Topic: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? - page 15. (Read 54921 times)

You said a lot of words, but didn't answer the question. See bolded.

There was no logical need for the towers to fall, all that was needed (if we follow your narrative of an inside job) was a huge spectacular attack on American soil. That could have been terrorists blowing up a building, OR terrorists flying planes into a building.

To formulate a secret inside job that involved BOTH of these factors adds massive extra layers of cost and risk, with insubstantial reward. Do you understand what I mean by that? By doing it the hard way, you're making your inside job exponentially more expensive, harder to plan, and much easier to get leaked, without enough payback at the end.

Just one of the two factors (bombs/planes) would give the government an excuse to go to war.

Hypothetically, If it was my choice, I'd choose the planes - less personnel involvement, easier to pull off, and even if the towers "couldn't have possibly fallen" they would still need to destroy them afterwards - good luck repairing the damage and convincing health and safety officials that the towers are safe to use again. And guaranteed, the controlled destruction of the twin towers weeks later would be televised and have a psychological impact on the American people.

Two birds one stone, see what I mean?

They really need to simply get some better conspiracy theories.

Show us the common knowledge please. What are the details.

You are quite an insider with Lew to know this. I mean, even Lew makes mistakes sometimes.

Please explain about the CIA apologist thing. You know where I work? Which 23 page redaction is that?

My side is God's side. Even though I make my mistakes, my side will win forever.

America more than any country (except maybe Japan) is a movie country. Seeing is believing, especially if it is movie style.

The point was to get the buildings to fall, and make it look like Arab terrorists, so government had an excuse to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, and give Silverstein the asbestos clean-up he wanted.

Spendy's low level physics doesn't take into account the unknown, or the high level physics that went into building the Towers.

Less than 3000 were killed. There is enough ongoing investigation and questioning by many. Don't make the number too large or there would be a lot more truther questioning.

I once worked in what is essentially a half sized replica of the WTC buildings located in Tulsa Oklahoma built by the same architect.  It is/was common knowledge that the building would break in two pieces at about the 20th floor if something were to happen to the structure...read not fall in on itself.

Lew Rockwell is a lone nut theorist...read not credible at all.

The airplanes were there to give it an Al Quaeda signature and to rile the American people up so they would fall for the big lie.

BADecker you must be a CIA apologist...I hear your boss pronounced just yesterday that there is no evidence that the Sauds had anything to do with it...then why the 23 page redaction?

Try again pal...your side is about to lose once and for all come about November of next year.

Big logical question still not answered by the Truthers:

If there was a controlled demolition, why were there planes as well? One or the other makes some sense, but not both.

Hint: if the building was blown up, why not just fabricate a plot that it was blown up by terrorists?

If there were just planes, why not just leave it at that and say the terrorists flew the planes? Even if the buildings hadn't have fallen (even though Spendulus has clearly shown with pretty low level physics that they could easily have fallen), the attack would still have killed hundreds or thousands and had a similar overall psychological end result on the American people.

Still waiting...

Thank you.

Got it!

Actual discussion of physics, chemistry and math at the 8th grade level can't be allowed in a discussion by and with 911 Truthers because all the flaws in their logic would be exposed by junior high level thinking.

The only possible response is to accuse anyone of using actual science and principles of being a government shill!

What you actually need, Badecker, is a better conspiracy theory.

We don't need this. We have Spendy.


----------


New Propaganda Bill Resurrects CIA's 'Operation Mockingbird'







New Propaganda Bill Resurrects CIA's 'Operation Mockingbird'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMM19RXTiXU


----------

Sorry, my reading of the matter shows estimates of about 1 pound/square foot of combustibles.  And since those include carpet, plastic, wood, I have to be skeptical that "strict fire codes" would somehow eliminate all the common materials found in offices. 

Also, your talk about "wicking away heat" actually disproves your own argument, instead of supporting it.  That raises the temperature of the beams.  And then they have less strength.  And then they bend and buckle.

So no wood stove has melted.  What does that imply in your opinion?

As far as I know these few local Truthers have given up arguing the strawman that the "Steel beams melted."

The issue was temperatures in the rubble heap.   Very different matter.  Although I don't know why anyone would find the temperatures in the rubble heap interesting from a building-conspiracy theory point of view.  Reminds me of related issues in heat retention of course, but perhaps people are not familiar with those.

I've been around wood stoves all of my life and use one now.  No wood stove I've ever seen has melted.  Nor have even the thin steel stove pipes we used back in the day.  Considering that stoves are built to induce a draft when the damper is open, the hydrocarbon fuel is seasoned and of significant quantity compared to the steel by weight, the only sink for excess thermal energy is the air in the room, and fires are effectively indefinite in duration, that seems pretty amazing.  Wouldn't you say?

As previously noted, at the conclusion of the tower's fall, ALL POTENTIAL ENERGY of the tower's height above gound level will be changed into kinetic energy, heat, light, etc. 

Note the phrase above "heat."

What part of this is difficult to understand?

Assuming all this structural load BS happens to be correct,
it all just decided to distribute itself appropriately to each of the remaining girders,
irrespective of their connecting beams,
so that each girder decided to collapse evenly,
at the same time as every other girder,
so that there was no topple...
the whole thing by itself,
without demolition, right?

Mwahahahahahahaha.  (<<<  I really like that laugh structure.)

So?  Let's step through it.  We have a 120x load against which the outer columns are claimed to support a 20x load.  But that's only for 40% of the total load.

Fine.  40% of 120x is 48x.

So columns are claimed to support a 20x load but are subjected to a 48x load, and they do exactly what they must do.  They fail.  As I previously stated, your own logic requires the building to FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.

wow this guy brings a whole new meaning to the word delusional. What a fuktard.

I had heard the idea that there were no planes in the crash of the Towers, but I had never seen the convincing info that Gleb shows us here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15148266. Looks like the whole thing was demolition, and the demolition guys did a good job of blowing out just enough of the buildings to make it look like planes did it.

So that's why there was no great heat from the jet fuel. There wasn't any jet fuel.

Hi, Spendy. Nice hearing from you again. LOL! Are you still on the 9/11 topic?     

lol, yeah that's a crackpot.

Destroying evidence, huh.

How long exactly should that sticking pile of junk from fallen towers have been allowed to sit in the middle of NYC?  Months?  Years?  The record of decision making on the cleanup is publicly available.

Changing the subject now are we? 

One ridiculous assertion to another.