of time but this is not the case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to the numerous reports of molten metal under ground zero, defenders of the official version of 9/11 have tried to argue that it was not steel, but some other kind of metal with a lower melting point.

Well, here are what top experts who eyewitnessed the molten metal say:

  • According to reporter Christopher Bollyn, Mark Loizeaux, president the world's top demolition company, and Peter Tully, head of a large construction firm, said the following:
Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.

Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.

Here's what eyewitness firefighters say:

Here's what other eyewitnesses say:

The fact that there was molten steel under ground zero for months after 9/11 is very odd, especially since firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires and applied high-tech fire retardants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...