Jump to content

Sixteen years on and still no evidence for USGOCT


hot enough

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Windsor tower is not even close to a valid argument, it was still standing after it's major 18 to 20hr fire, you see that in the picture. The portions of the floors that did actually collapse did so over several hours. 

Everything you have said is completely true. Windsor Tower is also not remotely close to the same kind of construction. What collapsed was lightweight ferro/concrete exterior walls.

WTC steel was most certainly not lightweight and it was not surrounded by concrete.

4 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Although I'm not sure what HE is getting at with the aircraft he does have some very valid arguments and evidence about the collapse of the buildings. 

I thank you for your honesty, Tostb. It is incredibly refreshing to see this kind of honesty and bravery. Shouldn't we, the honest and open WEST be able to fully discuss absolutely anything?

As regards the aircraft, don't you consider it at least as equally odd as the twin towers collapses that not one of the roughly four million serial numbered parts from any of the four alleged 911 planes has been positively identified as coming from the alleged aircraft, matched to any of the 4 aircraft?

This has never ever happened before in aviation history. Here is a highly trained airline accident investigator has to say about this incredible impossibility:

Quote

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. 

Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.

https://www.ff911truthandunity.org/col-george-nelson

Don't you consider it odd, incredibly odd, impossible, that the engine we see flying out of the north face of WTC2, the one that landed on Murray Street, is not an engine that was ever installed in United Airlines 767-200s, one of which, UA175, was alleged to be the plane that hit WTC2?

Do you consider it odd, incredibly strange that the odds of the USGOCT happening as the US government says is 54 Trillion to one?

But those odds are actually much much too low. It is actually 100% impossible that the USGOCT is true. Why? Because of all the impossible things that have occurred that the alleged 19 Arab hijackers could not have done.

1. Melted steel

2. Vaporized steel/lead

3. Melted molybdenum

4. Brought US government/military non-commercially available nanothermite, developed in the 1990s by US military labs to the WTC and caused unreacted/unexploded particles of it to be in WTC dust

5. Hijackers could not have even brought regular thermite/thermate to the WTC.

6. Hijackers could not suspend the laws of physics and cause WTC7 to fall at free fall speed, especially when they didn't come within two football field of said building.

7. Hijackers could not suspend the laws of physics and cause the twin towers to fall at accelerating speed. That too is against Newton's Laws of Motion. 

8. Caused 6% of WTC dust to consist of iron microspheres which are one of the main by products of thermite/thermate/nanothermite reactions. Normal office dust contains 0.04% iron spheres. 

There are many more total impossibilities. One of the major ones is that there is no actual evidence for the USGOCT. I have been asking for some for a long long time and none has ever been advanced. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Windsor tower is not even close to a valid argument, it was still standing after it's major 18 to 20hr fire, you see that in the picture. The portions of the floors that did actually collapse did so over several hours. The WTC buildings were collapsed into piles ten feet high after about four hours... That doesn't raise any flags?

Actually the Windsor Tower fire provides a lot of information that totally sinks the USGOCT, as if we needed anymore evidence. 

WT was built without any fireproofing on the steel, as it was not required then. Just do a mental comparison, the sooty, black smoky fires of the twin towers compared to the almost 24 hours, roaring, complete conflagration of the WT fires. 

The twin towers had heavy insulation on the steel framework. They even had had upgrading of the steel insulation that went on on the floors where the planes hit.

Coincidence?

Nanothermite can be spray applied and set off with nanothermite matches controlled remotely. 

WT was lightweight steel framing, uninsulated remember, while the twin towers were massive steel columns with heavy insulation on all steel.

Same for WTC7. Office fires typically burn thru the office furnishings fuel in about 20 minutes and then they move on to new fuel areas. Twenty minutes is not enough time to heat massive steel framing anywhere close to critical steel temperatures even if it is totally UNINSULATED!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So HE, what struck the twin towers? What happened to the planes and passengers? Do you have an alternative chain of events as to what caused the explosions and fires before the towers collapsed? 

As far as the incorrect jet engine being found near the site I have no clue, how do you know. that wasn't made up? Did it fall off a truck that happened to be in the area? Who read the serial numbers off it? Was it an engine that was being tested on this aircraft? 

I can see no investigation being done to determine the cause of the crash as what happened is blatantly obvious. Especially the second plane. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Actually the Windsor Tower fire provides a lot of information that totally sinks the USGOCT, as if we needed anymore evidence. 

WT was built without any fireproofing on the steel, as it was not required then. Just do a mental comparison, the sooty, black smoky fires of the twin towers compared to the almost 24 hours, roaring, complete conflagration of the WT fires. 

The twin towers had heavy insulation on the steel framework. They even had had upgrading of the steel insulation that went on on the floors where the planes hit.

Coincidence?

Nanothermite can be spray applied and set off with nanothermite matches controlled remotely. 

WT was lightweight steel framing, uninsulated remember, while the twin towers were massive steel columns with heavy insulation on all steel.

Same for WTC7. Office fires typically burn thru the office furnishings fuel in about 20 minutes and then they move on to new fuel areas. Twenty minutes is not enough time to heat massive steel framing anywhere close to critical steel temperatures even if it is totally UNINSULATED!!

 

Sooty black smoke is actually not a good determining factor for actual fire temperature. I say this because I have personally seen the results of black sooty fires on automobiles and equipment, the heat can get high enough to cause steel to bend and settle. That being said, this stuff didn't just "freefall" and disintegrate... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

1. So HE, what struck the twin towers?

2. What happened to the planes and passengers?

3. Do you have an alternative chain of events as to what caused the explosions and fires before the towers collapsed? 

1. Obviously not the planes that the USGOCT alleges, that much is clear. No comments on these total impossibilities?

2. I don't know. Why should I know or why should I be expected to know? Do crime investigators know all all the time?

3. George Bush describes bombs and explosions in the twin towers after the planes hit and before the collapses. Don't you think he should be asked as to how these occurred?

The seismic record shows that there was a huge basement explosion before the plane hit the WTC1. Is this not odd to you?

 

Quote

As far as the incorrect jet engine being found near the site I have no clue, how do you know. that wasn't made up? Did it fall off a truck that happened to be in the area? Who read the serial numbers off it? Was it an engine that was being tested on this aircraft? 

I don't expect you to know, or to even have a clue. This isn't about you or me, and I'm sorry if I gave you an indication that I expected a detailed and complete analysis from you. I didn't and I don't. I only ask that you [and everyone else] think these things over and see if they pass the smell test that every thinking human possesses, even children.

Quote

I can see no investigation being done to determine the cause of the crash as what happened is blatantly obvious. Especially the second plane. 

I don't understand what you are saying.

Edited by hot enough
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

Sooty black smoke is actually not a good determining factor for actual fire temperature. I say this because I have personally seen the results of black sooty fires on automobiles and equipment, the heat can get high enough to cause steel to bend and settle.

Scientists disagree with your analysis.

Quote

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. 

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

...

It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

 

Even NIST says that steel temperatures, from paint study tests, didn't get high enough to cause failure. That's why NIST never did a twin towers study. They knew that they couldn't justify such results with the data available to them.

Quote

That being said, this stuff didn't just "freefall" and disintegrate... 

Precisely!! Which is enough, in and of itself, to show that the USGOCT is totally false. As this is impossible to have happened, the remainder or much of the remainder of the story is also impossible. 

The planes were needed to even get the story remotely close to plausible. But nothing about the planes makes the science disappear. The twin towers were designed for just such an event. The redundancy of the structure was far beyond anything the "planes" could have done. At most, a partial, localized collapse. 

As you have so eloquently stated "freefall", actually accelerating speed collapses, cannot cause total disintegration of all the steel structure plus 220 acres of steel reinforced concrete floors 4 to 5 inches thick and the floors steel forming pans.

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

As far as the incorrect jet engine being found near the site I have no clue, how do you know. that wasn't made up? Did it fall off a truck that happened to be in the area? Who read the serial numbers off it? Was it an engine that was being tested on this aircraft? 

There were pictures taken of the engine by various independent sources. 

If it had fallen off a truck wouldn't you be even more suspicious? How could it have fallen off in the exact place that its trajectory, speed and flight path describe? 

Doesn't it make you at all suspicious that this engine was not saved for investigation, that it was just dumped in a Manhattan landfill?

It wasn't serial numbers, it was a very noticeable part, readily identifiable in the picture, that was a part that was not used in UA 767-200s engines. Different manufacturer.

That doesn't make you suspicious?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes.  I'm not going to look at your reasons for not trusting the FBI.  Most of us do, at least to name suspects so...

Well then, Michael, that sinks what you think is your "slam dunk". 

 You had said before, Michael, 

"Bin Laden's confession and the FBI assessment align.  Case closed."

Nothing at all in your first long quote in that post even hints at an OBL confession. That's because OBL never confessed to being involved in 911. It would be totally impossible for him to have been because there wasn't even any 19 Arab hijackers. 

What was OBL's plan, to sneak into US government military labs and steal the nanothermite that was found in WTC dust, then secretly run around planting it as necessary to cause the twin towers to fall in a manner that breaks Newton's Laws of Motion? 

Are you familiar with Newton's Laws of Motion?

Of course, Marcus has totally dismantled your non argument much better than I. Why do you always resort to such non arguments on such an important topic and avoid the scientific evidence that makes the USGOCT totally impossible?

Especially when you really, actually know that the US government story is totally bogus.

What are you really trying to do here? Don't you think it is one thing to be emotionally troubled by the revelation that the US government has lied about pretty much everything and a totally different and much more serious thing to be actively trying to provide cover for these vicious criminals?

Quote

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11.  The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.  When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” 

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?”  Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.”  I asked, “How does that work?”  Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence.  Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice.  The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury.  In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury.  He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

https://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-says-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/2623

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, hot enough said:

1. Obviously not the planes that the USGOCT alleges, that much is clear. No comments on these total impossibilities?

2. I don't know. Why should I know or why should I be expected to know? Do crime investigators know all all the time?

3. George Bush describes bombs and explosions in the twin towers after the planes hit and before the collapses. Don't you think he should be asked as to how these occurred?

4. The seismic record shows that there was a huge basement explosion before the plane hit the WTC1. Is this not odd to you?

 

5. I don't expect you to know, or to even have a clue. This isn't about you or me, and I'm sorry if I gave you an indication that I expected a detailed and complete analysis from you. I didn't and I don't. I only ask that you [and everyone else] think these things over and see if they pass the smell test that every thinking human possesses, even children.

6. I don't understand what you are saying.

1. So planes did strike the twin towers? What total impossibilities? 

2.  So you don't know... That kinda blows your argument out of the water.

3. EXCELLENT idea, only problem is he probably doesn't have a clue. I think he was a true political puppet. 

4. That is entirely possible, that also has nothing to do with the aircraft. 

5. Well, from what I've seen, heard, read and experienced those aircraft striking striking the towers as they did driven by who they claimed is entirely possible, there is no question in my mind. As far as the errant engine is concerned, maybe it was planted to really get the conspiracy theorists going, I have no idea.

6. The aircraft were flown into the towers, there is no need to investigate the cause of the crash. Besides most of the evidence would have been obliterated in the collapse of the towers anyway. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

1. So planes did strike the twin towers? What total impossibilities? 

Apparently. But not absolutely. More on this after I briefly address 2 to 5.

Quote

2.  So you don't know... That kinda blows your argument out of the water.

Not in the least. Why would you say that?

There have been many murder convictions without bodies.

What blows the USGOCT out of the water is all the totally impossible things that occurred that 19 Arabl hijackers could never have done.

Quote

3. EXCELLENT idea, only problem is he probably doesn't have a clue. I think he was a true political puppet. 

He knows enough to know there were bombs and explosions in the twin towers before they collapsed. How do you figure that one of the humans that were on the impact floors was explosively blown out a twin tower window as seen in a video? 

The same video shows explosions moving the window blinds over multiple floors and the people hanging out the windows visibly reacting to these explosions. 

Quote

4. That is entirely possible, that also has nothing to do with the aircraft. 

It's not just possible, it is 100% true. The seismic record is hard science.

Again, this in and of itself blows the USGOCT out of the water. There was no, that is zero legal/legitimate reason for any explosions according to the official story before the arrival of the "plane".

Quote

5. Well, from what I've seen, heard, read and experienced those aircraft striking striking the towers as they did driven by who they claimed is entirely possible, there is no question in my mind. As far as the errant engine is concerned, maybe it was planted to really get the conspiracy theorists going, I have no idea.

Such a thing, is, of course, possible. However, in this case, no, it is 100% impossible. There were no Arab hijackers. Airports have cameras, video, etc for security. No pictures. Some of the "hijackers" are still alive. 

All the impossible things, the molten metals, the nanothermite, the unexploded nanothermite, the by products of nanothermite reactions, the free fall of WTC7, the accelerating speeds of the twin towers, the molten steel in the rubble pile until February 2002, the ... means there were no hijackers. No hijackers means the USGOCT is totally bogus.

Quote

6. The aircraft were flown into the towers, there is no need to investigate the cause of the crash. Besides most of the evidence would have been obliterated in the collapse of the towers anyway. 

 

It appears or was made to appear that aircraft were flown into the towers. 

How come the face of WTC2 is completely intact? Supposedly, a wing has gone thru this part of the building but it is as perfect as it was on September 10, 2001.

Blow the picture up and see for yourself. This addresses your number 1 and 6.

 

image-27.jpeg

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have good evidence and arguments for the demolition of the towers but your aircraft argument falls flat on it's face. 

So far I've seen no valid arguments against the chain of events that resulted in the aircraft as claimed striking the twin towers.

As far as whodunit? I wouldn't be surprised people in the US are actually responsible, a few people had allot to gain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Apparently. But not absolutely. More on this after I briefly address 2 to 5.

I await with bated breath :D

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Not in the least. Why would you say that?

You "believe" but have no evidence...

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

There have been many murder convictions without bodies.

True but in every case they had undeniable evidence (hopefully) to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. I believe you've even stated they hauled all the evidence off before there could be any proper investigation.

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

What blows the USGOCT out of the water is all the totally impossible things that occurred that 19 Arabl hijackers could never have done.

Why not? They were just a capable as you and I.

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

He knows enough to know there were bombs and explosions in the twin towers before they collapsed. How do you figure that one of the humans that were on the impact floors was explosively blown out a twin tower window as seen in a video? 

The same video shows explosions moving the window blinds over multiple floors and the people hanging out the windows visibly reacting to these explosions. 

Again, not relevant to the aircraft and you have no argument from me here. 

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

It's not just possible, it is 100% true. The seismic record is hard science.

Got a link?

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Again, this in and of itself blows the USGOCT out of the water. There was no, that is zero legal/legitimate reason for any explosions according to the official story before the arrival of the "plane".

Hey, that's entirely possible, why didn't the tower collapse then? 

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Such a thing, is, of course, possible. However, in this case, no, it is 100% impossible. There were no Arab hijackers. Airports have cameras, video, etc for security. No pictures. Some of the "hijackers" are still alive. 

Why not, what does an Arab hijacker look like when remove the turban? Just like most other travelers in an airport...

You know as well as I security gets complacent, they are only human. How many thousands of people were in these airports that morning?

I'd like to meet one, got a number? Adress? Handle on here?

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

All the impossible things, the molten metals, the nanothermite, the unexploded nanothermite, the by products of nanothermite reactions, the free fall of WTC7, the accelerating speeds of the twin towers, the molten steel in the rubble pile until February 2002, the ... means there were no hijackers. No hijackers means the USGOCT is totally bogus.

It appears or was made to appear that aircraft were flown into the towers.

It's impossible to demolish a tower that was struck by an aircraft?

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

 

How come the face of WTC2 is completely intact? Supposedly, a wing has gone thru this part of the building but it is as perfect as it was on September 10, 2001.

Blow the picture up and see for yourself. This addresses your number 1 and 6.

 

image-27.jpeg

 

The wing is still attached to the plane? It was like that when it got there? It's just beginning to enter the building what's your point?

The description makes it sound like it should be like a bug hitting a windshield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

You have good evidence and arguments for the demolition of the towers but your aircraft argument falls flat on it's[sic] face. 

USGOCT = United States Government Official Conspiracy Theory

You don't say how "your aircraft argument falls flat on it's[sic] face".  The USGOCT falls flat on its face because UA175 wasn't the plane that hit WTC2. How does this escape you?

46 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

So far I've seen no valid arguments against the chain of events that resulted in the aircraft as claimed striking the twin towers.

The plane that hit WTC2 wasn't UA175. How does this keep escaping you?

46 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

As far as whodunit? I wouldn't be surprised people in the US are actually responsible, a few people had allot to gain. 

Both illegal invasions of the sovereign nations, I and A, were premised on this gigantic 911 lie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

The wing is still attached to the plane? It was like that when it got there? It's just beginning to enter the building what's your point?

You have to look at the picture. The wing between the fuselage and the engine has entered the building. There is no portion of the wing between the fuselage and the engine still outside the building yet the building face is totally intact, showing no damage. 

Quote

The description makes it sound like it should be like a bug hitting a windshield.

It is impossible for the wing tips to slice thru 14" steel box columns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, hot enough said:

USGOCT = United States Government Official Conspiracy Theory

Thanks :)

10 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You don't say how "your aircraft argument falls flat on it's[sic] face".  The USGOCT falls flat on its face because UA175 wasn't the plane that hit WTC2. How does this escape you?

The plane that hit WTC2 wasn't UA175. How does this keep escaping you?

Prove it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You have to look at the picture. The wing between the fuselage and the engine has entered the building. There is no portion of the wing between the fuselage and the engine still outside the building yet the building face is totally intact, showing no damage. 

Optical illusion? Happens all the time.... https://www.google.ca/search?q=accidental+optical+illusions&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6nLXthrPXAhWoqFQKHd9lBJMQ_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=590

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

It is impossible for the wing tips to slice thru 14" steel box columns. 

Didn't have to, but could bust glass without a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...