Topic: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? - page 18. (Read 54921 times)

Estimates I've heard are around $1,000,000,000.  Absurd, but the asbestos scare was pretty powerful and made a lot of people a lot of money in 'abatement' and the standards got out of whack in order to perpetuate the take.  I'm sure that (non-evil non-Jew) Larry Silverstein would rather have the 4 billion or whatever in insurance money than coughing up the 1 billion in demolition costs if done to code.

I dont think US Govts are ready to tell the complete truth bez their deficiencies will be exposed as well

I think it is  a bad history and should remain as a bad history. we shoul not remember such bad memories. its was not a good moment to recall.

what mystery ?

It was a controlled demolition
i said this while watching it live as it happened,
anyone that does not think it was a controlled demolition is just blind, ignorant, brainwashed, gullible,
and has no idea about basic physics.

The planes and theatre were just to help the propoganda

The twin towers were also built using aspestos through the entire buildings and had to be demolished anyway,
but doing it properly would have been ridiculously expensive.

That's because you have stretched 8th grade thinking all out of shape first, so that the only way to get back on track is stretch your retrograde thing in a retrograde fashion the other direction... back towards normal.

The only thing that is attempting to destroy my arguments is you. And you can't even do that. Must be because you haven't progressed beyond the 8th grade.

Because of multitudes of inconsistencies in things that are way beyond 8th grade thinking, 9/11 absolutely had to have been an inside job. You know this, yet you are trying to talk it away. Why? Pride that won't let you admit that you are wrong? Getting paid by government or the Jews to be a propagandist? Come on. Fess up.

Unfortunately you've gone way beyond 8th grade thinking in the retrograde direction.

Your arguments have repeatedly been destroyed by 8th grade phsyics.

Tough luck, dude.  Deal with it.

Find a better conspiracy to believe in.

What

That doesn't even make any sense.

The whole idea behind the truthers is to get into details about the whole 9/11 thing. This means that we need to go way beyond 8th grade thinking. Eighth grade thinking doesn't even apply.

Thanks again for supporting the fact that 9/11 was an inside job?

Indeed, that is exactly what I am doing.  This does not mean that the engineering methods used in such advanced construction are at the 8th grade level.

Rather it means that the arguments used by 911 Truthers such as yourself are DEFEATED BY 8th grade level math, physics and chemistry.

That's simply a way for me to show how truly bad your attempts at argument are.  But really it reflects on the content of your 911 Truther propaganda crap rather than yourself.  Bring some more of it in.  It's actually so bad it's amusing.

Those are some really cute words you posted there. Sounds like you are trying to apply 8th grade something to past college 30 or 40 years+ experienced construction. Try to stay on focus.

Oh, and thanks again for helping to educate us all on one of the ways that people who pulled off the 9/11 inside job try to deceive us all.

There is no other way.   Simply estimate the loads, and apply them to the problem.  There is no shrugging off of facts you don't like.

Now scurry off and watch some of those Youtube conspiracy movies again.  Move along.

You might have thought you showed 120x load. But you didn't. You merely juggled some hypothetical numbers in such a way that you came up with 120x. Look at it the other way.

Airplanes and some unknown amount of burning fuel took out more than 95% of the structural strength of two Towers, which were designed to keep this exact thing from happening, in such a way that both of them suddenly fell at near free fall speed into their own footprint. No way. Things don't happen like this even once, to say nothing about twice at essentially the same time, and then a third building that barely had damage from the crashed Towers.

Demolition experts can barely get buildings to fall into their own footprint when they want them to. There is no way a couple of strategically placed planes could have done it. The crashes didn't do it. The people in the buildings after the crashes showed the heat didn't do it. The only thing that could have done it was demolition. 9/11 was clearly an inside job, even if it included some Arabs and some Muslims in the doing of it.



EDIT: Btw, thanks again for helping to show that 9/11 was an inside job.

You are thinking of a word, "resistance."   But you don't know whether that is 0.001% reduction in the speed of a building's fall or 20%.

Note Tecshare brought in what he thought was a valid point to refute the tower easily collapsing, that it was built to withstand 20x static load.  I simply showed that it experienced in excess of 120x load at the initial failure.  So his own logic REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO FAIL WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES.  And the same happens as soon as I plug in numbers into "resistance."  Your argument becomes an argument against your own position, dude.   Your problem, not mine.

But hey, go scurry off and watch a Michael Moore film on how the Evil Bush did it.  Then slither back all charged up and tell us about those Evil Jews.

Yep, you got me there. I just flew to New York, and sure enough, everything above the 78th floor or thereabouts is still floating in the air.

Chuckle.  Let me quote part of what I wrote above:
Do the 5lb rock thing in air and water. Then go up on a flat-roof wood house/building - wood is not nearly as strong as steel and concrete; flat roof so that you can stand on it without falling off - and toss the rock on the roof. Notice that the building doesn't collapse at all. Even the glass of the skylight might withstand the rock being tossed on it.

The point? Resistance. Resistance keeps the near free fall from happening. If there had been resistance in the Towers, they would have fallen a lot more slowly... or not at all. Something took the resistance away. Ah, what was it? Oh yes, demolition explosives.

Thanks again Spendy.

Sorry, clearly you don't even see the problem.  Tecshare's calculation of the free fall speed was from the very tip of the WTC tower.  That's not where the tower fell from.  It feel from the 78th floor or thereabouts.  Therefore, his very own calculation which shows "free fall speed" from the tip, if allowed as accurate, shows "quite a bit less than free fall speed" from the 78th.

Now run off to Youtube, absorb some more of your propaganda, come back and blab it out, maybe providing a linky.  Or even better, just admit you don't understand the physics, give it up, and go back to safe little conspiracy theories, being sure that they don't require actual physics, chemistry or math.

The free-fall-speed question can be answered in a very easy way.

Grab a rock that will fit in you hand... not a big one... maybe only 5 pounds weight. Then drop the rock from, say, 10 feet high, and accurately time its fall to the ground through the air. Then do the same thing in 10 feet of water. Notice that the rock falls much slower through 10 feet of water than it does through 10 feet of air.

Air offers very little resistance to a falling rock. Water offers more. Attached steel beams and girders of a building offer a lot more. The near free fall speed of the Towers, and especially Bldg. 7, is not logical with the resistance offered by beams and girders to slow the speed down, except that the beam and girder strength was removed first... by demolition explosives.



EDIT: I want to thank you again, Spendy, for helping us to more clearly state in easily understandable ways, how 9/11 was an inside job. Sometimes I wonder what you really believe, and if you aren't purposely setting us up so that we can more easily prove the 9/11 inside job.

If these questions are not settled, it isn't okay for you to just move on.  And they're not.  Don't worry, all of your ten questions can be easily debunked.

Now, what about that rather laughable "free fall speed?"  Let's hear where and how exactly you get to that conclusion?   Because it sure isn't obvious from the seismic record.  That shows relatively low levels for ten seconds, then fifteen seconds of heavy impacts.  Maybe you think stuff from the top of the building show impact first, then last of all stuff from the bottom?  

Come on, let's hear the Truther view.  Because I don't see how a calculation of "free fall time" using the absolute tip of the WTC has any relation to a collapse of the whole thing from the 78th floor.

Re run a couple of those old propaganda movies like Loose Change, and get yourself an answer and present it.

People get scared in a small amount of heat, less than enough to boil water. Fear does a lot to a person. The fact that they were alive and walking around in the heat shows that the heat was not enough to even put a dent in Tower structural integrity.

Now you are showing serious ignorance.  You don't even know what the "official story" is, do you?

The reason is because this is #1 and #2 on the debate points and we are on #3 and #4.  However I do have one comment on your "questions."

Why is it that in all that tremendous heat that weakened the buildings so much that they collapsed, you can see photos of people walking around in the gaping holes made by the planes? And if that isn't enough, people are walking around and jumping out of windows.

This sort of ridiculous Trufer thinking is just amazing.  Well, people are walking around and jumping to their death?  Gee, why is that?  You wouldn't think it was because after finding they could not reach the emergency exit, and the fire got closer, they chose the quick death instead of the slow agonizing one? 

How about that.

Why is it that in all that tremendous heat that weakened the buildings so much that they collapsed, you can see photos of people walking around in the gaping holes made by the planes? And if that isn't enough, people are walking around and jumping out of windows. Barely enough heat to melt wax. And the heat there is, cannot be documented to have come from the fuel because nobody knows how much fuel the planes were really carrying, and nobody knows how much of it boiled off before it could burn, and nobody knows how much of it did an oxygen-starved burn, and nobody knows what small amount of it might have burned with a truly hot, non-oxygen-starved heat, if any.

Yet, since the Towers were built to withstand the jet plane impacts, the only thing that could have weakened them sufficiently so that they would fall (provided the whole thing was not an inside job), was jet fuel heat. But nobody really has any more than a guess as to the amount of jet fuel heat that might have been generated.

Then the official story essentially bases the whole crash of the Towers on jet fuel heat that was not known to exist.

So, there you have it. But you have had it all along. And you are ignoring it... for what reasons? Too stubborn to change your story because you can't bear to be wrong? Too ignorant to understand that nobody knows where the heat came from? Too much of a state-paid propagandist?

The idea of demolition is a far more sensible idea than some piddly little bit of heat from some oxygen-starved jet fuel, jet fuel that might have barely been there at all.

Why are you so in favor of government tyranny, and so much against the people?



EDIT: I DO want to thank you, however. As long as you keep on defending the official story, the authorities who might be out to silence TECSHARE and myself will probably not be so inclined to assassinate us for all the clarity of thinking we have posted in this forum. So, thank you for that, anyway.