9/11 The New Pearl Harbour

Discussion in '9/11' started by Cornergas, Sep 10, 2017.

  1. nastimarvasti

    nastimarvasti Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Nice dodge by calling it a straw man. It is your guys' claim that jet fuel caused the exposions in the lobby. I just explained how that's ridiculous.

    Also ridiculous is claiming that the top fifth of the building is somehow stronger than the bottom 4/5 because that's what you just did. Somehow, when the top fifth fell, it maintained its structural integrity enough to destroy the rest of the building. Newton's 3rd law my friend.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2017
  2. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    another strawman, an ignorant one at that.

    I guess you either didn't read what I wrote or can't comprehend what I wrote.

    either way, not my problem.

    in reality, I'd assume the lower fifth of the buildings were stronger than the upper fifth, as they had to hold up more static load.

    but you wouldn't understand that, now would you?
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2017
    Margot2 likes this.
  3. nastimarvasti

    nastimarvasti Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The initial comment was meant as a reply to another comment. Read the rest of the response.
     
  4. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the top 1/5th of the building was moving.

    movement increases mass, significantly.

    the bottom 4/5ths, wasn't moving. its mass stayed the same.

    anyways. each floor was made to hold up the floors above it, but not in motion.

    someday you'll understand this.

    let me know when you do.

    :)
     
    Margot2 likes this.
  5. nastimarvasti

    nastimarvasti Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    And yet, when we watch the collapse, the top portion is pulverized before the tower finishes its collapse. Pictures clearly show the top portion of the south tower tipping over right before the rest of it collapsed. So the uniform destruction of the bottom floors makes no sense.

    Also, still dodging the issue about the jet fuel in the lobby.

    I know you think your smart ass comments win you the argument, but they don't.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2017
  6. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nope.

    wrong.

    false.

    most of the collapse is hidden behind dust and debris.
     
  7. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,571
    Likes Received:
    13,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some jet fuel ran down the elevator shafts.
     
  8. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,571
    Likes Received:
    13,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some jet fuel ran down the elevator shafts.
     
  9. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,662
    Likes Received:
    9,825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    i havent debated with 9-11 Truthers in many years.

    this was kinda fun.

    anyways, so much for that "new investigation. LOL!!!!!

    see ya in another 5 years. hee hee

    :)
     
    Margot2 likes this.
  10. nastimarvasti

    nastimarvasti Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Read my previous post about the amount of jet fuel vs the volume of the towers since Ronstar prefers to mock rather than answer questions.
     
  11. Cornergas

    Cornergas Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male

    He cannot answer the questions, he is just there as a troll to spout the government theory, and knows nothing of the facts....or perhaps he would like to tell us how the lobbies of the WTC towers were destroyed prior to the alleged aircraft hitting the buildings? Also let him try and explain the explosions in the sub levels prior to the alleged aircraft strikes as per witnesses..Barry Jennings and William Rodriquez...
     
    nastimarvasti likes this.
  12. Cornergas

    Cornergas Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male

    Aluminum? Yes the planes are made of aluminum, the buildings were made of concrete and steel, outer frame and massive inner core columns...you sound really confused...
     
    nastimarvasti and Bob0627 like this.
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,387
    Likes Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You really believe you were debating? And the emoji is cute, how old are you again? I know I wasn't debating nor was that my intention. As I posted multiple times, I discuss, I don't come to forums to play games. I asked you several direct questions, you know the science, engineering and logic kind of questions, the kind you allege you're familiar with because you rub elbows with alleged experts. You didn't answer one single question and I'm sure you're well aware of that. I also asked you to source your claims (as I always try to do) because I'm sure you understand that you can't expect me to take an anonymous internet jockey's claims on faith, do you? Anyway I asked you those questions because you posted several claims and insinuated that not only do you have standing to make these claims, but you know better than a guy like Dr. Leroy Hulsey and his team. I research 9/11 just about every single day and am always eager to discuss it in a genuine manner. And I learn from discussion as well, it's a part of my research. So I was intrigued by you since you stated all these claims (likewise Margot, I have to give you credit too). I wanted to be shown how your claims are possible and you made no attempt to justify or even minimally support your claims.

    According to the official narrative (NIST in particular), this is supposed to be a natural collapse resulting from planes, damage, fire or just fire. In one case, the upper tilting/tilted smaller (20%) and disintegrating in mid-air section supposedly destroyed the lower 80% section at a uniform, 2/3 G acceleration along with the core columns ALL disintegrating at the exact same uniform rate of descent. While that's going on, steel girders/beams/whole sections, some weighing over 4 tons are ejected at 50-70 MPH, some of which were later found about 600 feet from the "collapsing" tower. Others were found embedded into adjacent buildings. Oh and nearly the exact same thing happened to its twin. After all, they didn't call them the twin towers for nothing. Oh and I almost forgot, WTC7 came down looking just like a controlled demolition but of course, it wasn't. So that's 3 for 2, the terrorists must have been expert bowlers, they knocked down 3 buildings in their entirety with 2 planes.

    Please explain to me what everyone knows for a fact destroys a building just like a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition ... every single time? Oh yeah you're not into answering tough questions (or any) so I'll answer for you. It's called a controlled demolition. When a controlled demolition is not properly done, well...



    But on 9/11, 3 massive steel frame towers came down from planes, damage, fire or just fire each just like a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition (not one failed unlike those in the video above). So maybe none of these buildings were controlled demolished, no one really knows for sure, but what a coincidence eh? After all, a controlled demolition is more impossible than 3 buildings coming down just like a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition, right?

    Having fun yet? Explain to the 9/11 families how fun 9/11 is to you. I understand 25 of them support Dr. Leroy Hulsey's findings and the Bob McIlvane bill.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2017
    nastimarvasti likes this.
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,387
    Likes Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He's having fun posting nonsense, see his own post.
     
  15. Cornergas

    Cornergas Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    It is noted Bush promoted General Myers shortly after 9/11....Myers was in charge of the USA defences that day...Why was he promoted? Because of incompetency of failing to protect the USA on that day, or because he is a good little lapdog and went along with the government's plan on 9/11?
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,387
    Likes Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The stench is pretty putrid.
     
    jack4freedom likes this.
  17. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Myers was not in charge of any defenses that day.

    In September 2001 he was vice chairman of the joint chiefs.

    HE had a lot of responsibility in that position but nothing which could accurately be called " in charge of the USA defenses "

    Try again
     
  18. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only when one is dumb enough to confuse facts with fiction as the poster did
     
  19. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of the collapsed buildings on 911 looked or behaved in any way like a controlled demolition thus destroying your weak and idiotic premise
     
  20. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But that is what is so strange. One moment you can clearly see the entire tilted upper portion of the south tower, and the next moment it is entirely hidden by dust and smoke. What could do that? If the falling portion destroyed the intact lower portion why don't we see most of it?

    psik
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  21. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What does "Controlled Demolition" really mean?

    In a NORMAL "controlled demolition" the objective is to minimize collateral damage. That means using a minimum of explosives at the exactly proper locations and sequencing the detonations precisely. That is why it takes so long to set up. That is what the destruction of WTC7 looks like. But WTC1 & 2 are quite different. Of course if someone used 10 times as much explosives as necessary and just stuffed it in, the locations might not be so critical, but the collateral damage would be significant. But it might still be CONTROLLED in the sense that it did what the designers intended.

    It is just so curious that a simulation that removed 5 stories of the north tower, 91 thru 95, and just dropped the top 15 stories on the bottom 90 has not been done, or even suggested, by any engineering school in SIXTEEN YEARS. Of course if they tried it and it did not come close to complete collapse they would have to explain it.

    psik
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,387
    Likes Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. The natural collapse of a steel frame high rise would not be controlled nor would it resemble a well planned and successfully executed controlled demolition. We have only 3 known examples of natural collapses of steel frame towers due to fire in history other than 9/11. Only one of these resembled a successfully executed controlled demolition and that one is highly controversial. And we have well over 40 examples of steel frame high rise infernos that resulted in no collapse at all, including one of the North Tower in 1973 and WTC5 on 9/11. All 3 towers on 9/11 fit the characteristics of well planned and successfully executed controlled demolitions. It has never been proven that all 3 of those towers were naturally destroyed in a manner fitting the characteristics of a controlled demolition caused by the events of 9/11. If it isn't natural, the only reasonable alternative left is that it's controlled.

    Perhaps Dr. Hulsey will tackle that after completing his work on WTC7. It took 7 years for NIST to "investigate" WTC7 and they had far more resources than Hulsey so patience.

    I haven't heard NIST trying to explain why Hulsey contradicted their theoretical conclusion even when using NIST's selective data. All the members of NIST (Shyam Sunder and John Gross particularly) will have the opportunity to examine Dr. Hulsey's paper when it is released for peer review and peer review it themselves. Of course they won't likely comment, much less explain anything. It's all "classified" you know, for our "safety".
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2017
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    91,563
    Likes Received:
    22,912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure, a floor designed for a 1,300t load would easily stop a falling 45,000t load.

    The lack of structural knowledge of these buildings is the only reason the conspiracy theorists can survive.
     
  24. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And what happened to the horizontal beams in the core that would have had to impact each other if the top of the north tower cams down on the lower 90 stories.

    Isn't the FLOOR you are talking about outside the core?

    psik
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    91,563
    Likes Received:
    22,912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The structure is core and shell. In one of the videos much of the lower core remained standing for a short while. The kinetic energy produced by 44,000t falling is much greater than even the core could stand.
     

Share This Page