• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

psikeyhackr said:
So our problem is the physics of skyscrapers. With 9/11 we are dealing with two skyscrapers having 110 levels above ground and six levels below ground. Doesn't that mean that every level must support the weight of all of the levels above it?
Click to expand...
No. You can't use "level" as an all encompassing term without explaining that each "level" has different structural subsystems designed for different load bearing capacities as explained next. Only the columns at each level supported the weight above said level. The floor subsystem connecting to the columns was designed to support their own weight plus any live loads placed on them.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

psikeyhackr said:
So our problem is the physics of skyscrapers.
Click to expand...
No it's not "our" problem. It's YOUR problem. You don't understand how to apply physics to a structure.

psikeyhackr said:
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Newton's 3rd Law of Motion went on vacation that day.

Newton's Third Law

If the top LEVEL of the stationary portion was crushed, then the bottom LEVEL of the falling portion had to be crushed. Those TWO LEVELS being crushed would require energy. The falling portion would have to lose kinetic energy. It would slow down. Then two more levels and two more levels. So the falling portion would run out of levels and energy first.
Click to expand...

Below is a video that shows what you claim is impossible due to Newton's third law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flo62pdaIMI

Explain how the smaller, upper section of the structure in the video destroyed the larger, lower section. According to your understanding of Newton's third law, this shouldn't happen.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maccabee said:
I decided to start a thread to ask for evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. A little background on me, I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job. what convinced me was things like the buildings supposedly falling at free fall speeds, the flash just as the plane hit the towers, Building 7's collapse, etc. I believed because frankly I didn't challenged the evidence presented to me. it wasn't until I decided to challenge and try to debunk my beliefs that i realized how wrong i was. At least so I believe. I'm more than willing to return to believing that 9/11 was an inside job if presented with irrefutable evidence. I'll start off with the claim that the towers feel at free fall speeds. If you watch a video filming the event (I'll come back with an example later), the debris from the tower is actually falling faster than the tower itself. Thus supposedly disproving the free fall claim. Any counter to this?
Click to expand...

I'm one of the nuts that finds neither side entirely convincing. The truthers are short on a body of facts that provide a complete, cohesive narrative. The gubment story supporters are stuck with excusing a number of improbable coincidences that amounted to a perfect storm.

I have decided that I'll probably never be entirely convinced one way or another. And I'm okay with that.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Another point you cannot prove. Certain facts suggest that American Airlines had cancelled its contract with Airfone months before September 2001.
Click to expand...
Evidence?
ANY phone calls made from private cell phones, and there were several, were impossible. If you bother to read the transcripts of the conversations between Betty Ong and her dispatch, and if you know anything about how the airlines operate, you would understand the utterly theatric and unnatural qualities of the conversations.
Click to expand...


So you're an air traffic controller or pilot? BTW, here's an article from a 9/11 truther debunking this conspiracy.

9-11 Review: ERROR: 'The Phone Calls were Fake'

Not so simple, eh?

Simple and honest would be your answering the question: How much knowledge or experience do YOU have with pre-2008 cell phones?
Click to expand...

Honestly not much. But why would that matter? I can always post articles from people who do have vast knowledge on the subject.
I do not expect honest or simple answers from a person that still supports the official story almost 17 years after the events. From a person like that, I expect Cognitive Dissonance in full bloom. Thank you for delivering my expectations.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read OP. I'm a former 9/11 truther. I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job not too long ago.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Three pages and no evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. There is a number of derail attempts. If someone can provide the links to evidence that it was an inside job, please do so.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
Three pages and no evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. There is a number of derail attempts. If someone can provide the links to evidence that it was an inside job, please do so.
Click to expand...

These threads always take this course. Truthers do not have evidence of an inside job.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

zyzygy said:
These threads always take this course. Truthers do not have evidence of an inside job.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maccabee said:
Here's the video I promised eariler along with a link to an article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN3qUXJp7l0
Click to expand...

Watch that video at 6:13.

We are supposed to believe that the columns broke in two places, above and below where the truss was attached, rather than the truss breaking loose from the spandrel.

Yeah right, create graphic videos to demonstrate the impossible. Look at the way those perimeter panels were made. THREE columns would have to break simultaneously, that is how many were connected to each spanderl panel. Since the columns were on the outside of the building they could dissipate heat to the air. Wouldn't the truss connections get a lot hotter? Wouldn't they weaken first?

How do you evaluate evidence when you can't use a little logic?
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

<alt>doxygen said:
I'm one of the nuts that finds neither side entirely convincing. The truthers are short on a body of facts that provide a complete, cohesive narrative. The gubment story supporters are stuck with excusing a number of improbable coincidences that amounted to a perfect storm.

I have decided that I'll probably never be entirely convinced one way or another. And I'm okay with that.
Click to expand...

It is not about narrative. It is only about physics. No one can defy the Laws of Physics.

So why doesn't everyone want accurate data on the buildings?
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

psikeyhackr said:
Watch that video at 6:13.

We are supposed to believe that the columns broke in two places, above and below where the truss was attached, rather than the truss breaking loose from the spandrel.
Click to expand...

Some of them did break away and I think you underestimate the strengh of the attachment points. Often times, the point of attachment is stronger than objects they want to attach.
Yeah right, create graphic videos to demonstrate the impossible. Look at the way those perimeter panels were made. THREE columns would have to break simultaneously, that is how many were connected to each spanderl panel. Since the columns were on the outside of the building they could dissipate heat to the air. Wouldn't the truss connections get a lot hotter? Wouldn't they weaken first?
Click to expand...

As I said, some of them did break away. And while I'm no engineer or expert on the subject, I wager the side of the columns closest to the fire got hot as well.
How do you evaluate evidence when you can't use a little logic?
Click to expand...

Logic is what caused me to realize that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

psikeyhackr said:
Watch that video at 6:13.

We are supposed to believe that the columns broke in two places, above and below where the truss was attached, rather than the truss breaking loose from the spandrel.

Yeah right, create graphic videos to demonstrate the impossible. Look at the way those perimeter panels were made. THREE columns would have to break simultaneously, that is how many were connected to each spanderl panel. Since the columns were on the outside of the building they could dissipate heat to the air. Wouldn't the truss connections get a lot hotter? Wouldn't they weaken first?

How do you evaluate evidence when you can't use a little logic?
Click to expand...

Off topic. Do you have any evidence of an inside job? If not then please do not derail the thread.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maccabee said:
Some of them did break away and I think you underestimate the strengh of the attachment points. Often times, the point of attachment is stronger than objects they want to attach.


As I said, some of them did break away. And while I'm no engineer or expert on the subject, I wager the side of the columns closest to the fire got hot as well.


Logic is what caused me to realize that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.
Click to expand...

Research the box columns yourself. They were 14 inches square and had to be strong enough to support weight further up the building which would include the outer halfs of all of the floors.. Each floor only had to support its own weight.

No, the idea that the floors broke the columns by sagging is nonsense.

Quit worrying about inside job and just analyze evidence, which means getting correct data about the building and the forces involved.

You think some stupid debunking video is going to explain the perimeter columns?

9-11 Research: The Perimeter Walls

There were 2600 panels on each building from the 9th floor to the top. An engineering magazine from 1970 said the heaviest was 22 tons. But we have not been supplied with data on how many different weights there were or the quantity of each. So where is any worthwhile evidence? But those trusses would have broken before the perimeter columns did from stress caused by the trusses.

zygy and mike are in my ignore list. Now I don't read posts without logging in. I had forgotten about them since last I was here.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

psikeyhackr said:
Research the box columns yourself. They were 14 inches square and had to be strong enough to support weight further up the building which would include the outer halfs of all of the floors.. Each floor only had to support its own weight.
Click to expand...

That doesn't account for when presented with several hundred derees of heat for over two hours.
No, the idea that the floors broke the columns by sagging is nonsense.

Quit worrying about inside job and just analyze evidence, which means getting correct data about the building and the forces involved.

You think some stupid debunking video is going to explain the perimeter columns?

9-11 Research: The Perimeter Walls

There were 2600 panels on each building from the 9th floor to the top. An engineering magazine from 1970 said the heaviest was 22 tons. But we have not been supplied with data on how many different weights there were or the quantity of each. So where is any worthwhile evidence? But those trusses would have broken before the perimeter columns did from stress caused by the trusses.

zygy and mike are in my ignore list. Now I don't read posts without logging in. I had forgotten about them since last I was here.
Click to expand...

The link you provided have no data on how much pounds per square inch the columns can withstand, how much of that strength is weaken by the heat generated by the collision, and what is the breaking point of the columns when under those conditions.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Still no evidence / proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Wish posters would stay on topic.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maccabee said:
That doesn't account for when presented with several hundred derees of heat for over two hours.


The link you provided have no data on how much pounds per square inch the columns can withstand, how much of that strength is weaken by the heat generated by the collision, and what is the breaking point of the columns when under those conditions.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between the temperature of a fire and the temperature of tons of steel that can conduct heat away from that fire? Two hours ain't squat.

How do you conclude the fire can heat 36 foot column sections on the outside of the building as well as trusses made of bent rods inside the building right above the fire? LOL

What do you know about the Cardington Tests in 1995?

Structural Fire Engineering: Database: Cardington Fire Test Data

https://www.eng.ed.ac.uk/sites/eng....-projects/20150115/cardington-main-report.pdf

https://www.eng.ed.ac.uk/research/projects/cardington-test-reports-pit-project

Now this is really funny:

If you look in Wikipedia for jet fuel burning temperature you find:

Max adiabatic burn temperature 2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) open air burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)[9][10][11]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

But if you go into the history for 2006 you find:

Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 °C
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_fuel&oldid=94143883

Adiabatc conditions gives a higher temperature. Is that what happens in a skyscraper fire? Why didn't that matter in 2006? It went adiabatic in 2014.
 
Last edited:
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

psikeyhackr said:
Do you understand the difference between the temperature of a fire and the temperature of tons of steel that can conduct heat away from that fire? Two hours ain't squat.

How do you conclude the fire can heat 36 foot column sections on the outside of the building as well as trusses made of bent rods inside the building right above the fire? LOL

What do you know about the Cardington Tests in 1995?

Structural Fire Engineering: Database: Cardington Fire Test Data

https://www.eng.ed.ac.uk/sites/eng....-projects/20150115/cardington-main-report.pdf

https://www.eng.ed.ac.uk/research/projects/cardington-test-reports-pit-project

Now this is really funny:

If you look in Wikipedia for jet fuel burning temperature you find:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

But if you go into the history for 2006 you find:



https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_fuel&oldid=94143883

Adiabatc conditions gives a higher temperature. Is that what happens in a skyscraper fire? Why didn't that matter in 2006? It went adiabatic in 2014.
Click to expand...

Ok, and how does any of this relates to what happened at the towers?
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

psikeyhackr said:
Do you understand the difference between the temperature of a fire and the temperature of tons of steel that can conduct heat away from that fire? Two hours ain't squat.

How do you conclude the fire can heat 36 foot column sections on the outside of the building as well as trusses made of bent rods inside the building right above the fire? LOL

What do you know about the Cardington Tests in 1995?

Structural Fire Engineering: Database: Cardington Fire Test Data

https://www.eng.ed.ac.uk/sites/eng....-projects/20150115/cardington-main-report.pdf

https://www.eng.ed.ac.uk/research/projects/cardington-test-reports-pit-project

Now this is really funny:

If you look in Wikipedia for jet fuel burning temperature you find:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

But if you go into the history for 2006 you find:



https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jet_fuel&oldid=94143883

Adiabatc conditions gives a higher temperature. Is that what happens in a skyscraper fire? Why didn't that matter in 2006? It went adiabatic in 2014.
Click to expand...

Off topic. Do you have any evidence of an inside job?
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maccabee said:
I decided to start a thread to ask for evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. A little background on me, I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job. what convinced me was things like the buildings supposedly falling at free fall speeds, the flash just as the plane hit the towers, Building 7's collapse, etc. I believed because frankly I didn't challenged the evidence presented to me. it wasn't until I decided to challenge and try to debunk my beliefs that i realized how wrong i was. At least so I believe. I'm more than willing to return to believing that 9/11 was an inside job if presented with irrefutable evidence. I'll start off with the claim that the towers feel at free fall speeds. If you watch a video filming the event (I'll come back with an example later), the debris from the tower is actually falling faster than the tower itself. Thus supposedly disproving the free fall claim. Any counter to this?
Click to expand...

I certainly used to be a skeptic; still question the pentagon hit. But, for the most part, I'm good with what I hear happened: 19 hijackers smashed jet planes into buildings, two really big ones collapsed due to fire and structural damage.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

calamity said:
I certainly used to be a skeptic; still question the pentagon hit. But, for the most part, I'm good with what I hear happened: 19 hijackers smashed jet planes into buildings, two really big ones collapsed due to fire and structural damage.
Click to expand...

There is a God for you and I to agree on something.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maccabee said:
Evidence?



So you're an air traffic controller or pilot? BTW, here's an article from a 9/11 truther debunking this conspiracy.

9-11 Review: ERROR: 'The Phone Calls were Fake'



Honestly not much. But why would that matter? I can always post articles from people who do have vast knowledge on the subject.


I guess you didn't read OP. I'm a former 9/11 truther. I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job not too long ago.
Click to expand...

Sure dude, you're a former 911 truther, and Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman. :lamo

I do appreciate that scintilla of honesty, that you've no experience with pre 2008 cell phones, and I copy your ignorant statement that it wouldn't matter. Ignorance on any given technical issue like physics is a common trait of the gullible and easily led.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
Sure dude, you're a former 911 truther, and Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman. :lamo

I do appreciate that scintilla of honesty, that you've no experience with pre 2008 cell phones, and I copy your ignorant statement that it wouldn't matter. Ignorance on any given technical issue like physics is a common trait of the gullible and easily led.
Click to expand...

There comes a point when someone just starts looking stupid.

Investigations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have concluded that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impacts of the planes and of the fires that resulted from them.[39][40] In 2005, a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was the result of progressive collapse initiated by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. A 2008 NIST report described a similar progressive collapse as the cause of the destruction of the third tallest building located at the World Trade Center site, the 7 WTC. Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility.[41] The NIST explanation of collapse is universally accepted by the structural engineering, and structural mechanics research communities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_&_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth
Click to expand...

When it comes to Trutherism, that point has long since passed.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

calamity said:
There comes a point when someone just starts looking stupid.



When it comes to Trutherism, that point has long since passed.
Click to expand...

You passed that point years ago sir.
 
re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thoreau72 said:
I do appreciate that scintilla of honesty, that you've no experience with pre 2008 cell phones,
Click to expand...
You keep bringing this up, but have yet to post a link to any of this evidence that supports your claim. Very telling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom