FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Does USA have a SuperWeapon?
Does USA have a SuperWeapon?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds like typical US fake news" All those aerial photos are fake? You know this? You have the genuine photos to disprove this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds like typical US fake news All those aerial photos are fake? You know this? You have the genuine photos to disprove this?" Got a brain can think for myself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds like typical US fake news All those aerial photos are fake? You know this? You have the genuine photos to disprove this?Got a brain can think for myself" And your thought process was.... Sounds like fake news. Based on? Do you believe in science? Do you believe that aircraft fuel can melt a steel girder? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The U.S. have a few. The one that they can't keep secret because. It has been installed on their naval ships is ! P.R.G." Thanks for pointing me that way. Those LaWS things look very accurate. Same kind of technology I'm hinting at. If the Americans had developed a device that could destroy an ICBM using laser what stops that being used for ground targets? Do you think they would just throw such amazing waepon away? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Laser weapons systems and railguns are both in active deployment within the US military right now, they just haven't been combat proven nor are they by any means common. They aren't particularly a secret, however few militaries shout about their most up to date weapons unless there is an intimidation factor that they want to exploit. WTC was nothing to do with these. And yes, jet fuel can absolutely melt steel. " Jet fuel can go through 110 stories? That Cessna must have been topped up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Laser weapons systems and railguns are both in active deployment within the US military right now, they just haven't been combat proven nor are they by any means common. They aren't particularly a secret, however few militaries shout about their most up to date weapons unless there is an intimidation factor that they want to exploit. WTC was nothing to do with these. And yes, jet fuel can absolutely melt steel. Jet fuel can go through 110 stories? That Cessna must have been topped up. " No, it melted some of the support beams that held the floors up. They failed and collapsed, overloading the supporting structure for the floors below and down it went like dominoes. And I promise you, the planes were somewhat larger than a Cessna. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Laser weapons systems and railguns are both in active deployment within the US military right now, they just haven't been combat proven nor are they by any means common. They aren't particularly a secret, however few militaries shout about their most up to date weapons unless there is an intimidation factor that they want to exploit. WTC was nothing to do with these. And yes, jet fuel can absolutely melt steel. Jet fuel can go through 110 stories? That Cessna must have been topped up. No, it melted some of the support beams that held the floors up. They failed and collapsed, overloading the supporting structure for the floors below and down it went like dominoes. And I promise you, the planes were somewhat larger than a Cessna." Ahh got it. Larger than a Cessna + jet fuel + support structures + floors below and floors above (like a top hat) = dominoes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump keeps hinting he has a secret weapon. We all suspect he's talking about nukes, right? But they aren't exactly a secret. If you google arial photos of WTC Building 6 you can see a huge circular crater in the center 8 stories high. WTC 1 did not fall on it as it was still standing at the time of the explosion. WTC 2 was on the other side of WTC 1. So what blasted a hole like that through an entire building?" . I shall go with A satellite based magnetic rail gun type weapon capable of striking the ground with pinpoint accuracy as predicted by Steven Segal's film dark territory  .
Or hyper speed drones as claimed by a whistleblower over the Nimitz films  .
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Laser weapons systems and railguns are both in active deployment within the US military right now, they just haven't been combat proven nor are they by any means common. They aren't particularly a secret, however few militaries shout about their most up to date weapons unless there is an intimidation factor that they want to exploit. WTC was nothing to do with these. And yes, jet fuel can absolutely melt steel. Jet fuel can go through 110 stories? That Cessna must have been topped up. " Jet fuel burns at about 1517 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot reach 2777 needed to melt steel. WTC 7 fell at freefall acceleration. This is only possible if supporting structure is removed. There is a 3 part documentary on Amazon proving for various different reasons why the planes could not bring down the towers. Another SLIGHT problem is that the announcement that WTC 7 had collapsed came 20 minutes before it actually collapsed.... ooops. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Laser weapons systems and railguns are both in active deployment within the US military right now, they just haven't been combat proven nor are they by any means common. They aren't particularly a secret, however few militaries shout about their most up to date weapons unless there is an intimidation factor that they want to exploit. WTC was nothing to do with these. And yes, jet fuel can absolutely melt steel. Jet fuel can go through 110 stories? That Cessna must have been topped up. No, it melted some of the support beams that held the floors up. They failed and collapsed, overloading the supporting structure for the floors below and down it went like dominoes. And I promise you, the planes were somewhat larger than a Cessna. Ahh got it. Larger than a Cessna + jet fuel + support structures + floors below and floors above (like a top hat) = dominoes. " This is called pancake theory and it doesn't work. Each collapsing floor absorbs energy which is then lost with each collapsing floor. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. In this case potential energy into Kinetic energy. Thefore in order for a building to fall at freefall energy has to be applied externally... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Laser weapons systems and railguns are both in active deployment within the US military right now, they just haven't been combat proven nor are they by any means common. They aren't particularly a secret, however few militaries shout about their most up to date weapons unless there is an intimidation factor that they want to exploit. WTC was nothing to do with these. And yes, jet fuel can absolutely melt steel. Jet fuel can go through 110 stories? That Cessna must have been topped up. No, it melted some of the support beams that held the floors up. They failed and collapsed, overloading the supporting structure for the floors below and down it went like dominoes. And I promise you, the planes were somewhat larger than a Cessna. Ahh got it. Larger than a Cessna + jet fuel + support structures + floors below and floors above (like a top hat) = dominoes. This is called pancake theory and it doesn't work. Each collapsing floor absorbs energy which is then lost with each collapsing floor. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. In this case potential energy into Kinetic energy. Thefore in order for a building to fall at freefall energy has to be applied externally..." I think your misunderstanding how this works. There is absolutely no way the floors could support the weight of each floor above them. Otherwise the ground floors would have had to be several stories thick. The sheering force on the supports when suddenly subject to an increase of several hundred tons of weight would snap the steel like a twig. Also, lighting a puddle of jet fuel on a steel plate won't liquify it, however it doesn't need to, just soften it till the point it's structure loses its hardness. There was also a lot of extra air from the wind up that high. If you want an example, look at a charcoal forge, there is no way charcoal on its own can melt steel, pump air into it and suddenly you have a couple of thousand degrees and a very hot puddle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Laser weapons systems and railguns are both in active deployment within the US military right now, they just haven't been combat proven nor are they by any means common. They aren't particularly a secret, however few militaries shout about their most up to date weapons unless there is an intimidation factor that they want to exploit. WTC was nothing to do with these. And yes, jet fuel can absolutely melt steel. Jet fuel can go through 110 stories? That Cessna must have been topped up. No, it melted some of the support beams that held the floors up. They failed and collapsed, overloading the supporting structure for the floors below and down it went like dominoes. And I promise you, the planes were somewhat larger than a Cessna. Ahh got it. Larger than a Cessna + jet fuel + support structures + floors below and floors above (like a top hat) = dominoes. This is called pancake theory and it doesn't work. Each collapsing floor absorbs energy which is then lost with each collapsing floor. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. In this case potential energy into Kinetic energy. Thefore in order for a building to fall at freefall energy has to be applied externally... I think your misunderstanding how this works. There is absolutely no way the floors could support the weight of each floor above them. Otherwise the ground floors would have had to be several stories thick. The sheering force on the supports when suddenly subject to an increase of several hundred tons of weight would snap the steel like a twig. Also, lighting a puddle of jet fuel on a steel plate won't liquify it, however it doesn't need to, just soften it till the point it's structure loses its hardness. There was also a lot of extra air from the wind up that high. If you want an example, look at a charcoal forge, there is no way charcoal on its own can melt steel, pump air into it and suddenly you have a couple of thousand degrees and a very hot puddle." Correct. There has been an interesting discussion going on for some time now within the architectural and fire fighting worlds which has concluded that steel structural beams are more likely to deform in a fire leading to structural failure rather then wooden beams which tend to burn on the surface but retain much of their internal strength. Theres a lot of conspiracy theory stuff that is plausible but in the case of 9/11 the science makes more sense than the more outlandish ideas. If you have ever seen a chimney fire then you will have some idea of how the ramjet effect of an uncontrolled fire can easily hollow out a structure leading to its collapse. Most of the fire prevention built into tall buildings is based on preventing this devastating scenario from happening by installing intumescent seals and fire breaks but the cascade of 1000s of gallons of burning jet fuel is beyond the capabilities of any firebreak to withstand imho. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Laser weapons systems and railguns are both in active deployment within the US military right now, they just haven't been combat proven nor are they by any means common. They aren't particularly a secret, however few militaries shout about their most up to date weapons unless there is an intimidation factor that they want to exploit. WTC was nothing to do with these. And yes, jet fuel can absolutely melt steel. Jet fuel can go through 110 stories? That Cessna must have been topped up. No, it melted some of the support beams that held the floors up. They failed and collapsed, overloading the supporting structure for the floors below and down it went like dominoes. And I promise you, the planes were somewhat larger than a Cessna. Ahh got it. Larger than a Cessna + jet fuel + support structures + floors below and floors above (like a top hat) = dominoes. This is called pancake theory and it doesn't work. Each collapsing floor absorbs energy which is then lost with each collapsing floor. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. In this case potential energy into Kinetic energy. Thefore in order for a building to fall at freefall energy has to be applied externally... I think your misunderstanding how this works. There is absolutely no way the floors could support the weight of each floor above them. Otherwise the ground floors would have had to be several stories thick. The sheering force on the supports when suddenly subject to an increase of several hundred tons of weight would snap the steel like a twig. Also, lighting a puddle of jet fuel on a steel plate won't liquify it, however it doesn't need to, just soften it till the point it's structure loses its hardness. There was also a lot of extra air from the wind up that high. If you want an example, look at a charcoal forge, there is no way charcoal on its own can melt steel, pump air into it and suddenly you have a couple of thousand degrees and a very hot puddle. Correct. There has been an interesting discussion going on for some time now within the architectural and fire fighting worlds which has concluded that steel structural beams are more likely to deform in a fire leading to structural failure rather then wooden beams which tend to burn on the surface but retain much of their internal strength. Theres a lot of conspiracy theory stuff that is plausible but in the case of 9/11 the science makes more sense than the more outlandish ideas. If you have ever seen a chimney fire then you will have some idea of how the ramjet effect of an uncontrolled fire can easily hollow out a structure leading to its collapse. Most of the fire prevention built into tall buildings is based on preventing this devastating scenario from happening by installing intumescent seals and fire breaks but the cascade of 1000s of gallons of burning jet fuel is beyond the capabilities of any firebreak to withstand imho." You will know then that the steel in the WTC was chemically coated with fire resistant material. The NIST report concludes that this was dislodged by the impact of the plane. MIT has done a study proving that the Kinetic energy provided by the plane (1 mega joule) was not enough to dislodge this coating (even if it were scattered evenly around over 100 floors of a building). These beams were tested at high temperature for three hours and passed with flying colours. WTC 7 had no jet fuel. Just a few fires on a few floors. It went down just the same. There have been skyscrapers where the entire building has been on fire and not collapsed. Bear in mind that every single girder of 46 has collapse simultaneously for the building to collapse on the path of most resistance. People call this a "conspiracy theory". I call the opposite "coincidence theory" where you require a plethora of unlikely events which contradict science to occur to explain a given occurrence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Jet fuel burns at about 1517 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot reach 2777 needed to melt steel. " This stuff has been debunked over and over. You can put '9/11 jet fuel' into Google and read the explanation for this on multiple sites. But that would require bringing some level of criticism to your own ideas, which, like all conspiracy theorists, you won't be capable of. Conspiracy theorists are the worst  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Laser weapons systems and railguns are both in active deployment within the US military right now, they just haven't been combat proven nor are they by any means common. They aren't particularly a secret, however few militaries shout about their most up to date weapons unless there is an intimidation factor that they want to exploit. WTC was nothing to do with these. And yes, jet fuel can absolutely melt steel. Jet fuel can go through 110 stories? That Cessna must have been topped up. No, it melted some of the support beams that held the floors up. They failed and collapsed, overloading the supporting structure for the floors below and down it went like dominoes. And I promise you, the planes were somewhat larger than a Cessna. Ahh got it. Larger than a Cessna + jet fuel + support structures + floors below and floors above (like a top hat) = dominoes. This is called pancake theory and it doesn't work. Each collapsing floor absorbs energy which is then lost with each collapsing floor. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. In this case potential energy into Kinetic energy. Thefore in order for a building to fall at freefall energy has to be applied externally... I think your misunderstanding how this works. There is absolutely no way the floors could support the weight of each floor above them. Otherwise the ground floors would have had to be several stories thick. The sheering force on the supports when suddenly subject to an increase of several hundred tons of weight would snap the steel like a twig. Also, lighting a puddle of jet fuel on a steel plate won't liquify it, however it doesn't need to, just soften it till the point it's structure loses its hardness. There was also a lot of extra air from the wind up that high. If you want an example, look at a charcoal forge, there is no way charcoal on its own can melt steel, pump air into it and suddenly you have a couple of thousand degrees and a very hot puddle. Correct. There has been an interesting discussion going on for some time now within the architectural and fire fighting worlds which has concluded that steel structural beams are more likely to deform in a fire leading to structural failure rather then wooden beams which tend to burn on the surface but retain much of their internal strength. Theres a lot of conspiracy theory stuff that is plausible but in the case of 9/11 the science makes more sense than the more outlandish ideas. If you have ever seen a chimney fire then you will have some idea of how the ramjet effect of an uncontrolled fire can easily hollow out a structure leading to its collapse. Most of the fire prevention built into tall buildings is based on preventing this devastating scenario from happening by installing intumescent seals and fire breaks but the cascade of 1000s of gallons of burning jet fuel is beyond the capabilities of any firebreak to withstand imho. You will know then that the steel in the WTC was chemically coated with fire resistant material. The NIST report concludes that this was dislodged by the impact of the plane. MIT has done a study proving that the Kinetic energy provided by the plane (1 mega joule) was not enough to dislodge this coating (even if it were scattered evenly around over 100 floors of a building). These beams were tested at high temperature for three hours and passed with flying colours. WTC 7 had no jet fuel. Just a few fires on a few floors. It went down just the same. There have been skyscrapers where the entire building has been on fire and not collapsed. Bear in mind that every single girder of 46 has collapse simultaneously for the building to collapse on the path of most resistance. People call this a "conspiracy theory". I call the opposite "coincidence theory" where you require a plethora of unlikely events which contradict science to occur to explain a given occurrence. " The coating of the beams is an interesting area as they were sprayed with an intumescent coating rather than chemically coated and there are questions about corrosion and poor workmanship that become relevant when this path is followed. One should question whether the insurance costs of a claim against the buildings architects and construction companies would influence the outcome of any investigation - don’t forget that the USA is the most litigious country in the world with almost unlimited damages often being awarded to individuals. I think a cover up seems far more likely than a conspiracy or coincidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Jet fuel burns at about 1517 degrees Fahrenheit. It cannot reach 2777 needed to melt steel. This stuff has been debunked over and over. You can put '9/11 jet fuel' into Google and read the explanation for this on multiple sites. But that would require bringing some level of criticism to your own ideas, which, like all conspiracy theorists, you won't be capable of. Conspiracy theorists are the worst "No the worst are people who counter an argument by saying "Just Google it and see it's wrong". Not only is it a non-argument. It's a lazy non-argument. Tagging a generally aimed insult at the end doesn't give it any extra credence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are clearly desperate for this to be a conspiracy theory, i watched the planes hit the buildings, I'm amazed they stayed up as long as they did. There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that smashing an air liner into the buildings was the reason they fell. To believe that the military somehow managed to fire a weapon at them in front of tens of thousands of people and not a single camera recorded it and there was no form of visual or audible clue is beyond ridiculous. You can run all the lab tests in the world and you will never be able to recreate the exact conditions for that day. " It's not about me. I'm stating facts as they are. There was no reason for those towers to fall. Especially in the manner in which they did. What about WTC 7 which fell with no plane hitting it at all? Making it the only steel structure skyscraper EVER to collapse from fire alone. Just coincidentally going down on next the other two steel structure buildings to EVER collapse from fire. This is not MY opinion. This is the opinion of scientists, world renowned experts in their field. If you think that a collapsing building can collapse at the rate of freefall, that is 9.78 meters per second squared, with 40 000 tons of steel undermeath it then I'm not the one who should be wearing a tin hat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For any 9/11 demolition conspiracy theory to be correct, it would require the conspiracy of hundreds of US Government agents to murder thousands of civilians. And then ALL keep quiet, with that on their conscience. For 18 years. It's absolute horse shit. We all saw the planes hit the towers. Stop being so disrespectful to the dead and just accept the blatantly obvious and only credible theory - some Muslims were terrorists. That's hardly a big leap of faith." What I am doing IS being respectful to the dead. Questioning why and how they died and who killed them instead of believing the dished up crap that Bush coughed up. If America had ANY respect for the victims of the victims they would have investigated. Instead the sites were cleaned up before an investigation could start (totally against protocol). After family members of the victims demanded an investigation $3 million was allocated. Note that $30 million was allocated to investigating Clinton getting a blowjob and $50 million to investigate why the space shuttle exploded. The Manhattan project was kept secret and had over 1000 people working on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jet fuel didn't melt steel beams. Nobody says it did. It weakened them enough to buckle, at which point the building collapsed under it's own weight." However the NIST report was unable to confirm this with experiment. In fact the only experiments done on this have proved the opposite. As stated earlier experiments simulating these conditions showed a buckling of just 3 inches and that took substantially longer. To get the NIST computer simulation to work they needed to increase this buckle displacement to 42 inches to get it to work. In the case of WTC 7 needed to explain that a support beam has "walked off it's mount" through differential thermal expansion. In order for this to work they needed the beam to get hotter that it could have possibly been and the floor immediately above it not to have heated at all. It required a raging fire on a floor which ground level photos showed did not exist. The NIST computer simulation showed a buckling of the WTC 7 which would have popped every window in the building. However only a few windows broke, making this identical to a controlled demolition. Despite WTC 7 being the first and only steel structure building EVER to have collapsed from fire alone (no plane) therw were news reports 20 minutes before the collapse announcing that it had collapsed. As I say there was a branch of the FBI investigating a trillion dollar disappearance from the Pentagon. The office which was mysteriously struck despite being the most difficult approach to the Pentagon and with the least strategic importance. Despite the the hundreds of cameras which would have captured footage of this plane, there is none. Just 5 stills of an explosion which were initially released with the incorrect time stamp. First responders said there was no plane debris, no seats.... nothing to suggest a plane. The investigation is referred to as PENTTBOM. Bomb? What bomb? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks MayContainFullNuts for all the info but I don't believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I watched the bbc conspiracy files programme and it did a great job of debunking the main conspiracy theory arguements. .....Epstein didn't kill himself" When governments get asked questions they can't answer they do two things. Firstly they discredit people asking the questions then they pay scientists to "debunk" these anomalies using bad science. The problem is that real scientists using the "Scientific Method" come along afterward and debunkbthe debunking. If you would like to see this in action then watch "9/11 Ten Years of Deception". It's on Amazon Prime and is a 3 part series. It takes 3 parts to explain all the anomalies in 911 using science and scientific experiments to prove beyond doubt that the towers did not collapse because of fire. It's pretty boring but if you are interested in truth then it's worth watching. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks MayContainFullNuts for all the info but I don't believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I watched the bbc conspiracy files programme and it did a great job of debunking the main conspiracy theory arguements. .....Epstein didn't kill himself When governments get asked questions they can't answer they do two things. Firstly they discredit people asking the questions then they pay scientists to "debunk" these anomalies using bad science. The problem is that real scientists using the "Scientific Method" come along afterward and debunkbthe debunking. If you would like to see this in action then watch "9/11 Ten Years of Deception". It's on Amazon Prime and is a 3 part series. It takes 3 parts to explain all the anomalies in 911 using science and scientific experiments to prove beyond doubt that the towers did not collapse because of fire. It's pretty boring but if you are interested in truth then it's worth watching. " can you tell us what you think really happened then . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok maycontainfullnuts, I'll watch '9/11 Ten Years of Deception' if you watch bbc conspiracy files episodes '9/11', '9/11 - The Third Tower' and '9/11 Ten Years on'. Deal?" Sure I will probably watch them anyway since I'm interested in both sides of every story. In fact in searching for this information I have across an unprecedented amount of documentaries on the subject. Thank you for the references.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have just pulled up the whole NIST report for WTC 7. I suggest you check your sources careful as they are apparently very wrong. To quote directly from the report. The fires in WTC 7 were ignited as a result of the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1. Eventually, the fires reached the northeast region of the building. The probable collapse sequence that caused the global collapse of WTC 7 involved the initiation of the buckling of a critical interior column in that vicinity. This column had become unsupported over nine stories after initial fire-induced damage led to a cascade of local floor failures All in executive summary ES.3 if you want to check. The reports on the buildings 1 and 2 also rule out any controlled demolition as a cause. " If you watch the material I have suggested this exact item you refer to is examined and discussed. The NIST report is concluded to be unscientific. Not by me. By scientists. The area where this weaking is said to have occurred is shown to not even been ablaze at the time that it supposedly happened. This is supported by ground footage. The support you are referring to supposedly walked off it's mounting. Interestingly enough WTC 7 received several awards for being exceptionally well constructed. One of those awards was presented by..... NIST! If you look at the NIST computer simulation you will see the bulding buckles. This is in contradiction to the video footage! Which are you going to believe? Is this the first or second report? The first study used only two points to examine the collapse of the building. How do you examine acceleration with two points. That isn't even science. In a subsequent revision of this data the collapse of the building is divided into three sections. The middle section has a red line used as a median and an equation attached thereto. The rate of acceleration is actually closer to gravitational acceleration than the calculations of the people disputing NIST. NISTs own report is contradictory. For WTC 7 to collapse in the uniform manner in which it did every single support covering the size of just less than a football field needed to collapse simultaneously. Please explain how this is possible with fire in the northeast part of the building? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I admire your commitment funnotfrowns. Hopefully MayContainFullNuts can respond to your points directly without re-directing to another 9/11 conspiracy theory, or devaluing the NIST report." I actually did that in my initial post. To postulate that an incredibly well built structure be the only one of its kind to ever collapse due to fire is far fetched. To be told 20 minutes before it collapsed that would collapse when this had never happened before 9/11 is very insightful. You would imagine that building laws and standards have been amended subsequent to 911? No? How about the points I have raised? Wooosh gone? Hmmmmm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have stated my opinion on why the buildings fell. You are clearly committed to finding some other reason. It was not a controlled demolition, if you read the whole report, they even go into noise levels that would be generated by demolition charges powerful enough to knock the building down and the distance over which they would be heard, there were none. They came down because some nut jobs smashed 2 airliners full of fuel into them at hundreds of miles an hour. That caused the buildings to fail, and that was what killed a lot of helpless innocent people. " I have no dog in this fight. I would love to believe the given story and go on believing a government wouldn't kill it's own people. I'm just unable to discount scientific evidence. Actually there is both eye witness accounts of explosions as well as video footage. That it is not in the NIST report is also very suspicious. Actually amongst academics who are experts in this field scoff at the content of NIST. I find it amusing to have people dogmatically tell me that I am wrong and unable to be persuaded by the truth when they themselves cannot answer basic questions. Also of interest is people who were initially reported to be the terrorists involved in 911 popped up alive and well several weeks later. Quite amusing is a supposed last will and testament of one of the attackers whose luggage conveniently didn't get loaded onto the plane. Would you put your last will and testament on a plane you intended to fly into a building? Other than quoting the NIST report which I raised first as being an article of fraud. I'm not hearing a counter argument... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are lots of suspicious and unexplained incidents during the collapse of the 3 or more buildings. But there is no reference for this . It has never happened before . Computer simulations and comparisons to other “fires in steel buildings” are pretty meaningless . Who knows the exact temperatures inside the buildings and how much internal damage was caused to the twin towers before they collapsed and how much damage the extended fired did in wtc7. I would be much more suspicious about the pentagon hit. That was suspicious " Actually the temperature of hydrocarbon fires is well known to be around 1000 degrees C. Not enough to cause a building to collapse. Metal is pretty well known for conducting heat. Evident on the video is white hot molten metal flowing from the building. Some people are saying this is aluminium... which melts silver... The Pentagon is also a suspicious story. Planes are not made of titanium. They are especially light and relatively flimsy when compared to a concrete wall. Yet the nosecone supposedly poked a hole through ring C. It's a bit like saying shooting a can at 700mph at a building will go through 4 walls and still be recognisable at the other end. The plane needed to be at such a height that it needed to be almost on the ground but not touching the grass. Something few pilots in world could have achieved given the approach. No plane debris. In fact one of the survivors made her way out of the building through the supposed entrance hole with only one shoe and no foot injuries. (Photographed barefoot on the Pentagon lawn). As I say the only footage of this so called plane crash shows A no plane. B the wrong date. I'd call this suspicious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As for inconsistencies with reporting times and names etc. This was one of the most shocking and chaotic events to hit a western city in hundreds of years. It is hardly surprising that some people got things wrong or misremembered information. You cannot pick up tiny points like that then use them as the smoking gun to make it a conspiracy." Ok let's take two points then. If the Shard in London collapsed and killed a load of people do you think there would be an investigation with every tiny piece of evidence examined or do you think it would all be cleaned up and scrapped before any investigator had set foot on it? Two. Do you agree that a building cannot freefall unless it is a controlled demolition? If so the footage is available for you to time with your own stopwatch. It's basic maths. This is science. Not a theory it's displacement over time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As for inconsistencies with reporting times and names etc. This was one of the most shocking and chaotic events to hit a western city in hundreds of years. It is hardly surprising that some people got things wrong or misremembered information. You cannot pick up tiny points like that then use them as the smoking gun to make it a conspiracy. Ok let's take two points then. If the Shard in London collapsed and killed a load of people do you think there would be an investigation with every tiny piece of evidence examined or do you think it would all be cleaned up and scrapped before any investigator had set foot on it? Two. Do you agree that a building cannot freefall unless it is a controlled demolition? If so the footage is available for you to time with your own stopwatch. It's basic maths. This is science. Not a theory it's displacement over time." The demolition of a building and what happened in NYC are 2 totally different scenarios . A building to be demolished is an intact, sound building with no structural defects. When it falls , it only does so because of the action of the explosive charges. In NYC, the buildings were dramatically weakened ( probably in numerous areas in ways we can’t comprehend as it has never happened before ). So when the buildings fell in on themselves , they were already weakened , something a demolished building isn’t . It’s not surprising a weakened building collapses much quicker than a perfectly sound, solid building | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just realised why i don't get involved in these debates; because the likelihood of anyone changing their minds is miniscule. I wish you all the best funnotfrowns, but i fear you may be banging your head against a wall which won't collapse even if a boeing 767 laden with fuel hit it. Take care all xx" When two people sit down to debate they convince themselves more of their own ideas and leave the debate more convinced they are right than ever before. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. Even Al Capone couldn't be convinced he was wrong and insisted he provided a service to the community. However, there's ideas for you to think about. As for convincing me. Well if someone presents me with facts and science to show me I am wrong I'm quite willing to accept that. I would prefer to admit I'm wrong than to live my life believing a lie. However such an argument would be something other than being told I'm a crackpot and having my character questioned by someone who has not even met me. I first get told that aircraft fuel caused WTC 1 & 2 to collapse but when I point out that WTC 7 had no fuel involved it becomes a different debate. Please bear in mind that buildings are designed with fires in mind and designed NOT to collapse. The debris which hit WTC 7 are evident on video footage. It amounts to an object no larger than a smsll truck going at 78mph (highway speeds). The NIST report relies SOLELY on it's computer simulation for which the parameters are not revealed and therefore not subject to public scrutiny. The NIST report is also not subject to peer review and therefore not valid as a scientific document. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As for inconsistencies with reporting times and names etc. This was one of the most shocking and chaotic events to hit a western city in hundreds of years. It is hardly surprising that some people got things wrong or misremembered information. You cannot pick up tiny points like that then use them as the smoking gun to make it a conspiracy. Ok let's take two points then. If the Shard in London collapsed and killed a load of people do you think there would be an investigation with every tiny piece of evidence examined or do you think it would all be cleaned up and scrapped before any investigator had set foot on it? Two. Do you agree that a building cannot freefall unless it is a controlled demolition? If so the footage is available for you to time with your own stopwatch. It's basic maths. This is science. Not a theory it's displacement over time. The demolition of a building and what happened in NYC are 2 totally different scenarios . A building to be demolished is an intact, sound building with no structural defects. When it falls , it only does so because of the action of the explosive charges. In NYC, the buildings were dramatically weakened ( probably in numerous areas in ways we can’t comprehend as it has never happened before ). So when the buildings fell in on themselves , they were already weakened , something a demolished building isn’t . It’s not surprising a weakened building collapses much quicker than a perfectly sound, solid building" An independent investigation showed that the Kinetic energy required for this kind of structure weaking cannot come from one single aircraft. The building was overdesigned to withstand 5 times the supposed energy supplied by a fully fuelled plane. Scientificly the building cannot have collapsed from the combination of plane and fire. Another point is that for a building to fall into its own footprint requires a specific simultaneous weakening at every point. This is something controlled demolitions get wrong now and again. Buildings fall according to the path of least resistance. For the least resistance to be directly below means that the floor below needs to give way before it is struck by the collapsing floor above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just realised why i don't get involved in these debates; because the likelihood of anyone changing their minds is miniscule. I wish you all the best funnotfrowns, but i fear you may be banging your head against a wall which won't collapse even if a boeing 767 laden with fuel hit it. Take care all xx When two people sit down to debate they convince themselves more of their own ideas and leave the debate more convinced they are right than ever before. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. Even Al Capone couldn't be convinced he was wrong and insisted he provided a service to the community. However, there's ideas for you to think about. As for convincing me. Well if someone presents me with facts and science to show me I am wrong I'm quite willing to accept that. I would prefer to admit I'm wrong than to live my life believing a lie. However such an argument would be something other than being told I'm a crackpot and having my character questioned by someone who has not even met me. I first get told that aircraft fuel caused WTC 1 & 2 to collapse but when I point out that WTC 7 had no fuel involved it becomes a different debate. Please bear in mind that buildings are designed with fires in mind and designed NOT to collapse. The debris which hit WTC 7 are evident on video footage. It amounts to an object no larger than a smsll truck going at 78mph (highway speeds). The NIST report relies SOLELY on it's computer simulation for which the parameters are not revealed and therefore not subject to public scrutiny. The NIST report is also not subject to peer review and therefore not valid as a scientific document. " If the official reports are not acceptable to you as evidence, please explain what actually brought down the buildings. Not random people on YouTube, but what do you actually think caused it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just realised why i don't get involved in these debates; because the likelihood of anyone changing their minds is miniscule. I wish you all the best funnotfrowns, but i fear you may be banging your head against a wall which won't collapse even if a boeing 767 laden with fuel hit it. Take care all xx When two people sit down to debate they convince themselves more of their own ideas and leave the debate more convinced they are right than ever before. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. Even Al Capone couldn't be convinced he was wrong and insisted he provided a service to the community. However, there's ideas for you to think about. As for convincing me. Well if someone presents me with facts and science to show me I am wrong I'm quite willing to accept that. I would prefer to admit I'm wrong than to live my life believing a lie. However such an argument would be something other than being told I'm a crackpot and having my character questioned by someone who has not even met me. I first get told that aircraft fuel caused WTC 1 & 2 to collapse but when I point out that WTC 7 had no fuel involved it becomes a different debate. Please bear in mind that buildings are designed with fires in mind and designed NOT to collapse. The debris which hit WTC 7 are evident on video footage. It amounts to an object no larger than a smsll truck going at 78mph (highway speeds). The NIST report relies SOLELY on it's computer simulation for which the parameters are not revealed and therefore not subject to public scrutiny. The NIST report is also not subject to peer review and therefore not valid as a scientific document. If the official reports are not acceptable to you as evidence, please explain what actually brought down the buildings. Not random people on YouTube, but what do you actually think caused it?" If you like official reports there is even one that proves Donald Trump was right when he doctored a weather chart with a sharpie. When the people responsible for commissioning the report are the same ones responsible for the attacks then I don't give them as much credence. In answer to your question, my initial post was in reference to Building 6 which has a huge circular crater through the middle of it. We are told this from the North wall of WTC 1 falling on it. I find it remarkable that it landed in the exact centre without destroying the surrounding walls. Curious. The remarkable difference in the destruction from similar causes makes me believe that there were both multiple motives for the attacks as well as multiple methods. I believe WTC 1, 2 & 7 were controlled demolitions because there is evidence of explosives and spherical balls of molten metetal unique to the use of thermite. WTC 6 I believe was the testing of a superweapon the USA has developed. The Pentagon I believe to be either a missile or series of charges. I haven't gone into that investigation in any detail. As for keeping something secret. Well we went though most of WWII having cracked the German and Japanese codes. This was kept secret by a lot of people. The fact this was declassified in 1978 proves that America was aware that the Japanese fleet was moving into a position to invade Pearl Harbour. Knowing the Japanese codes was considered the deciding factor in the battle of Midway. American response was to move their best and newest ships out of the harbour. To suggest after this that the American government would not sacrifice American lives in order to justify military action is to ignore history. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So do you really think the US government killl over 3000 ppl in the twin towers then ?" The government as a whole no. Elements within the government. Yes. Do you think members of an American administration would organise the break in of the DNC headquarters? Do you think a President and his administration would try to cover it up? Do you think a President would involve a foreign power in the investigation against his own political rival? Do you think he would use his influence to interfere with an investigation on this. Do you think an American president would threaten to imprison a whistleblower as a spy? Do you think the NSA would spy on it's own people without a warrant or probable cause? By the way one of the people saying 911 wasn't Bin Laden is Trump himself. The best argument that it was Bin Laden. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So do you really think the US government killl over 3000 ppl in the twin towers then ? The government as a whole no. Elements within the government. Yes. Do you think members of an American administration would organise the break in of the DNC headquarters? Do you think a President and his administration would try to cover it up? Do you think a President would involve a foreign power in the investigation against his own political rival? Do you think he would use his influence to interfere with an investigation on this. Do you think an American president would threaten to imprison a whistleblower as a spy? Do you think the NSA would spy on it's own people without a warrant or probable cause? By the way one of the people saying 911 wasn't Bin Laden is Trump himself. The best argument that it was Bin Laden. " and why do you think they done that what is there motive to murder 300 ppl ? And do you think the president was involved ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So do you really think the US government killl over 3000 ppl in the twin towers then ?" Would soldiers ever be sent into a battle where they faced certain death with no hope of strategic gain? Guess the charge of the light brigade never happened. Has a pawn ever been sacrificed to win a Queen? Hmmmm. On top of the fact that the Bush family and Texaco oil made a fortune out of oil going to record highs of $142 per barrel and oil taken from Iraq for 'reparations' the war probably gave Bush a second turn of office. There is also the matter of a trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon. Coincidentally the two points of reference for this investigation were in an FBI office in the WTC buildings and in the Pentagon, the area destroyed in 911 although this area was of the least strategically valuable (as well as the hardest to hit with a plane). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump keeps hinting he has a secret weapon. We all suspect he's talking about nukes, right? But they aren't exactly a secret. If you google arial photos of WTC Building 6 you can see a huge circular crater in the center 8 stories high. WTC 1 did not fall on it as it was still standing at the time of the explosion. WTC 2 was on the other side of WTC 1. So what blasted a hole like that through an entire building?" Americas SuperWeapon is called Trump. America is now armed to the teeth with a first class Idiot. Nobody else has one. It's a Beautiful Thing, it really is, and everybody is talking about it. They really are!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So do you really think the US government killl over 3000 ppl in the twin towers then ? The government as a whole no. Elements within the government. Yes. Do you think members of an American administration would organise the break in of the DNC headquarters? Do you think a President and his administration would try to cover it up? Do you think a President would involve a foreign power in the investigation against his own political rival? Do you think he would use his influence to interfere with an investigation on this. Do you think an American president would threaten to imprison a whistleblower as a spy? Do you think the NSA would spy on it's own people without a warrant or probable cause? By the way one of the people saying 911 wasn't Bin Laden is Trump himself. The best argument that it was Bin Laden. and why do you think they done that what is there motive to murder 300 ppl ? And do you think the president was involved ?" They had nothing personal against the people in 911, they needed sufficient outrage to justify two wars. A car bomb or something small would not have been enough. There is evidence that there was a tip off about the attack as bomb sniffing dogs were reported in the area as early as 7:30am. There are also 37 suspicious incidents of 'insider trading' in the 10 years prior to 911. Only 33 of these suspicious actions happened prior to known events. 13 of these connected to "put options" on American airlines and United which both fell from $30 to $19. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Trump keeps hinting he has a secret weapon. We all suspect he's talking about nukes, right? But they aren't exactly a secret. If you google arial photos of WTC Building 6 you can see a huge circular crater in the center 8 stories high. WTC 1 did not fall on it as it was still standing at the time of the explosion. WTC 2 was on the other side of WTC 1. So what blasted a hole like that through an entire building? Americas SuperWeapon is called Trump. America is now armed to the teeth with a first class Idiot. Nobody else has one. It's a Beautiful Thing, it really is, and everybody is talking about it. They really are! "He said that in a speech the other day didn't he. Everyone is talking about us..... well that IS true.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Propaganda works, especially if you don't accurately provide all of the details of what is disclosed, as it lets imagination and uncertainty drive peoples own fears etc. It also helps to prevent others from knowing with much certainty when they have learned your secrets, should they ever get an opportunity. Trump has form for bigging himself up, which can now be expanded to incorporate the USA, which is himself. He was the biggest, most successful business man the world has and will ever see - but only according to him. Whilst supply companies may leave trails on their developments, you'll typically not find much that's top secret and classified. You'd not want other states to reverse engineer deactivation tools or more powerful weapons for free for them. So vague talk, without detailed specifications, ought to be the most that the opposition gets. If Trump baits other states, it's possible fine, unless they pursue easier annihilation of you in response. It's feasible that some states such as Russia are better equipped than the USA is but all sides will continue their development of new technologies for deployment. I didn't get the ops conflagration of this with a WTC collapse and huge hole - I'm assuming there's no suggestion of use of a US missile to make the hole. " Great post. Thank you
With regard to Trumps success as a businessman I am given to understand that he has gone bankrupt 6 times and lost over $1 billion according to some of his tax records. It just shows what good press can do.
We all know USA has nukes. That's no secret. So it looks like he's dying to spill the beans and brag. One reason why might not is it might give clues as to what happened to WTC 6. You may remember Reagan announcing the star wars project in 1983. Within 6 years the Russians had abandoned the arms race. Could it be that they knew USA could shoot down an ICBM from space...? Who knows?
As to a missile hitting WTC 6 there were just too many cameras rolling to cover that up.
As for the Pentagon all camera footage that would have revealed the presence of a plane has been confiscated. If there is nothing to hide why is this top secret? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He said that in a speech the other day didn't he. Everyone is talking about us..... well that IS true.. " Truely true lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need a conspiracy thread .. Who killed JFK ??and did the Middle Ages actually happen.?? Did dinosaurs build the pyramids?? " Don't you dare tell me the Easter bunny isn't real! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need a conspiracy thread .. Who killed JFK ??and did the Middle Ages actually happen.?? Did dinosaurs build the pyramids?? Don't you dare tell me the Easter bunny isn't real!" I once saw a rabbit shagging a chicken and came to the conclusion that’s where Easter eggs came from.. There’s an element of truth in all myths. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need a conspiracy thread .. Who killed JFK ??and did the Middle Ages actually happen.?? Did dinosaurs build the pyramids?? " Cock Robbin Killed JFK and the Middle Ages must have happened co's you can't have had Oldern Times and Modern Day without 'something' in the middle! One eyed Dinosaurs built the Pyramids - I think they were called: DoYaFinkTheySaurus. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need a conspiracy thread .. Who killed JFK ??and did the Middle Ages actually happen.?? Did dinosaurs build the pyramids?? Cock Robbin Killed JFK and the Middle Ages must have happened co's you can't have had Oldern Times and Modern Day without 'something' in the middle! One eyed Dinosaurs built the Pyramids - I think they were called: DoYaFinkTheySaurus. " Yeah and the 1st dinosaurs to go extinct were the lesbian ones lickalotofpus. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s an element of truth in all myths. "Are you sure that's the truth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s an element of truth in all myths.
Are you sure that's the truth?"A subjective truth.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thermite would be a seriously poor choice if you wanted to do a controlled demolition, it's messy and unpredictable, and unless you were using oil drum sized amounts it wouldn't do what you think it does to concrete or RSJ's, then there would be the small matter of hiding all those barrels. For dems you'd use standoff shaped charges and charges inserted into key supports. To rig buildings this size would take months and EVERYONE even remotely inside the building would know about it as the amount of drilling would be insane. Also there are no external signs of sequence charges going off. I know you won't believe me, but from what I remember you saying somewhere else, you are military. If I have remembered correctly, next time you speak to EOD or someone with dems training, tell them you want to blow up a skyscraper, but that you want to do it so no one hears. It isn't possible." Again I invite you to watch the series I have recommended. It explains everything. I am not prepared to discuss anything military except that I have, like many South African men my age, had advanced military training and held rank. Once you have discounted the NIST report as a non scientific report, then all articles using the NIST as proof 'debunking' things like pancake theory are irrelevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need a conspiracy thread .. Who killed JFK ??and did the Middle Ages actually happen.?? Did dinosaurs build the pyramids?? Cock Robbin Killed JFK and the Middle Ages must have happened co's you can't have had Oldern Times and Modern Day without 'something' in the middle! One eyed Dinosaurs built the Pyramids - I think they were called: DoYaFinkTheySaurus. Yeah and the 1st dinosaurs to go extinct were the lesbian ones lickalotofpus." Also fistapusasorus. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We need a conspiracy thread .. Who killed JFK ??and did the Middle Ages actually happen.?? Did dinosaurs build the pyramids?? Cock Robbin Killed JFK and the Middle Ages must have happened co's you can't have had Oldern Times and Modern Day without 'something' in the middle! One eyed Dinosaurs built the Pyramids - I think they were called: DoYaFinkTheySaurus. Yeah and the 1st dinosaurs to go extinct were the lesbian ones lickalotofpus.Also fistapusasorus." Maybe the all just started having anal and that's why they went extinct. (See Meggasoreass) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" He said that in a speech the other day didn't he. Everyone is talking about us..... well that IS true.. Truely true lol. " Just going from memory of that clip he also said that Americans had experienced a huge tax cut, the biggest in American history. It's true. Wealthy Americans have never had it so good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thermite would be a seriously poor choice if you wanted to do a controlled demolition, it's messy and unpredictable, and unless you were using oil drum sized amounts it wouldn't do what you think it does to concrete or RSJ's, then there would be the small matter of hiding all those barrels. For dems you'd use standoff shaped charges and charges inserted into key supports. To rig buildings this size would take months and EVERYONE even remotely inside the building would know about it as the amount of drilling would be insane. Also there are no external signs of sequence charges going off. I know you won't believe me, but from what I remember you saying somewhere else, you are military. If I have remembered correctly, next time you speak to EOD or someone with dems training, tell them you want to blow up a skyscraper, but that you want to do it so no one hears. It isn't possible." Just as a matter of interest the steel columns had holes in them which could have housed substances quite easily. An experiment using a replica of these supports was effectively sheared using homemade thermate (thermite with sulphur added). These days we have Nanothermite which explodes many times faster and can even be applied as a spray. One helicopter view shows the top tower breaking away and then disintegrating into dust from forces unknown, parts of it changing direction and leaving a white trail indicative of thermetic reaction. Some of the debris are falling faster than gravitational falling objects indicating they were propelled by an explosion. You mentioned that the steel was weakened but did not melt. Yes, of the evidence that was not whisked away there is knife edged steel with holes burned through which cannot be explained. Some of the steel melted and firefighters mentioned steel running like melted lava from a volcano. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thermite would be a seriously poor choice if you wanted to do a controlled demolition, it's messy and unpredictable, and unless you were using oil drum sized amounts it wouldn't do what you think it does to concrete or RSJ's, then there would be the small matter of hiding all those barrels. For dems you'd use standoff shaped charges and charges inserted into key supports. To rig buildings this size would take months and EVERYONE even remotely inside the building would know about it as the amount of drilling would be insane. Also there are no external signs of sequence charges going off. I know you won't believe me, but from what I remember you saying somewhere else, you are military. If I have remembered correctly, next time you speak to EOD or someone with dems training, tell them you want to blow up a skyscraper, but that you want to do it so no one hears. It isn't possible. Just as a matter of interest the steel columns had holes in them which could have housed substances quite easily. An experiment using a replica of these supports was effectively sheared using homemade thermate (thermite with sulphur added). These days we have Nanothermite which explodes many times faster and can even be applied as a spray. One helicopter view shows the top tower breaking away and then disintegrating into dust from forces unknown, parts of it changing direction and leaving a white trail indicative of thermetic reaction. Some of the debris are falling faster than gravitational falling objects indicating they were propelled by an explosion. You mentioned that the steel was weakened but did not melt. Yes, of the evidence that was not whisked away there is knife edged steel with holes burned through which cannot be explained. Some of the steel melted and firefighters mentioned steel running like melted lava from a volcano. " fullnuts howay man this is a wind up isn’t it ??? You don’t believe it was the US government your pulling our legs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thermite would be a seriously poor choice if you wanted to do a controlled demolition, it's messy and unpredictable, and unless you were using oil drum sized amounts it wouldn't do what you think it does to concrete or RSJ's, then there would be the small matter of hiding all those barrels. For dems you'd use standoff shaped charges and charges inserted into key supports. To rig buildings this size would take months and EVERYONE even remotely inside the building would know about it as the amount of drilling would be insane. Also there are no external signs of sequence charges going off. I know you won't believe me, but from what I remember you saying somewhere else, you are military. If I have remembered correctly, next time you speak to EOD or someone with dems training, tell them you want to blow up a skyscraper, but that you want to do it so no one hears. It isn't possible. Just as a matter of interest the steel columns had holes in them which could have housed substances quite easily. An experiment using a replica of these supports was effectively sheared using homemade thermate (thermite with sulphur added). These days we have Nanothermite which explodes many times faster and can even be applied as a spray. One helicopter view shows the top tower breaking away and then disintegrating into dust from forces unknown, parts of it changing direction and leaving a white trail indicative of thermetic reaction. Some of the debris are falling faster than gravitational falling objects indicating they were propelled by an explosion. You mentioned that the steel was weakened but did not melt. Yes, of the evidence that was not whisked away there is knife edged steel with holes burned through which cannot be explained. Some of the steel melted and firefighters mentioned steel running like melted lava from a volcano. fullnuts howay man this is a wind up isn’t it ??? You don’t believe it was the US government your pulling our legs " I should also add that in the same year of 911 there was an extensive elevator "refurbishment", thus providing required opportunity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you start using thermic reactions with nano sized particles, you end up back in the realms of explosives. This would be easily identifiable from external sources. Plus again, you would need this to go off in a controlled sequence. Also, you can't just dump a ton of stuff in a lift shaft. Yes it provides a chimney but the whole structure of the building isn't dependant on a shaft like that as a building is designed to work round an intentional weak spot like a known hole that runs up the building. Please go watch some footage from genuine demolition companies so you understand just how much work is involved with a controlled demolition. And the vast amounts of pre weakening that are required. It would be utterly impossible to hide it from people in the building." I will certainly do this. Thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you start using thermic reactions with nano sized particles, you end up back in the realms of explosives. This would be easily identifiable from external sources. Plus again, you would need this to go off in a controlled sequence. Also, you can't just dump a ton of stuff in a lift shaft. Yes it provides a chimney but the whole structure of the building isn't dependant on a shaft like that as a building is designed to work round an intentional weak spot like a known hole that runs up the building. Please go watch some footage from genuine demolition companies so you understand just how much work is involved with a controlled demolition. And the vast amounts of pre weakening that are required. It would be utterly impossible to hide it from people in the building." I have now watched testimony and opinion from demolition experts. Some things become immediately clear. What was used to destroy WTC 1 and WTC 2 are very different to what happened in WTC7. Experiments used to demonstrate that thermite loosely packed around an iron girder would not be cut. It definitely wasn't thermite. A problem which immediately occurs to me if WTC 1 & 2 were packed with explosives why were these explosives not set off my the initial explosion of the planes? Fortunately I have a bit of knowledge regarding nanotechnology and there is a chance that the phone in your hand is protected against water and shock using a nanoplasma layer thinner that 1/1000th of the thickness of a human hair. And that the machines that did that work had much of the control system done by yours truly. Here's what the "truthers" have been able to establish. Thermate (not thermite) cannot be lit using a standard fuse. It's not hot enough. Nanothermite or Superthermite is not available to the public or demolition contractors. Home made Nanothermite was proven to both cut through beams and produce two byproducts known as microspheres and Nanotubes. All dust collected from the NYC contained microspheres showing that steel was not just melted, but vaporized. Lung examinations of 911 responders showed varying amounts of nanotubes. Dust also had micro particles of orange flakes which when sufficiently heated had an exothermic reaction. Nanothermite or Superthermite is military grade. Doing experiments without it is pointless. Opinions from people who don't use it is likewise, pointless. The explosion from the WTC 1 & 2 created a pyroplastic dust cloud. Which was so superheated that it set cars on fire as it passed. The quantity of smoke generated far exceeds what would be expected from a simply collapsed burning building. 21 days after 911 and despite days of rain and being soaked with water cannons some of the debris was still white hot. This is not possible with kerosene or even TNT or RDX, but typical of Thermitic reactions which can take place underwater. Also apparent is that NIST itself had discounted pancake theory. NIST found no evidence of explosives because no experiment was ever made to look for explosives. The NIST report does not have one eye witness testimony despite video footage and over 150 eyewitnesses describing explosions. One supposed failing of "Truther" theory is a lack of charges. An experiment using a hotplate was used to trigger Nanothermite. Proving that whilst kerosene heat would not set off Nanothermite, one Nanothermite explosion would provide enough heat to trigger the next in a domino effect. Thank you for your references. It certainly helps me understand the "how" and also the "who" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please just stop, there is so much pseudo science in your last post it's actually making my head hurt. Attaching the word nano to everything in sight doesn't make it true, or the sight of a conspiracy. By nanotubes, I assume you mean carbon ones. You can get these deposits from burning plastic. Thermate is derivative of thermite, the basics of the reaction are the same but with added barium nitrate. Given that it contains predominantly metals that are found in abundance in a building (I am not going to publish it's make up publicly) it is not surprising thaces of these were found. Absolutely none of this shows intentional demolition. Unfortunately what you are doing is ignoring the truth and seeking out a much more exciting conspiracy story. " This is a nano thread lol lol lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you start using thermic reactions with nano sized particles, you end up back in the realms of explosives. This would be easily identifiable from external sources. Plus again, you would need this to go off in a controlled sequence. Also, you can't just dump a ton of stuff in a lift shaft. Yes it provides a chimney but the whole structure of the building isn't dependant on a shaft like that as a building is designed to work round an intentional weak spot like a known hole that runs up the building. Please go watch some footage from genuine demolition companies so you understand just how much work is involved with a controlled demolition. And the vast amounts of pre weakening that are required. It would be utterly impossible to hide it from people in the building. I have now watched testimony and opinion from demolition experts. Some things become immediately clear. What was used to destroy WTC 1 and WTC 2 are very different to what happened in WTC7. Experiments used to demonstrate that thermite loosely packed around an iron girder would not be cut. It definitely wasn't thermite. A problem which immediately occurs to me if WTC 1 & 2 were packed with explosives why were these explosives not set off my the initial explosion of the planes? Fortunately I have a bit of knowledge regarding nanotechnology and there is a chance that the phone in your hand is protected against water and shock using a nanoplasma layer thinner that 1/1000th of the thickness of a human hair. And that the machines that did that work had much of the control system done by yours truly. Here's what the "truthers" have been able to establish. Thermate (not thermite) cannot be lit using a standard fuse. It's not hot enough. Nanothermite or Superthermite is not available to the public or demolition contractors. Home made Nanothermite was proven to both cut through beams and produce two byproducts known as microspheres and Nanotubes. All dust collected from the NYC contained microspheres showing that steel was not just melted, but vaporized. Lung examinations of 911 responders showed varying amounts of nanotubes. Dust also had micro particles of orange flakes which when sufficiently heated had an exothermic reaction. Nanothermite or Superthermite is military grade. Doing experiments without it is pointless. Opinions from people who don't use it is likewise, pointless. The explosion from the WTC 1 & 2 created a pyroplastic dust cloud. Which was so superheated that it set cars on fire as it passed. The quantity of smoke generated far exceeds what would be expected from a simply collapsed burning building. 21 days after 911 and despite days of rain and being soaked with water cannons some of the debris was still white hot. This is not possible with kerosene or even TNT or RDX, but typical of Thermitic reactions which can take place underwater. Also apparent is that NIST itself had discounted pancake theory. NIST found no evidence of explosives because no experiment was ever made to look for explosives. The NIST report does not have one eye witness testimony despite video footage and over 150 eyewitnesses describing explosions. One supposed failing of "Truther" theory is a lack of charges. An experiment using a hotplate was used to trigger Nanothermite. Proving that whilst kerosene heat would not set off Nanothermite, one Nanothermite explosion would provide enough heat to trigger the next in a domino effect. Thank you for your references. It certainly helps me understand the "how" and also the "who" "Bloody hell mate i can see why your name is may contain full nuts  .Trump couldnt even keep the contents of a phone call secret how the hell do you think your theory was kept secret taking in to account how many people would have to be involved? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please just stop, there is so much pseudo science in your last post it's actually making my head hurt. Attaching the word nano to everything in sight doesn't make it true, or the sight of a conspiracy. By nanotubes, I assume you mean carbon ones. You can get these deposits from burning plastic. Thermate is derivative of thermite, the basics of the reaction are the same but with added barium nitrate. Given that it contains predominantly metals that are found in abundance in a building (I am not going to publish it's make up publicly) it is not surprising thaces of these were found. Absolutely none of this shows intentional demolition. Unfortunately what you are doing is ignoring the truth and seeking out a much more exciting conspiracy story. " Like I say, watch the presentations and see the scientists with their make believe PhDs explain 'pseudoscience' to you. The process of making this is explained. There is also an explanation of why this is so much faster being on the chain of the same molecule rather than a different compound. I'm stupid and I understood it. First we are shown a clip from National geographic 'proving how thermite can't cut through a steel girder' using 75 lbs of thermite. Then another of a "Truther" using 1.5 lbs of home made thermate (sulphur added) to cut through an entire girder. But hey don't watch it. Put your fingers in your ears and deny Newton's laws of motion, deny the laws of Thermodynamics. No difference to me.... just telling you guys what someone much wiser than me said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you start using thermic reactions with nano sized particles, you end up back in the realms of explosives. This would be easily identifiable from external sources. Plus again, you would need this to go off in a controlled sequence. Also, you can't just dump a ton of stuff in a lift shaft. Yes it provides a chimney but the whole structure of the building isn't dependant on a shaft like that as a building is designed to work round an intentional weak spot like a known hole that runs up the building. Please go watch some footage from genuine demolition companies so you understand just how much work is involved with a controlled demolition. And the vast amounts of pre weakening that are required. It would be utterly impossible to hide it from people in the building. I have now watched testimony and opinion from demolition experts. Some things become immediately clear. What was used to destroy WTC 1 and WTC 2 are very different to what happened in WTC7. Experiments used to demonstrate that thermite loosely packed around an iron girder would not be cut. It definitely wasn't thermite. A problem which immediately occurs to me if WTC 1 & 2 were packed with explosives why were these explosives not set off my the initial explosion of the planes? Fortunately I have a bit of knowledge regarding nanotechnology and there is a chance that the phone in your hand is protected against water and shock using a nanoplasma layer thinner that 1/1000th of the thickness of a human hair. And that the machines that did that work had much of the control system done by yours truly. Here's what the "truthers" have been able to establish. Thermate (not thermite) cannot be lit using a standard fuse. It's not hot enough. Nanothermite or Superthermite is not available to the public or demolition contractors. Home made Nanothermite was proven to both cut through beams and produce two byproducts known as microspheres and Nanotubes. All dust collected from the NYC contained microspheres showing that steel was not just melted, but vaporized. Lung examinations of 911 responders showed varying amounts of nanotubes. Dust also had micro particles of orange flakes which when sufficiently heated had an exothermic reaction. Nanothermite or Superthermite is military grade. Doing experiments without it is pointless. Opinions from people who don't use it is likewise, pointless. The explosion from the WTC 1 & 2 created a pyroplastic dust cloud. Which was so superheated that it set cars on fire as it passed. The quantity of smoke generated far exceeds what would be expected from a simply collapsed burning building. 21 days after 911 and despite days of rain and being soaked with water cannons some of the debris was still white hot. This is not possible with kerosene or even TNT or RDX, but typical of Thermitic reactions which can take place underwater. Also apparent is that NIST itself had discounted pancake theory. NIST found no evidence of explosives because no experiment was ever made to look for explosives. The NIST report does not have one eye witness testimony despite video footage and over 150 eyewitnesses describing explosions. One supposed failing of "Truther" theory is a lack of charges. An experiment using a hotplate was used to trigger Nanothermite. Proving that whilst kerosene heat would not set off Nanothermite, one Nanothermite explosion would provide enough heat to trigger the next in a domino effect. Thank you for your references. It certainly helps me understand the "how" and also the "who" Bloody hell mate i can see why your name is may contain full nuts .Trump couldnt even keep the contents of a phone call secret how the hell do you think your theory was kept secret taking in to account how many people would have to be involved?"Are you suggesting that everything going on is known by everyone? That there are NO government secrets? Again I remind you that the Germans and Japanese continued to use their codes in WWII because they did not know that the codes had been broken. This is a secret that was kept by thousands of people despite the existence of spies. On WWII mock airfields were constructed to make it seem like we had more planes. This also took huge manpower but remained a secret... Etc etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the alluminati lol" The illuminati and their lizard overlords get a lot of bad press I’m sure their intentions are benevolent and they don’t want to harvest our brains.. I blame David Icke... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the alluminati lol The illuminati and their lizard overlords get a lot of bad press I’m sure their intentions are benevolent and they don’t want to harvest our brains.. I blame David Icke... "Yeah stupid idiot. He must have just been lucky when he predicted 911 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve watched some of the documentaries and I’m unconvinced that it was an inside job with the twin towers Building 7 though is a bit anomalous.Still it’s hard to believe that some shadowy organisation would sacrifice thousands of their citizens to get Iraq’s oil and a war." Who was Timothy Mcveigh again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the alluminati lol The illuminati and their lizard overlords get a lot of bad press I’m sure their intentions are benevolent and they don’t want to harvest our brains.. I blame David Icke...
Yeah stupid idiot. He must have just been lucky when he predicted 911 "If you say enough crazy shit sometimes you get lucky.
I’m still not convinced the queen is a blood sucking lizard .I guess that’s one of his prophecies yet to be proven...
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the alluminati lol The illuminati and their lizard overlords get a lot of bad press I’m sure their intentions are benevolent and they don’t want to harvest our brains.. I blame David Icke... "I find it difficult to imagine that a human being could do to another human being what happened in MKUltra. But there you go. Same people. Lots of people involved. Kept secret for how long....??? Hmmm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the alluminati lol The illuminati and their lizard overlords get a lot of bad press I’m sure their intentions are benevolent and they don’t want to harvest our brains.. I blame David Icke...
I find it difficult to imagine that a human being could do to another human being what happened in MKUltra. But there you go. Same people.
Lots of people involved. Kept secret for how long....??? Hmmm."do you believe man walked on the moon and the earths round ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the alluminati lol The illuminati and their lizard overlords get a lot of bad press I’m sure their intentions are benevolent and they don’t want to harvest our brains.. I blame David Icke...
I find it difficult to imagine that a human being could do to another human being what happened in MKUltra. But there you go. Same people.
Lots of people involved. Kept secret for how long....??? Hmmm."I get people can keep secrets. Loose lips sink ships as my granddad used to say. But a government attack on its own citizens on the scale of 911 if proven would fracture America forever . It just seems overkill and to risk to start a war and get rich . You’ve described the how it could be done but not the why . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the alluminati lol The illuminati and their lizard overlords get a lot of bad press I’m sure their intentions are benevolent and they don’t want to harvest our brains.. I blame David Icke...
I find it difficult to imagine that a human being could do to another human being what happened in MKUltra. But there you go. Same people.
Lots of people involved. Kept secret for how long....??? Hmmm.
I get people can keep secrets.
Loose lips sink ships as my granddad used to say.
But a government attack on its own citizens on the scale of 911 if proven would fracture America forever .
It just seems overkill and to risk to start a war and get rich .
You’ve described the how it could be done but not the why ."allmost impossible to keep secrets now with the internet and of all the ways to make money for ppl who are already rich to murder more than 3000 ppl live on Telly I think they could come up woth a better plan even baldrick coud better that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the alluminati lol The illuminati and their lizard overlords get a lot of bad press I’m sure their intentions are benevolent and they don’t want to harvest our brains.. I blame David Icke...
Yeah stupid idiot. He must have just been lucky when he predicted 911 "Now i know you are on a wind up if you believe in david icke.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the alluminati lol The illuminati and their lizard overlords get a lot of bad press I’m sure their intentions are benevolent and they don’t want to harvest our brains.. I blame David Icke...
I find it difficult to imagine that a human being could do to another human being what happened in MKUltra. But there you go. Same people.
Lots of people involved. Kept secret for how long....??? Hmmm. do you believe man walked on the moon and the earths round ?"The earth isn't round, it's spherical. Look at me being all dogmatic!  Man has walked on the moon, we've installed reflectors on the moon.
But here's an easy test. Get someone to stand on a flat bit of ground with the horizon behind them and take two photos. One from head hight and one from hip height. Notice the position of the horizon. Then look at the Apollo 11 photos. Draw your own conclusions... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the alluminati lol The illuminati and their lizard overlords get a lot of bad press I’m sure their intentions are benevolent and they don’t want to harvest our brains.. I blame David Icke...
I find it difficult to imagine that a human being could do to another human being what happened in MKUltra. But there you go. Same people.
Lots of people involved. Kept secret for how long....??? Hmmm.
I get people can keep secrets.
Loose lips sink ships as my granddad used to say.
But a government attack on its own citizens on the scale of 911 if proven would fracture America forever .
It just seems overkill and to risk to start a war and get rich .
You’ve described the how it could be done but not the why ."You are assuming the rich care about the lives of day to day citizens. If they did Trump wouldn't have just overturned all of the environmental protection policies preventing corporations from damaging our environment. We think the rich are happy with their wealth. I was schooled with the rich and many of them only looked at the next guy who was richer. Here's a question. Who funded Adolf Hitler in WWII? What action was taken against them? Why are they not a commonly known entity? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your seeing the letters Phd after someone's name and they are spinning you a great sounding story and you are just accepting it as true. They are taking a bunch of bits of genuine science and squashing them all together that makes something that sounds possible, however these are all unconnected in the real world. This military grade thermite you keep going on about is nothing that special, I can literally make it in my kitchen with stuff off Amazon. It's not some secret military only tech. Also your previous point about it being hard to light was wrong, it's actually easier to light than regular thermite, that's what the sulphur is for, a kids sparkler is more than enough. You insist that the laws of thermodynamics somehow proves something because metal conducts heat. I'm actually baffled as to what you think this proves, yes metal conducts heat, however once you exceed it's thermal conductivity (it's ability to convey heat) then it gets hotter and hotter till it is structurally weekend or it melts. That's literally all that point proves!" I don't believe in them as people. I look at the science they are presenting and weigh it against my own knowledge and then weigh the merits of their arguments. If you have listened to their arguments and think their reasoning is incorrect on scientific grounds. I would love to hear that reasoning. I'd be genuinely interested. If however you are just poo pooing what they say because considering the truth questions what you believe in then you are simply following the pattern of human behaviour which explains how people get away with these glaring inconsistencies. A bullet which causes 7 wounds in two people. An assassin who shoots a senator firing more rounds than his weapon holds. A piece of falling debris that changes direction in midfall, turns at 90 degrees and shoots off leaving a white smoke trail. Thermodynamics. How does a fire that is no more that 1000 degrees leave debris molten days after the event? Eye witnesses report molten metal. Video shows flowing hot molten steel. Etc etc. I cannot present all the evidence in a forum discussion. All I can say is it is overwhelming from a scientific perspective. Are these theoretical conjectures? No. One of the guys has actually conducted and filmed experiments. (Something NIST should have done) He said something like.. There is always the danger that while you are explaining how something can't be done you are apt to being interupted by done idiot actually doing it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the alluminati lol The illuminati and their lizard overlords get a lot of bad press I’m sure their intentions are benevolent and they don’t want to harvest our brains.. I blame David Icke...
Yeah stupid idiot. He must have just been lucky when he predicted 911 Now i know you are on a wind up if you believe in david icke.. "Not everything Icke says is correct. Not everything he says is wrong either. He makes the mistake of mixing well researched data with his nutcase personal beliefs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And you've gone back to stating that the fire cannot exceed 1000 degrees, yes it can, very very easily. I've already explained how. To give you another example, look at the photos of all the poor people who's homes have been destroyed in Australia. Those fires are fueled by nothing more than wood, however they have left melted and twisted houses all over the place. Your statements are akin to saying this is impossible because a matchstick on fire can't melt steel plate. Don't forget as well that a big fire creates its own updraft, therefore sucking more air in to aid the fire. This is what I mean about pseudo science, it takes one small bit of genuine fact, then ignores all the other bits that contribute to the outcome, stating that if the first bit on its own doesn't result in something happening then the outcome must be false (or true depending on what they are trying to prove). " NIST should have used The Scientific Method. It's the accepted method for determining these things for for over 100 years. Firstly all scenarios are taken into account. Given the video of explosions and eyewitnesses accounts of explosions, this should have been included and later discounted if the evidence did not lead to that. However they did not rendering everything they did after that was irrelevant. This isn't pseudo science it's not even science at all. I did not do any experiments or bring this data to the table. These experts in their field did. One man claims to represent 1500 architects. Temperatures from the plane fire would have been sufficient to weaken the structure but not melt it. Temperatures after these explosions was sufficient to atomise steel. Does the dust from collapsing buildings in Australia contain iron microshperes? Did multistory builds collapse at freefall? Did skyscrapers collapse from one single support collapse with perfect symmetry? Clearly you haven't watched this series. But you are arguing against it's content. Seriously. I am not going to relate a summarised 3 hour documentary over a series of conferences presentations because you can't be bothered to watch it. If you want to watch it, still think it's wrong and explain why their science is pseudo science, by all means. But clearly you don't want to see something that contradicts you beliefs. I can't help you with that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And you've gone back to stating that the fire cannot exceed 1000 degrees, yes it can, very very easily. I've already explained how. To give you another example, look at the photos of all the poor people who's homes have been destroyed in Australia. Those fires are fueled by nothing more than wood, however they have left melted and twisted houses all over the place. Your statements are akin to saying this is impossible because a matchstick on fire can't melt steel plate. Don't forget as well that a big fire creates its own updraft, therefore sucking more air in to aid the fire. This is what I mean about pseudo science, it takes one small bit of genuine fact, then ignores all the other bits that contribute to the outcome, stating that if the first bit on its own doesn't result in something happening then the outcome must be false (or true depending on what they are trying to prove). " Not sure who’s head is going to explode on here first but as a non scientist but practical person I would like to point out that all fires when fed with enough air from a single point can become exponentially hot and fed by the oxygen in the air rather than the fuel around them. This is the principle behind the blacksmiths forge, the ramjet (see hypersonic technology also), and as I previously stated, chimney fires. I have been to the observation deck on the twin towers and one of the most striking views was actually when you were inside the building standing on a grid mesh plate which allowed you to see a long way down the inside of the glass curtain wall at the city below which design feature effectively would have translated into a chimney. Because of the immense height of the towers you had to change elevator as you passed up the towers and I have always wondered if the planes were targeted at or below this transition point in order to use the upper stories as a deadweight to crush the lower floors. That’s probably expecting too much ability on the behalf of the terrorists but then again if they spent all that time learning to fly these planes and planning such a large scale attack who knows? Also, I did start watching the documentary as suggested and after half an hour of watching a bunch of strange old men justifying why they were taking part in it I not only got bored but also felt that they were trying too hard to justify themselves which just made me think they were cranks and crackpots! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here is basic science. Free falling objects in a vacuum accelerate at 9.8 m/s squared. ANY resistance affects this rate. Reinforced concrete and steel supports certainly constitute resistance. The revised NIST report shows a straight line of acceleration at a rate closer to freefall than these "conspiracy theorists". The ONLY time a building can collapse at freefall is with a controlled demolition. A question presented to NIST about how a computer model of a collapse takes precedence over visual evidence. This question remains unanswered. In the computer simulation the entire building twists and collapses asymmetricly. This would have caused nearly every window in WTC 7 to break or fall out. However video evidence shows NO buckling of the structure and most of the windows are intact. WTC 7 is the first building in the history of steel structure buildings to collapse from office fires. Yet despite this unprecedented event which today cannot be adequately explained, the BBC jumped the gun and reported a description of the collapse before it actually happened. Anyone who doesn't find this suspicious is a crackpot. What's hilarious is footage of a news reporter describing the collapse of the building and then visuals of the building still standing being shown. And the errr ummmm....??? " So how many people were involved in this , we now have news reporters involved ? you really need to get out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here is basic science. Free falling objects in a vacuum accelerate at 9.8 m/s squared. ANY resistance affects this rate. Reinforced concrete and steel supports certainly constitute resistance. The revised NIST report shows a straight line of acceleration at a rate closer to freefall than these "conspiracy theorists". The ONLY time a building can collapse at freefall is with a controlled demolition. A question presented to NIST about how a computer model of a collapse takes precedence over visual evidence. This question remains unanswered. In the computer simulation the entire building twists and collapses asymmetricly. This would have caused nearly every window in WTC 7 to break or fall out. However video evidence shows NO buckling of the structure and most of the windows are intact. WTC 7 is the first building in the history of steel structure buildings to collapse from office fires. Yet despite this unprecedented event which today cannot be adequately explained, the BBC jumped the gun and reported a description of the collapse before it actually happened. Anyone who doesn't find this suspicious is a crackpot. What's hilarious is footage of a news reporter describing the collapse of the building and then visuals of the building still standing being shown. And the errr ummmm....??? So how many people were involved in this , we now have news reporters involved ? you really need to get out. "They were obviously handed prepared reports. But got the timing wrong. If you saw a news report on something detailing an unprecedented event before it happened what would you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here is basic science. Free falling objects in a vacuum accelerate at 9.8 m/s squared. ANY resistance affects this rate. Reinforced concrete and steel supports certainly constitute resistance. The revised NIST report shows a straight line of acceleration at a rate closer to freefall than these "conspiracy theorists". The ONLY time a building can collapse at freefall is with a controlled demolition. A question presented to NIST about how a computer model of a collapse takes precedence over visual evidence. This question remains unanswered. In the computer simulation the entire building twists and collapses asymmetricly. This would have caused nearly every window in WTC 7 to break or fall out. However video evidence shows NO buckling of the structure and most of the windows are intact. WTC 7 is the first building in the history of steel structure buildings to collapse from office fires. Yet despite this unprecedented event which today cannot be adequately explained, the BBC jumped the gun and reported a description of the collapse before it actually happened. Anyone who doesn't find this suspicious is a crackpot. What's hilarious is footage of a news reporter describing the collapse of the building and then visuals of the building still standing being shown. And the errr ummmm....??? So how many people were involved in this , we now have news reporters involved ? you really need to get out. "If someone in the UK had announced JFK had been assassinated 5 minutes before he was shot would you still think it was LHO? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fullnuts yr sounding more like numbnuts now stop digging mate this is beyond belief " This is a forum. That's what we do. Discuss things and express opinions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fullnuts yr sounding more like numbnuts now stop digging mate this is beyond belief This is a forum. That's what we do. Discuss things and express opinions. "the thing is I think yr winding us all up tho I can’t believe you think the US government murdered all them ppl live on Telly lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fullnuts yr sounding more like numbnuts now stop digging mate this is beyond belief This is a forum. That's what we do. Discuss things and express opinions. the thing is I think yr winding us all up tho I can’t believe you think the US government murdered all them ppl live on Telly lol"Why is it winding you up? I don't understand that. Not the US government. Elements within the government. Have a look at the Patriot Act and tell me it's not possible. MKUltra used Canadian Citizens for human experiments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fullnuts yr sounding more like numbnuts now stop digging mate this is beyond belief This is a forum. That's what we do. Discuss things and express opinions. the thing is I think yr winding us all up tho I can’t believe you think the US government murdered all them ppl live on Telly lol"I present to you Newton's laws of motion and it winds you up? Good thing we aren't discussing particle physics then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not my intention to upset anyone so if my relaying of information on an interesting series offends people, I shall stop posting on here out of respect. " it’s not offending me it’s a figure of speech I honestly thought you were pulling our legs mate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not my intention to upset anyone so if my relaying of information on an interesting series offends people, I shall stop posting on here out of respect. it’s not offending me it’s a figure of speech I honestly thought you were pulling our legs mate " Cool foxy I just find the science interesting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bad news about Thwaites glacier i see! Turns out it's and under ground volcano making it melt. Not my fiat panda! " Thank you Clem. You've given me something to look at
You da man.
Got a good link for me? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bad news about Thwaites glacier i see! Turns out it's and under ground volcano making it melt. Not my fiat panda! Thank you Clem. You've given me something to look at
You da man.
Got a good link for me?"Can't post links on the forum. You'll have to Google. Soz. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The main problem I have about the two perfect collapses was there was absolutely no side ways topple meaning the fuel must have weakened all of the supporting beams on those thousands of square feet floors where the plane hit God knows how it flowed through to every corner) where all failed at the exact same time. Logic says here would have been some with enough structural strength to at least delay the collapse of certain sections. In answer to the original question I sincerely hope they don't have as I think they are the most dangerous country on the planet when you consider the fact that they have used atomic weapons twice and were prepared to use them again in Korea and Vietnam and even contemplated a tactical nuclear strike in Europe if there was ever a war with Russia to which the Russian answer was it would not happen as when America used nukes it would then be all out " A very sensible post. A pancake theory collapse would have been been a bumpy staggard collapse. You will see the top portion of the tower beaks of an peals off at an angle it did not fall onto the floors below. However, as an object falling to ground it never met the ground as it disintegrated in midair for no reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bad news about Thwaites glacier i see! Turns out it's and under ground volcano making it melt. Not my fiat panda! Thank you Clem. You've given me something to look at
You da man.
Got a good link for me?
Can't post links on the forum. You'll have to Google. Soz. "No worries Ill dig. It looks like they've known about the volcano for a while... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bad news about Thwaites glacier i see! Turns out it's and under ground volcano making it melt. Not my fiat panda! Thank you Clem. You've given me something to look at
You da man.
Got a good link for me?
Can't post links on the forum. You'll have to Google. Soz.
No worries Ill dig. It looks like they've known about the volcano for a while..."It does. It makes more sense when the air temp is -25 ish during the summer! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the alluminati lol The illuminati and their lizard overlords get a lot of bad press I’m sure their intentions are benevolent and they don’t want to harvest our brains.. I blame David Icke...
Yeah stupid idiot. He must have just been lucky when he predicted 911 "I don't buy in to or disprove conspiracy theories, due to lack of knowledge and interest, so I've not read all the posts. It does strike me as incredibly good planning and execution for all of this to have succeeded on the day that some guys flew planes to hit those targets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s the alluminati lol The illuminati and their lizard overlords get a lot of bad press I’m sure their intentions are benevolent and they don’t want to harvest our brains.. I blame David Icke...
Yeah stupid idiot. He must have just been lucky when he predicted 911
I don't buy in to or disprove conspiracy theories, due to lack of knowledge and interest, so I've not read all the posts. It does strike me as incredibly good planning and execution for all of this to have succeeded on the day that some guys flew planes to hit those targets. "As with all of these types of operations, I think the group who do the hit are a crack team who didn't put a foot wrong. I think they leave certain aspects like the cover up to the corrupt parts of the government and they make a mess of it every time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting that they emptied the gold out of the vaults in the week before 911. Also interesting that a company collected as many hard drives from the rumble as they could. Then contacted companies in the twin towers to tell them there was a good chance that they could recover data for them. No one took them up on the offer. Few identifiable remains were recovered due to the fires and the pressure resulting from the collapsing floors. Yet the pilot's passports survived, and were quickly found. Miraculous..." A few problems with that passport. It didn't match the one on record. There are so many things that don't work. One of the supposed terrorists turned up alive and well in Casablanca. In some reports this was corrected in others he continues to be one of the hijackers even though he is known to be alive. But hey. If an official American report said it... It's the jihadi version of Schrödinger's cat.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Basically the story was given to the world by "Harley guy" and it never changed. " American cover ups are terrible. Do you know there were two Warren Commission hearings. In the first one the bullet holes on the report were in the "wrong place" for it to have been Oswald, so they had to have a break to revise the location of the bullet holes. The autopsy photos are completely different to the Zapruder film. Terrible cover up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have not read all the replies, but surely someone answered with, “yes, its called trump”" I think that after years of cold war USSR couldn't think of any way to destroy America..... until they thought of Trump. He's actually THEIR Manchurian Candidate. He'll bring America to their knees worse than a barrage of nuclear warheads. They won't just be defeated. They will be defeated AND embarrassed. I think he gets triggered by the word 'tolerated'. He goes all funny when he says that word... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's hard to believe both those towers dropped at free fall like that due to the pancake effect. But it's just way to implausible to believe WT7 came down at free fall the same way, when it was clearly of a different design to the towers. For me this is more implausible that the conspiracy theories. I think the US defo have anti gravity devices. Especially given the tictac UFO being sighted in US waters/airspace. Also the US funded research into an anti gravity device made by an engineer in his garage in Aberdeen in the 70's 80's. Nothing seems to have came of it, even though it was endorsed by leading academics including Eric Laithwaite the inventor of linear indication engine. It's more than likely the research from this initial knowledge was carried on clandestinely in the US. " Interesting post. Thank you
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You'd have to ask Bob Lazar. " Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You'd have to ask Bob Lazar. Why?" Because he claims that he worked on anti gravity technology. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You'd have to ask Bob Lazar. Why? Because he claims that he worked on anti gravity technology. " He should be in a straight jacket if you ask me. Why do respected scientists who back up their science using the scientific method get ignored while rambling nutcases get headlines? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You'd have to ask Bob Lazar. Why? Because he claims that he worked on anti gravity technology. He should be in a straight jacket if you ask me. Why do respected scientists who back up their science using the scientific method get ignored while rambling nutcases get headlines?" He's not the only one... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You'd have to ask Bob Lazar. Why? Because he claims that he worked on anti gravity technology. He should be in a straight jacket if you ask me. Why do respected scientists who back up their science using the scientific method get ignored while rambling nutcases get headlines? He's not the only one..." Are you aware that the pancake theory that people have used in this discussion to explain the collapse of these buildings has since been discounted by NIST themselves? Do you realise the NIST simulation contradicts video evidence? Since when does a computer simulation have more meaning than video evidence? Stick your head back in the sand dude. It's better for your health. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes Donald Trump he scares everyone "True! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you believe in science? Do you believe that aircraft fuel can melt a steel girder? " Absolutely; read your posts this this comment of yours makes your statement crumble ofcourse aircraft fuel can melt a steel girder if it is the catalyst to start a fire, haven't you seen the remains of piper Alpha and other high temp combustions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you believe in science? Do you believe that aircraft fuel can melt a steel girder? Absolutely; read your posts this this comment of yours makes your statement crumble ofcourse aircraft fuel can melt a steel girder if it is the catalyst to start a fire, haven't you seen the remains of piper Alpha and other high temp combustions " It's very simple. You look at the temperature of aviation fuel and the temperature required to melt steel. Have you seen images of pieces breaking off and still disintegrating while they are falling. There are some debris that change direction amd accelerate. "Researchers have dismissed the findings of Government officials in 2008 that the building fell due to “uncontrolled building fires”. In terms of WTC 7 it collapsed without aircraft fuel. Making it the third steel structure high rise to ever collapse due to fire. Coincidentally on the same day as the first two. Following an extensive four-year study at the University of Alaska, using four extremely complex computer models, Dr. Leroy Hulsey, Dr. Zhili Quan, and Professor Feng Xiao found the “fire did not cause the collapse”. In their report, it says: “The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology] and private engineering firms that studied the collapse" If you watch WTC 7 fall it is a uniform collapse. All supporting girders need to collapse simultaneously. NIST postulates that one girder (79?) In the northeast corner collapsed. In their own computer simulation the entire building buckles. This does not match video evidence. Most of the windows didn't even break. Why is a computer simulation taken over video evidence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you believe in science? Do you believe that aircraft fuel can melt a steel girder? Absolutely; read your posts this this comment of yours makes your statement crumble ofcourse aircraft fuel can melt a steel girder if it is the catalyst to start a fire, haven't you seen the remains of piper Alpha and other high temp combustions " Short answer. They put the same girders in a room and cooked them over aviation fuel for 4 hours. They sagged slightly. One of the properties of metal is that it conducts heat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you believe in science? Do you believe that aircraft fuel can melt a steel girder? Absolutely; read your posts this this comment of yours makes your statement crumble ofcourse aircraft fuel can melt a steel girder if it is the catalyst to start a fire, haven't you seen the remains of piper Alpha and other high temp combustions Short answer. They put the same girders in a room and cooked them over aviation fuel for 4 hours. They sagged slightly. One of the properties of metal is that it conducts heat. " I am aware of the properties of metal, I was surrounded by metal for 30 years on oil rigs, and have also seen the damage by fire as well as the remains. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Do you believe in science? Do you believe that aircraft fuel can melt a steel girder? Absolutely; read your posts this this comment of yours makes your statement crumble ofcourse aircraft fuel can melt a steel girder if it is the catalyst to start a fire, haven't you seen the remains of piper Alpha and other high temp combustions Short answer. They put the same girders in a room and cooked them over aviation fuel for 4 hours. They sagged slightly. One of the properties of metal is that it conducts heat. I am aware of the properties of metal, I was surrounded by metal for 30 years on oil rigs, and have also seen the damage by fire as well as the remains." I an no expert but was that aviation fuel? It doesn't look like a blob of molten metal to me. Lets understand each other. Those pillars were vaporized. In the NIST simulation to explain pancake collapse the pillars are still left standing. That should say something to anyone. But I'm not going to explain three hours of documentary. A whole load of scientists, experts in their field explain how flawed the NIST report is. IF the towers were demolished THEN the same people who were behind it were the SAME people who commissioned the NIST report. Then decide for yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
You guys call us conspiracy theorists. We call you guys coincidence theorists. You believe in astronomical amount of coincidences to have taken place for things to have happened the way it's reported. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yeah , putting some girders in a room with some burning fuel mirrors exactly the conditions inside the twin towers lololololololololololol" Just to clarify. You've looked at the experiments and find specific areas where they are at fault which you can identify.... Or You're just shitting all over other people's experiments without have the faintest idea of what they are about? If you can't identify the former I'll presume it's the latter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yep ur right. An experiment in a room with a girder and a jerrycan of aviation fuel is Just the ticket . Not quite the same as an aluminium tube with hundreds of tons of jet fuel igniting at 400 mph inside what became a furnace but a very similar scenario. Well done Einstein lol" So the latter then. Thought as much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seriously, stop banging on about "nano" everything. Nano tubes are formed of carbon. They can be created in small quantities by any source of incomplete combustion of a carbon based fuel. They do not indicate that thermite was used. As for the ridiculous theory that jet fuel can't melt steel because it conducts heat, I have explained numerous times how a furnace works. It is easily possible to cause steel to melt. Also, the steel does not need to liquify for the building to fall, just reach a point where it is soft enough for the weight to do the rest. The collapse of the building was triggered by a floor falling onto the one below due to damage to the structure from impact of the planes and the heat from the fire. The sheering force the lower floors were subjected to was way in excess of what they were designed to take, especially in their weakened state. This caused catastrophic failure of the structure. The molten metal you have referred to in the past could have come from a number of sources, steel, copper, aluminium etc were all present in the building, many of which would easily have reached a liquid state and been seen falling from the building. " Thank fuck - someone who actually knows what they are talking about as opposed to armchair google “experts”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
