Jump to content

Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

Out of control office fires you should have said due to lack of water supply to the sprinkler system. Different construction technique, plus the shrapnel damage from wtc1

Any person with the slightest degree of honesty, even you could do this, Omni, can look at the pictures and see that WTC7, has normal office fires, while the others have much bigger fires. 

You advance the same nonsense, again, you mouth the memes, without any sourcing when you were asked to do so, when you have been asked to do so myriad times. That is patent dishonesty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

Um, I remind you that you are the one supporting the conspiracy theories.

You and your fellow science deniers, who can't even answer easy Yes/No questions about things easily verifiable have never provided ANY evidence to support the conspiracy theory you all struggle desperately, vainly to support, the US Government 911 Conspiracy Theory.

Why no video/pictures of the "hijackers"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Omni said:

Nope, as already pointed out, 7 hours of UNCONTROLLED fires.

That is a complete impossibility, Omni, but a non-science guy like you can easily be duped. Office fires burn the available fuel and then when it is exhausted, they move on. Temperatures rise in an area and then fall as the fire goes out. No steel in WTC 7 could have been heated to anywhere near the critical temperatures because all the steel was fully fireproofed. 

What about the The One Meridian Plaza Fire that burned for 18 hours, and all the other fires that have burned longer and much hotter? Why won't you comment on the pictures that you can see with your own eyes?

You also totally ignore the fact that NIST says the collapse was due, not to "7 hours of UNCONTROLLED fires" [which is just hyperbole based on your ignorance of the actual events], but to the failure of one column. That has been shown to be completely impossible by a two year forensic engineering study. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Omni said:

Those sprinkler systems relied on city water supply which had already been cut when  7 caught fire.

You seem to have missed the following. That is so unlike a guy like you who is so dedicated to science.

"Office fires burn the available fuel and then when it is exhausted, they move on. Temperatures rise in an area and then fall as the fire goes out. No steel in WTC 7 could have been heated to anywhere near the critical temperatures because all the steel was fully fireproofed."

No collapse in the Meridian One fire, 18 hours.  

There were no sprinklers in the Cardington test fires, which had much extra fuel added and they burned until they went out. There was sagging on the totally bare, totally non-insulated secondary steel beams but no collapse.

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Omni said:

Because what he is touching was HOT steel that was deformed because HOT steel looses it;s strength to a great degree, them it bends and allows floors to collapse into lower floors. Bye bye building. 

Omni/Dop/Wilber's responses are highly illustrative of two things: that they know absolutely nothing about steel and heat, or, much more awful, [I'm sure they will let everyone know which was their intended pattern] they are deliberately providing lies to distract the highly gullible.

What John Gross is touching in the picture below is a previously molten/vaporized steel beam/column, which is something 100%, totally, completely impossible given the US government conspiracy theory/story/fable. 

911truthgrosswtc7beam.jpg

There was NO fuel available [only fuel that was available was jet fuel and office furnishings, capable of only 1,800F] in the US government conspiracy theory/story/fable that can cause a steel beam/column to melt [2,700F], let alone vaporize [4,900F+].

It is the same eutectic steel described by the NYT, after interviewing FEMA scientists.  [bolded [THICK] is mine]

“A one-inch [THICK] column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.”

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

Here is the eutectic steel described by FEMA in their report. Again, THIS IS CRUCIAL!

THERE WAS NO FUEL THAT IS DESCRIBED IN AND BY THE OFFICIAL US STORY THAT COULD HAVE DONE THIS TO FULL STRENGTH WTC STEEL COLUMNS AND GIRDERS.

swisscheese.jpg

 

REMEMBER, NIST CATEGORICALLY DENIED THAT THIS MOLTEN/VAPORIZED STEEL EVEN EXISTED. 

CAN EVERYONE HERE SEE IT?

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Omni said:

HE will ignore the common sense question as to how did tons of explosives and miles of det cord get implanted into the towers, and nobody saw a thing. We know who the chicken is here. Or more like a duck I'd say, wobbling around in a fall fair shooting gallery.

It was interesting how Larry Silverstein who just about every day had his breakfast in one of the towers did not show up that day for his breakfast. He just happened to have had an appointment with his dentist that day. Lucky for him, eh? Ya, right. An Israeli hired security outfit just happened to be in charge of security for the towers. It was not hard to sneak the anyone into those towers at night and setting up the explosives and placing those explosives in the right locations to be able to bring both towers down perfectly. They had lots of time on their hands to plant explosives. But you don't have to believe me. Go to website AE9/11. It is all there for one to read, and be able to get the other side of the story. But knowing who you are now I know that you won't be visiting that website, eh? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Omni said:

And I'll simply refer you back to the video which shows what HOT steel does.

The only way a plane could possibly bring down a building like the twin towers is to maybe fly one into the bottom of the building. Then it could be possible. But a plane flying into the top of a building like the twin towers cannot bring down the whole building. The steel structures alone would be strong enough to keep the rest of the building from tumbling down. You are full of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

I have visited numerous conspiracy theory websites. Same old crap over and over.

Ya, the zog websites that you like to visit and listen too are the ones that enjoy lying to the public. Same old lies over and over coming from the same old ilk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, taxme said:

The only way a plane could possibly bring down a building like the twin towers is to maybe fly one into the bottom of the building. Then it could be possible. But a plane flying into the top of a building like the twin towers cannot bring down the whole building. The steel structures alone would be strong enough to keep the rest of the building from tumbling down. You are full of it. 

They were strong enough until the heat from burning jet fuel weakened them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Omni said:

They were strong enough until the heat from burning jet fuel weakened them.

Bull chit. The heat from the jet fuel could in no way bring down those buildings. Stop talking so stupid. How could the fuel weaken the steel beams in the basement of both towers then? I will give you one, but both? There is no way that jet fuel would be able to melt the beams of both of those buildings. I think that I have heard enough crap from you today. Now I think I will go have one. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't have to. The aircraft caused several floors in the middle to fail. When they failed, the floors on top dropped onto the floor below and caused it to fail and so on, the failures just cascaded down to the bottom. It's pretty obvious from the videos that the collapse started near the impact point and worked its way down the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Omni said:

I have visited numerous conspiracy theory websites. Same old crap over and over.

Well then, you can't read. Because you are the one spouting the wackiest conspiracy theory ever, the one where you can't provide a lick of evidence to support it, while the 911 Truth folks, thousands of engineers, architects, physicists, scientist of all kind are doing the science which illustrates the US government conspiracy theory has hundreds of holes in it blown out with nanothermite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Omni said:

They were strong enough until the heat from burning jet fuel weakened them.

Provide your source, Omni. Yeah, I know, you never provide any sources, you never discuss because you know you will catch yourself out as a guy who knows nothing. 

You are a one liner science denier/anti-truther.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Didn't have to. The aircraft caused several floors in the middle to fail. When they failed, the floors on top dropped onto the floor below and caused it to fail and so on, the failures just cascaded down to the bottom. It's pretty obvious from the videos that the collapse started near the impact point and worked its way down the building.

Lie number one in bold. 

It wasn't in the MIDDLE of either building. For 1 there were 91 floors below the impact. For 2 there were 77 floors below the impact.

Lie number two in italics.

Wilber's bogus description violates Newton's Laws. Both collapses accelerated, with not even a jolt, which is impossible. A much smaller, much much weaker section of floors cannot pulverize 91 and 77 floors below them. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 

A scientific study done shows that WTC1 would have self arrested within two floors. 

Lie number three is underlined. 

What is obvious from the videos when careful measurements are done, that's what science is, Wilber, not making silly assumptions like you have, is that the towers were blown up. Gravity collapses cannot hurl mutli-ton steel sections 2 football fields away. Gravity collapses cannot pulverize 220 acres of concrete and steel forming pans into micro-sized particles. Gravity collapses cannot use the kinetic energy of free fall to destroy all this and keep accelerating. It is impossible. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Omni said:

And I'll simply refer you back to the video which shows what HOT steel does.

And I'll simply refer you back to the pictures of the molten and vaporized steel, something that you can see with your own eyes, something that you know is totally impossible following the US official conspiracy theory and yet it is something that you, an oh so obvious SCIENCE DENIER keeps on denying. 

SCIENCE DENIERS that never provide sources, never will discuss, never provide evidence for their US government official conspiracy theory.

You all remind me of Joey Bishop in the movie, "A Guide for the Married Man"

Deny Deny Deny

 

How can such people be in positions of responsibility, actually care for children, ... ? 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, taxme said:

The only way a plane could possibly bring down a building like the twin towers is to maybe fly one into the bottom of the building. Then it could be possible. But a plane flying into the top of a building like the twin towers cannot bring down the whole building. The steel structures alone would be strong enough to keep the rest of the building from tumbling down. You are full of it. 

taxme obviously understands Newton's Laws of Motion. Whether this is a deep knowledge or an intuitive knowledge is of no concern. Everyone intuitively knows that a much much smaller piece cannot destroy a much much bigger piece without destroying itself, at the same time AND at an equal rate. 

Nineteen floors of WTC1 could not destroy the other NINETY-ONE floors which contained much stronger, heavier steel the lower the floors went. 

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Omni said:

They were strong enough until the heat from burning jet fuel weakened them.

I am really impressed by your sources and your calculations, Omni. You are one dandy scientist.

Quote

Summarizing: 

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. 

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F). 


Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse. 

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media. 

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments." 
Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). 

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers. 

Conclusion: 

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center. 

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I am really impressed by your sources and your calculations, Omni. You are one dandy scientist.

 

I already debunked this nonsense, and you know it. You had a chance to talk real science and instead you ran away.
Stop lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I already debunked this nonsense, and you know it. You had a chance to talk real science and instead you ran away.
Stop lying.

No, you didn't, OftenWrong. You dillied and dallied like Omni, Dop, Wilber, ... does. You science deniers, you anti-truthers never address anything. You're a bunch of one liners. A collection of Joey Bishops, deny deny deny, backed up by your fatuous one liners.

And here are some easy questions for you to illustrate how important science is to you.

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?

2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust?

3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust?

4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see?

5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? 

6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum?

7. Do you deny that John Gross [and others] of NIST lied about the molten/vaporized steel, the explosions, the bombs reported, WTC7 free fall, the shear studs, the composite floors, the ...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...