Spike Lee on his new 9/11 documentary: Fire can't melt steel

You are correct in that me or us not knowing how such planning could take place does not mean that it did not take place. I would even take this situation one step further and say that at least for myself, I cannot fathom how within the bounds of reality, (as opposed to the theoretical) that it could POSSIBLY take place. When one observes the universe around them, from a theoretical standpoint, ANYTHING is possible. When David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear before our eyes, because there are still many unknowns in the universe, it is theoretically POSSIBLE that he discovered a wrinkle in the time space continuum and was able to banish Lady Liberty to a time where it no longer exists in its familiar spot and we as the observer are fortunate enough to be witnessing the glory of the potential of quantum mechanics for the very first time known to man.

A wise person however, assesses the unlikelihood of such an occurrence, and therefore concludes that its disappearance is instead nothing more than an illusion. The wise person does not have to explain how this illusion took place in order to draw that conclusion. They only need to know that giant statues do not disappear into thin air, therefore such an occurrence is OBVIOUSLY not what occurred. I do not need to listen to physicists speak on the matter. Obviously you see physicists arguing both sides of the 9/11 issue, and these dueling experts can easily speak over almost everyone else's head on matters of physics, and the layman is wholly unable to differentiate between mistakes/untruths and true wisdom in their words, regardless of how long one devotes themselves to this subject matter. Because of this reality, I know full well that I am best served by trusting common sense and simply concluding that giant statues do NOT disappear into thin air.

I see this situation as very similar. There is no way that I can be convinced that a President (or anyone powerful enough to make this happen), are going to risk their cushy wealthy life for such a risky, unlikely to go off without a hitch plan. They would be exposing themselves to the death penalty. It would require the complicity of hundreds if not thousands of people, and not one of them could ever leak one word about it. It takes months and hundreds of people to conduct a controlled demolition of even a moderate sized building where it is being done in the open, much less 3 buildings with two of them at one time being the tallest buildings in the world. This would have to be done 100% in secret, and it would require these hundreds of workers to place these thousands of explosives without ANYONE or any camera seeing them doing so, and every one of those explosives would have to be hidden out of sight for months while this operation was conducted. During the last 20 years, not one of these hundreds or thousand of people have come forward to leak any aspect of this plan etc etc.

In truth, I could easily keep going for many paragraphs as to just how unlikely such a plan would be, as could anyone else if they tried. At some point, just like with the disappearing Statue of Liberty, a wise person concludes that they do not care about the purported physics based contradictions, they simply know that such a claim is just not reasonable and is therefore untrue. It does not require a 9/11 commision report. It only requires common sense. To come full circle to your post, I think that you are implying that it is the 9/11 Truther denialists that are reading biased material and are therefore more indoctrinated, but that simply is not true. Most people like myself that vociferously deny the possibility that this was a controlled demolition are not making that denial based on the 9/11 Commission Report, rather they are making it based on common sense.

 

Based on your obsessive repeating of the word toothpick, I surmise that you see it as an effective line of attack to discredit my words. A reasonable person understands the value in a scaled down model representing similar physical characteristics to the real thing. There is nothing unusual in such a concept, and in fact scaled down models were used in the buidling process for literally every skyscraper in existence. If you want to call that a "toothpick theorist", I am not sure that such a label carries much weight.

You can keep trying it however if you think it puts your position in its best light. I am not so sure that it accomplishes what you seemingly think that it does.

 

So in your world a model made from toothpicks is a great "scientific" representation of the WTC tower because it represents similar physical characteristics to the real thing (i.e. the WTC tower). And you dismiss a physics professor that you characterize as "amateurish" and ignore a presentation by a civil engineer with over 50 years experience summarizing the work (challenging the NIST hypotheses) of multiple expert researchers in multiple relevant scientific disciplines. And you really expect to taken seriously, about anything?

 

I mentioned a scaled model in response to your incredulity to a several thousand pound beam traveling 600 feet. I pointed out that in scale of a 1300 foot building, 600 feet is less than half of that distance, and for visualization's sake, I pointed to the notion of a scaled down 3 foot model and a fall of a foot and a half not being all that shocking.

Mentioning as much in no way makes me a "toothpick theorist". That is obviously an attempt to discredit my words, but sincerely, I am comfortable in the notion that most people would conclude that a scaled model is a logical thing to mention and they would in no way take me having mentioned it to legitimately make me a "toothpick theorist". As such, I think the attempted insult is useless. You can continue with it if you so please, but as I said, I am not so sure it is effective in either discrediting me or supporting your beliefs.

At any rate, since it gets to the heart of what I have been saying and you have been clearly ignoring, I would love to hear your response to my reply to Eleuthera above.

Obviously you have spent a great deal of time discussing the purported physics of the subject. I would contend that most people arguing against a controlled demolition, especially this many years after the fact, are probably using my logic and not bothering to truly care about the physics argument because their common sense is already telling them there is no way that anyone could and would have done so without being caught or having one person leak it etc. For this reason, you end up with a long string of basically the same conversation where you are insisting upon your physics argument, people are responding by calling your sources kooks, you responding angrily, and absolutely nothing is accomplished. Lather, rinse repeat.

To break this cycle, you need to address the substance of my argument which is that since pure common sense says that from a practical standpoint, such an occurrence could and would not possibly happen so therefore people are not bothering to take a serious look at your data. Having observed some of your writing I guess that you may likely say something along the lines of you are only here to discuss "facts" and you do not care what they believe etc. Despite that sentiment, to whatever extent that you want to convince people to your way of thinking ( and to some extent you must), you really would be well advised to first address the practicality of how it could possibly happen. If you truly want to get them to substantively listen to and engage in your physics argument, you first need to convince them that it is legitimately possible.

 

You advanced a structure made out of toothpicks as a model for the WTC tower and dismissed legitimate credentialed experts at the same time. Why would you believe anyone should take anything you have to say seriously? I'm not sure why I'm even asking that question, I'm really not that interested in your response.

I don't "need" to do any such thing nor do I have any desire to engage in your theories. You lost all credibility (with me at least) when you went off the rails with your toothpick theory and punctuated it by baselessly dismissing experts on the subject of 9/11 science.

A. I don't have any personal physics arguments. Physics stands on its own merit and those who use it in their arguments are the experts. In this case, it's the NIST engineers and those who challenge them. Those who challenge them have successfully pointed out in intricate detail and in no uncertain terms that the NIST engineers committed scientific fraud in their research, analysis and conclusions and I agree.

B. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I'm here to discuss various issues and exchange information.

C. Once again, this isn't about me as much as you'd like the discussion to be about me.

 

Thats fine. It is obvious that you are going to continually refuse to address the common sense aspect of this subject. Being a person that has devoted as much of their life to this topic as you, one might think that you would want to do everything you could to be effective in changing minds so that people do not reflexively assume that you are a crazy conspiracy nut. Being able to effectively address that topic (if possible) would most certainly make you more effective.

You obviously have no interest in addressing my position on common sense, and I have no interest in discussing your position which is the physics according to your selected sources. There is really nothing left for us to talk about. I feel I have made my point, and I suspect you probably feel you have made yours. I suppose it is time to let the reader decide for themselves.

 

Insults ignored.

That's all I ever do is address the common sense aspect of 9/11 and every subject, pay attention.

That's because you don't have one so there's nothing to address that's remotely common sense on your part.

That was always and is always the case. See what I mean about you and common sense? You think "it's time", no it was always the time, every minute and every second.

 

Presumably you felt as if this was necessary to put a capstone on the conversation? LOL...OK...you win ( I guess).

Let the reader decide.

 

I'm a scientist.

You lose.
QED

 

Even the title is ridiculous.

Fire can't melt steel


Temperature of burning jet fuel
Jet A

Max adiabatic burn temperature 2,230 °C (4,050 °F)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

Temperature required to melt steel
Melting Points
Metals Fahrenheit (f) Celsius (c)
Steel, Carbon 2500-2800 1371-1540
Steel, Stainless 2750 1510
- wiki

More than that, you only need to weaken the steel to cause a catastrophic failure..

 

You're an anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous discussion forum, nothing more, nothing less.

For a "scientist" you make as much sense as the toothpick theory and shaving cream theory posters. Stick to your day job, comedy is not working for you.

You should explain that to those who participated in the Broadgate and Cardington experiments. Tell them they "lost".

 

Thanks for a reasonable reply.

I'm guessing you did not do any time in the military, regarding your idea that secret plans simply cannot exist or be carried out.

Common sense? Given that only once in history have 3 modern steel highrise buildings collapsed from fires, on the same day and in the same city block, how can you apply common sense to that?

I wonder if you have studied or considered the time of collapse of these buildings? Do you know what is required for that to happen?

 

I have not been in the military, but I can most certainly accept the notion that secret plans can and do get carried out quite frequently. This reality however does not mean that ANY secret plans can be carried out, and this particular set of occurrences IMHO are not a plan that could realistically be carried out.

Common sense is pondering how would hundreds of people over a period of weeks be able to set thousands of explosive charges without being seen in the process by other people or cameras, not one of those charges were ever spotted in the weeks leading up to 9/11, and not one of those people have ever uttered a word about their task?

While one could create a very long list of other just as unlikely occurrences, but solely the paragraph above tells me that a controlled demolition is just not in the realm of reality. When you add in the rest of the list it only further cements such a conclusion. You can barely keep a few people quiet. You could never keep that many people quiet on such a monumental secret as this.

 

The events of 11 September were not just ANY secret plan. They were the cornerstone of the subsequent Global War Of Terror waged by the US. They were the cornerstone of the USA Patriot Act, an official legislative attack on the US Constitution. They were the cornerstone and reason for existence of DHS and TSA.

 

What you are suggesting would be best suited for Lex Luthor, and I am left to lament the reality that the Superfriends were not around to foil their dastardly plot.


Respectfully...There really is no reason to continue this conversation. I have said what I wanted to say on the subject and I have nothing left to add. I am not interested in having a long drawn out debate as if this were 2007 and any significant percentage of the population was still seriously putting forth the controlled demolition theory. It is not worth the trouble.

 

Yes, get out while you can. All the best.

Many are reluctant to engage in fact based discussion of the subject. Unpleasant truths are disconcerting to most.

 

I can assure you the only thing disconcerting is the prospect of going through yet another long winded recitation of the well choreographed conspiracy theory that we heard ad nauseam circa 2004. The primary difference back then was the proponents of that theory were convinced that since you cannot keep that many people quiet, someone involved would crack anytime soon, and here were are 17 years later and not even one has come forth, not even a deathbed confession. Strange.

Hope springs eternal I suppose.

 

LOL, yes going through another long-winded discussion attempting to defend the indefensible is the corner you've painted yourself into over all these years. Going through such a long-winded recitation of Official Talking Points and then realizing you're wrong is hard to take. That's why so many turn tail and run from fact based discussion.

 

Official talking points?

LOL...You have mistaken me for someone that cares about this topic. Everything I have said is simply my version of common sense. I sincerely have not the faintest idea what any "official talking points" would say on this subject. I would guess those "talking points" would probably be aimed at rebutting the physics argument proponents make.

 

The number of posts you've offered here suggests you care enough about the topic to keep coming back for more. How many more posts will there be from the poster claiming to have no reason to continue the discussion?

 

Are you just wanting to bicker endlessly? Enough already. Please move on.

 

If you want to know why the buildings collapsed, as you know they did, put more effort into studying this.

 

Who planned and where did they plan at?

 

Who planned the 12 war games on 9/11 to make sure the entire air defense of the northeast corridor of the US was rendered impotent?

9/11 War Games

https://www.corbettreport.com/9-11-war-games/

To be sure I'm not asking you Robert, I'm guessing for you it was just another one of those hundreds of convenient coincidences that made 9/11 as successful as possible. Note the YouTube video from the above link was taken down, also quite conveniently.

 

9/11 families sue NIST over World Trade Center Building 7 report

A group of eight family members who lost children, parents, siblings, and spouses on 9/11 filed a lawsuit today against the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The lawsuit alleges that NIST violated federal law in its denial of a request for correction calling on the agency to throw out the conclusions of its 2008 report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

The eight family members were joined by 10 structural engineers and architects and by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. All three groups of plaintiffs were signatories to the original request for correction, which identified eight ways that NIST’s fire-based scenario for the collapse of Building 7 was both physically impossible and inconsistent with the available evidence.

The goal of the lawsuit is to obtain a court order that forces NIST to perform new analyses and to develop a new “probable collapse sequence” that is physically possible and consistent with the available evidence. The plaintiffs argue that the only such scenario is a controlled demolition of the building.

Skipping ...

The plaintiffs also take aim at NIST’s refusal to study a piece of melted steel recovered from Building 7 and at the agency’s refusal to interview witnesses who reported explosions. These included Gigi Stone Woods, a reporter for NY1 whose videotaped account of an “incredibly loud explosion” surfaced last year and who in January confirmed her story to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

https://www.ae911truth.org/nist?fbclid=IwAR13gmtrPjsz3Xl5yMAeaUtacPCWpvdcHHJDGGSUNeY2hzfH4rkjPzNCB-w