Why all the worldwide turmoil? (9/11 thread)

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That is.

Yuck. 

[Guest]

Just now, hot enough said:

Yuck. 

I would say so...

[hot enough]

Go to 4:35 of the following video, it'll only take a few seconds and watch until 4:48 and you will see a person get blown out of the window of one of the twin towers by an explosion. This is the evil that so many of you are protecting. 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by hot enough

[?Impact]

46 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Focus on the science. Science doesn't lie.

Yes and the science clearly says that a controlled demolition did not take place. There is still much that remains unresolved or partially resolved, but alternative explanations like controlled demolition do not match the evidence.

43 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I don't have any phuckin' idea. But we could speculate on that for forever. The point is, it was brought down by explosives because it fell at free fall speed for the first 2.5 seconds, 105 feet, 8 floors. And NIST admitted that free fall had occurred.

No, not the first 2.5 seconds. The first 1.75 seconds were slower than free fall, the next 2.25 seconds were close to free fall (within margin of error), and the final 1.9 seconds were slower than free fall. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Bill Maher deals with 911 Truthers....live !

 

 

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Y

No, not the first 2.5 seconds. The first 1.75 seconds were slower than free fall, the next 2.25 seconds were close to free fall (within margin of error), and the final 1.9 seconds were slower than free fall. 

Completely false. Why are you trusting the very people who lied about it in the first place, NIST?

You are always way short on what actually happened. 

Did you see the human being blown out of the tower window by an explosion? Are you happy to be defending folks who blew up 3,000 people in the twin towers?

Edited March 3, 2017 by hot enough

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Completely false. Why are you trusting the very people who lied about it in the first place, NIST?

I trust the evidence, and not the truther conspiracy theories. I have read their alternative story, and it does not match the evidence. They talk about nothing happening in the first four frames of the video from camera 3, yet clearly there is something happening. The penthouse is collapsing, which is 100% in agreement with the NIST assessment that has the interior of the building collapsing first. 

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I trust the evidence, and not the truther conspiracy theories. I have read their alternative story, and it does not match the evidence. They talk about nothing happening in the first four frames of the video from camera 3, yet clearly there is something happening. The penthouse is collapsing, which is 100% in agreement with the NIST assessment that has the interior of the building collapsing first. 

That is laughable. A real study has been done and I know that you haven't searched out the video to watch Professor Hulsey describe how NIST lied because you don't want to face it and you wouldn't understand it. 

Why did NIST change their story about free fall? 

How about that body being shot out the window of one of the twin towers? Does that thrill you no end? 

[?Impact]

Hulsey has stated very little, but somehow you are extrapolating that little bit to support wild theories. When his 2 grad students actually complete their report, we will see what his team has come up with. Until then there is nothing to go on.

I am not aware of NIST changing their story. Certainly they responded to questions from the public, and elaborated in later FAQs but their story has not changed.

How does you alleged body being 'shot' out of a window collaborate your theory of burning nanothermites? Yes, there is much to be explained, and much will never be explained, but cooking up some wild theory that has a million times more problems doesn't solve the issue.

Edited March 3, 2017 by ?Impact

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

That is laughable. A real study has been done and I know that you haven't searched out the video to watch Professor Hulsey describe how NIST lied because you don't want to face it and you wouldn't understand it. 

Why did NIST change their story about free fall? 

How about that body being shot out the window of one of the twin towers? Does that thrill you no end? 

I think if you actually had an argument you wouldn't have to talk about bodies, and thrills.  And you would have an opinion on why no single media organization in the world will report on the biggest news story since the Second World War. 

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 

Hulsey has stated very little, but somehow you are extrapolating that little bit to support will theories. When his 2 grad students actually complete their report,

 

You haven't watched the video nor have you heard what Professor Hulsey has described. What has he stated?

 

[hot enough]

13 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

How does you alleged body being 'shot' out of a window collaborate your theory of burning nanothermites?

NIST denied explosions despite myriad people, some 180 [??] firefighters reporting them. Now we have a human being being blown out a twin tower window by an explosion and you don't miss a beat defending the ones who did this. What if that was your brother, or dad or uncle or ... ?

[hot enough]

17 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 

Hulsey has stated very little,

 

It shouldn't have taken you this long. But you can't state what this "very little" is because you haven't been able to face it.

[hot enough]

18 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think if you actually had an argument you wouldn't have to talk about bodies, and thrills.  And you would have an opinion on why no single media organization in the world will report on the biggest news story since the Second World War. 

No arguments, nothing in the world can help a guy who states that he is sticking to his "default". 

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

NIST denied explosions despite myriad people, some 180 [??] firefighters reporting them.

Again, if there were explosions as you allege, what do they have to do with your theory of burning thermite?

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

It shouldn't have taken you this long. But you can't state what this "very little" is because you haven't been able to face it.

Sorry, I didn't know I am obligated to respond to your non-issue within a few minutes. I will try to do better next time.

Halsey said nothing to cooperate your story, all he stated is that he has problems with the NIST model. Since he is being paid by the truthers, what did you expect him to say? When his grad students actually publish their findings we will have something to look at.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

No arguments, nothing in the world can help a guy who states that he is sticking to his "default". 

I never said I was "sticking to it".  Just that I had one. Somewhere on the other end of the sanity spectrum from "fruit loop". 

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Again, if there were explosions as you allege, what do they have to do with your theory of burning thermite?

Sorry, I didn't know I am obligated to respond to your non-issue within a few minutes. I will try to do better next time.

Halsey said nothing to cooperate your story, all he stated is that he has problems with the NIST model. Since he is being paid by the truthers, what did you expect him to say? When his grad students actually publish their findings we will have something to look at.

Hulsey not Halsey, corroborate, not cooperate. If you were live you would be oozing onto the floor. 

You watched a human being being exploded out a twin tower window and here you are making excuses for yourself and advancing your lies about the grad students. 

You didn't watch any Hulsey video.

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I never said I was "sticking to it".  Just that I had one. Somewhere on the other end of the sanity spectrum from "fruit loop". 

The gall; the sanity spectrum. A twin tower explosion, of which, there were none according to the grand fabricators, blows a human being out the window and you talk about sanity.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Hulsey not Halsey, corroborate, not cooperate. If you were live you would be oozing onto the floor. 

Either that, or have a silent spell checker.

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

You watched a human being being exploded out a twin tower window and here you are making excuses for yourself and advancing your lies about the grad students. 

Ok, then show me their results. Not some weak video from months ago that doesn't provide anything of substance except saying they will publish later this spring.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The gall; the sanity spectrum. A twin tower explosion, of which, there were none according to the grand fabricators, blows a human being out the window and you talk about sanity.

Yeah.  Eventually I get bored though. 

[betsy]

7 hours ago, hot enough said:

I don't have any phuckin' idea. But we could speculate on that for forever. The point is, it was brought down by explosives because it fell at free fall speed for the first 2.5 seconds, 105 feet, 8 floors. And NIST admitted that free fall had occurred.

 

Your whole thing is pure.....speculation!  You ignore rebuttals you can't refute, and you go on as if no refutations were given at all.  Like the 2 refutations on page 12.

You can speculate on your theory, too, forever!

Edited March 3, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

12 hours ago, hot enough said:

Doesn't molten aluminum appear silvery in daylight conditions?

Here, it's explained to you.  In details.

 

 

 

This video debunks every one of your theory, one at a time.  Along with the previous articles on page 12, ......your conspiracy theory is soundly refuted.

 

Edited March 3, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

And here's from Popular Mechanics!

 

 

Quote

 

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The World Trade Center

The following content is from an in-depth investigation of the conspiracy theories surround the attacks of 9/11, which was published in the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics. That cover story was expanded and published in August 2006 as a book titled Debunking 9/11 Myths. The fully revised and updated 2011 edition of the book is now on sale.

 

"Melted" Steel

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

Edited March 3, 2017 by betsy

[hot enough]

It's all old material, Betsy. 

See the human being being forcefully ejected at high speed from one of the twin towers. NIST, who lied about most everything, including saying, in spite of the voluminous evidence, that there were no explosions, can't explain away the explosively ejected human being. 

It's amazing how people can support an evil this deep. 

[?Impact]

39 minutes ago, hot enough said:

can't explain away the explosively ejected human being

Lots of possible explanations. Probably the most likely is as internal infrastructure collapsed (e.g. a floor or even part of a floor) then a very large volume of air would be compressed in a fraction of a second.