• 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]

He has to concentrate on your credentials as a diversionary tactic in an attempt to hide the fact that he has no alternative theory.

...which is just bulverism...a fallacy.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Dodge again, hey T. Guess you don't like it when faced with a question you cannot reconciliate. Pretty simple. All three claim to have the answer to what caused the tower destruction. All three cannot be correct. Prager claims the evidence shows it was a nuke event. Gage says the evidence does not. Wood states Prager and Gage are wrong.

Why is it so hard for you to state who is not correct? So explain to us why Prager is correct and the others are wrong. A reply of the govt. is wrong is not an answer. We know you do not accept a fire induced collapse explanation. So point to a source that explains the controlled demolition theory that you believe is correct.

Prager is correct in his thesis that nuclear devices were detonated at WTC. All the facts and evidence support that thesis.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Calling people liars is not an argument. It is an insult fallacy. I really don't care what you think my aviation credentials are. Claims of credentials are rather meaningless on forums anyway. Your belief does not change what my credentials are.

I agree completely, thus I did not call you a liar.

Dishonest posting is the Bull**** Fallacy, and you practice that consistently. Refusal to answer simple and straightforward answers is an insult to the notion of rational and adult public dialogue is also a demonstration of the Bull**** Fallacy, but that is your style.

Not only is it fallacious, it provides awesome insight into the perceived strength of one's argument. Deliberately not answering simple and straightforward questions, whether about aerodynamics or anything else, strongly suggests that a poster has something to hide, or is otherwise afraid of giving an honest answer that would threaten his worldview.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Prager is correct in his thesis that nuclear devices were detonated at WTC. All the facts and evidence support that thesis.

Thank you. I have Prager's e-books and other material from Prager. Then you are ruling out the other explanations and they are wrong.

According Prager no nanothermite was used in the destruction of the buildings. That issue is one of the main reason Prager and Gage had a falling out resulting in Prager leaving the AE911T fold. You use the "know liars" a great deal on why someone should not be believed. Yet, you seem to believe Gage, Jones, P4911T. Veterans Today promoted AE911T work and the use of nanothermite. VT also promoted Prager's work and others that it was a nuclear event.


We will disagree T on what took down the buildings on 9/11. It seems all of the ones who support alternative explanations could be called "known liars".
 
Last edited:
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

All the facts and evidence point away from mini nukes and explosives.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Thank you. I have Prager's e-books and other material from Prager. Then you are ruling out the other explanations and they are wrong.

According Prager no nanothermite was used in the destruction of the buildings. That issue is one of the main reason Prager and Gage had a falling out resulting in Prager leaving the AE911T fold. You use the "know liars" a great deal on why someone should not be believed. Yet, you seem to believe Gage, Jones, P4911T. Veterans Today promoted AE911T work and the use of nanothermite. VT also promoted Prager's work and others that it was a nuclear event.


We will disagree T on what took down the buildings on 9/11. It seems all of the ones who support alternative explanations could be called "known liars".

You don't seem to get it Mike. Prager's thesis regarding nukes is not a religion. I do not see him as a Bishop or Priest before whom I genuflect. No.

Prager's thesis is convincing to me because it is the ONLY thesis I have read that completely explains what before had been mysterious to me. It explains and reconciles all those oddly damaged vehicles and the laterally ejected masses.

Because I support his thesis DOES NOT MEAN that I agree with every single thought he has or word he utters. Being an independent thinker, I get to pick and choose what material I want. I read it all, but reject or accept based upon MY standards.

By the time I was 20 years old I realized and understood that ALL humans are capable of error, and some humans are capable of brilliant insight. All are capable of deception too, but it's well known that power DOES corrupt.

And having experienced it myself for a number of years, cognitive dissonance is very real. Some can overcome it, some cannot.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I agree completely, thus I did not call you a liar.
You do NOT agree, and you called me a liar.
Dishonest posting is the Bull**** Fallacy, and you practice that consistently.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
Refusal to answer simple and straightforward answers is an insult to the notion of rational and adult public dialogue is also a demonstration of the Bull**** Fallacy, but that is your style.
I did answer your questions.
Not only is it fallacious, it provides awesome insight into the perceived strength of one's argument.
Fallacy fallacy. Argument of the stone.
Deliberately not answering simple and straightforward questions,
Lie.
whether about aerodynamics
I did answer your questions about aerodynamics.
or anything else,
You didn't ask about anything else.
strongly suggests that a poster has something to hide, or is otherwise afraid of giving an honest answer that would threaten his worldview.
Argument of the stone fallacy. Insult fallacy.

Go back and read the answer I gave again.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

You don't seem to get it Mike. Prager's thesis regarding nukes is not a religion. I do not see him as a Bishop or Priest before whom I genuflect. No.

Prager's thesis is convincing to me because it is the ONLY thesis I have read that completely explains what before had been mysterious to me. It explains and reconciles all those oddly damaged vehicles and the laterally ejected masses.

Because I support his thesis DOES NOT MEAN that I agree with every single thought he has or word he utters. Being an independent thinker, I get to pick and choose what material I want. I read it all, but reject or accept based upon MY standards.

By the time I was 20 years old I realized and understood that ALL humans are capable of error, and some humans are capable of brilliant insight. All are capable of deception too, but it's well known that power DOES corrupt.

And having experienced it myself for a number of years, cognitive dissonance is very real. Some can overcome it, some cannot.

Interesting. Yet you name call those who accept a fire induced collapse without accepting 100% of the NIST or other govt reports. We will disagree on the cause. You believe nukes, I don't. Prager's explanation has so many issues. It also does not prove it was an inside job.

Like I have said, there is not one CD explanation that the facts support.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

You don't seem to get it Mike.
I think he 'gets it' far better than you do.
Prager's thesis regarding nukes is not a religion.
Actually, it is. All religions are based on some initial circular argument (which by itself is not a fallacy). In Christianity, for example, that initial circular argument is that Jesus Christ exists and He is who He says He is. Other arguments extend from this initial circular argument. The other word for a circular argument is 'faith'. The circular argument by itself it not a fallacy. Failure to recognize one for what it is, though, DOES become the fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

Religions do not require any priest or organization. An example of a religion like this is Shinto.

I do not see him as a Bishop or Priest before whom I genuflect. No.
In your case, you do. Your Priest is named Prager.
Prager's thesis is convincing to me because it is the ONLY thesis I have read that completely explains what before had been mysterious to me.
It still is mysterious to you. You might try learning physics, building construction techniques, the effects of fire on various materials, how aircraft fly, and even a bit of history.
It explains and reconciles all those oddly damaged vehicles and the laterally ejected masses.
Nothing is 'odd', other than the success of the attack itself.
Because I support his thesis DOES NOT MEAN that I agree with every single thought he has or word he utters.
Apparently you do.
Being an independent thinker,
You are NOT an independent thinker. You are using the arguments of another as your own.
I get to pick and choose what material I want.
And so you have. You are using the arguments of another as your own. You are not thinking for yourself.
I read it all, but reject or accept based upon MY standards.
Too bad your standards happen to exclude aerodynamics, history, physics, and modern building construction techniques, and the effects of fire on various materials.
By the time I was 20 years old I realized and understood that ALL humans are capable of error, and some humans are capable of brilliant insight.
That they are.
All are capable of deception too, but it's well known that power DOES corrupt.
You are being deceived.
And having experienced it myself for a number of years, cognitive dissonance is very real.
Some can overcome it, some cannot.
You have not.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

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?

Your info is right out of the iijacked truth movement that avoids real issues like the plague.

The first and foremost issue is the hijacked truth movement support of the official story regarding the structural nature of the tower core. Never has any evidence from 9/11 images, where the towers come apart in front of cameras, shown the supposed steel framed core structure.

The only images of the core of the Twins shows a concrete tubular core, just like a structural engineer hired by FEMA as well as Robertson, the architect, describe. Here is the documentation.

FEMA misrepresented core structure of the Twin Towers.

The concrete core of WTC2 with all of the exterior steel on the ground.

southcorestands.gif
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Prager is correct in his thesis that nuclear devices were detonated at WTC. All the facts and evidence support that thesis.

Sorry, wrong. Even 911T does not support it. Jones refuted Prager.

But hey, believe what you want.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Originally Posted by Thoreau72
Prager is correct in his thesis that nuclear devices were detonated at WTC. All the facts and evidence support that thesis.

Sorry, wrong. Even 911T does not support it. Jones refuted Prager.

But hey, believe what you want.

Frank Greening who was a former nuclear power plant specialist and Dr. Ron Larsen, Ph.D in materials testing, examined considerable gieger counter recorder data from GZ, and no cobalt 60 was found in the steel. Steel, being so dense, absorbs the cobalt 60 from a considerable distance. There was no nuclear detonation.

The strongest readings were from trace, radio active elements found in the Towers themselves.

I was nearly a licensed blaster in 1989. I understand what it takes to cut steel with high explosives, and none of that was seen and herd, or really even possible. A steel framed core structure was not really possible meeting the 110 mph winds that hit the towers. The core structure the 9/11 truth movement supports is the same as the government story. They refuse to use evidence and can source none for their belief.

What is shown by images of 9/11 is a concrete tubular core. This is WTC2 at 1/2 height after all the exterior steel hit the ground.

southcorestands.gif
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Frank Greening who was a former nuclear power plant specialist and Dr. Ron Larsen, Ph.D in materials testing, examined considerable gieger counter recorder data from GZ, and no cobalt 60 was found in the steel. Steel, being so dense, absorbs the cobalt 60 from a considerable distance. There was no nuclear detonation.

The strongest readings were from trace, radio active elements found in the Towers themselves.

I was nearly a licensed blaster in 1989. I understand what it takes to cut steel with high explosives, and none of that was seen and herd, or really even possible. A steel framed core structure was not really possible meeting the 110 mph winds that hit the towers. The core structure the 9/11 truth movement supports is the same as the government story. They refuse to use evidence and can source none for their belief.

What is shown by images of 9/11 is a concrete tubular core. This is WTC2 at 1/2 height after all the exterior steel hit the ground.

southcorestands.gif

Have you any thoughts regarding the 'hot spots' seen from space and commented about by various personnel on site? Any thoughts on the molten iron that went on for 3 months? On the air quality as measured by the DELTA Group and Mr. Cahill?

And regarding the picture you provided, any thoughts about how that does not really resemble what one might see in a collapse caused by office fires and gravity?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Have you any thoughts regarding the 'hot spots' seen from space and commented about by various personnel on site? Any thoughts on the molten iron that went on for 3 months? On the air quality as measured by the DELTA Group and Mr. Cahill?

And regarding the picture you provided, any thoughts about how that does not really resemble what one might see in a collapse caused by office fires and gravity?

Underground fires are not unheard there was no molten iron (I like how you have stopped calling it molten steel now, trying to lower the bar and still not reaching it)
Poor air quality with all that dust is expected. The collapses were consistant with the damage caused by the impacts and unfought fires.

Facts are not and have never been on your side
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Your info is right out of the iijacked truth movement that avoids real issues like the plague.

The first and foremost issue is the hijacked truth movement support of the official story regarding the structural nature of the tower core. Never has any evidence from 9/11 images, where the towers come apart in front of cameras, shown the supposed steel framed core structure.

The only images of the core of the Twins shows a concrete tubular core, just like a structural engineer hired by FEMA as well as Robertson, the architect, describe. Here is the documentation.

FEMA misrepresented core structure of the Twin Towers.

The concrete core of WTC2 with all of the exterior steel on the ground.

southcorestands.gif
Your concrete core theory has been ripped to shreds Chris. There is SO much information and calculations that proves your fantasy impossible. You got so desperate you even posted a picture of the NEW tower's core on your site and said it was the core of one of the OLD towers!

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

Have you any thoughts regarding the 'hot spots' seen from space and commented about by various personnel on site? Any thoughts on the molten iron that went on for 3 months? On the air quality as measured by the DELTA Group and Mr. Cahill?

And regarding the picture you provided, any thoughts about how that does not really resemble what one might see in a collapse caused by office fires and gravity?

There was thermite used in quantity at the bases of the massive interior box columns that surrounded the concrete core. And the perimeter column trees too. There is NO OTHER WAY for that amount of heat to be generated. The thermite had gotten vaporized by high explosives then mixed with sand and gravel with the the concrete. But, all of that is WAY ahead of the simple fact of the concrete tubular core.

The image of the WTC2 core is a very unusual image, and yes, it is not consistent with office fires and a gravity collapse. But, most importantly, there is no steel framed core structure seen.
 
Last edited:
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Your info is right out of the iijacked truth movement that avoids real issues like the plague.

Such as?
The first and foremost issue is the hijacked truth movement support of the official story regarding the structural nature of the tower core. Never has any evidence from 9/11 images, where the towers come apart in front of cameras, shown the supposed steel framed core structure.

The only images of the core of the Twins shows a concrete tubular core, just like a structural engineer hired by FEMA as well as Robertson, the architect, describe. Here is the documentation.

FEMA misrepresented core structure of the Twin Towers.

The concrete core of WTC2 with all of the exterior steel on the ground.

southcorestands.gif
Ok, what is the point of this?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

There was thermite used in quantity at the bases of the massive interior box columns that surrounded the concrete core. And the perimeter column trees too. There is NO OTHER WAY for that amount of heat to be generated. The thermite had gotten vaporized by high explosives then mixed with sand and gravel with the the concrete. But, all of that is WAY ahead of the simple fact of the concrete tubular core.

The image of the WTC2 core is a very unusual image, and yes, it is not consistent with office fires and a gravity collapse. But, most importantly, there is no steel framed core structure seen.

I have no problem with the concrete interior core seen on the picture. I'm not sure of exactly what it means, but I do not doubt what the picture shows.

So you claim that thermite was used? I tend to agree with that view for a number of reasons.

How much heat was generated in your view? Do you acknowledge the presence of molten steel for about 3 months?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I have no problem with the concrete interior core seen on the picture. I'm not sure of exactly what it means, but I do not doubt what the picture shows.

So you claim that thermite was used? I tend to agree with that view for a number of reasons.

How much heat was generated in your view? Do you acknowledge the presence of molten steel for about 3 months?

The molten Iron is now molten steel again, both exist only in the mind of Truthers
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Such as?

Ok, what is the point of this?

Hmmm, if you do not know what analyzing a steel framed core collapse instead of what really existed, a concrete core, does to the cause of death of 3,000 shown on death certificates, there is not much point in my trying to explain it.

Compare what actually stood at the core shown in the photo of the WTC 2 core I posted to what this diagram from the WTC commission shows.

femacore.gif


All of your information is perhaps relevant, but not actionable, so is fairly useless. Titillating but useless.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The molten Iron is now molten steel again, both exist only in the mind of Truthers

There was a lot of hose time cooling the excavator grapples because they were using steel chunks to pull up molten that would stick to it. There are photos. Your labeling is infantile.

moltensteelenclose5mt.jpg
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I have no problem with the concrete interior core seen on the picture. I'm not sure of exactly what it means, but I do not doubt what the picture shows.

So you claim that thermite was used? I tend to agree with that view for a number of reasons.

How much heat was generated in your view? Do you acknowledge the presence of molten steel for about 3 months?

It means if the public knew that there was a rectangular, tubular concrete core, they would be asking, "Where are all the big chunks of concrete?", because there are almost none.

Yes thermite is the only way that much heat could get where is was and sustain. Particles of thermite kept igniting. The thermal imaging could be used to quantify the total thermal event. I don't do that.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

It means if the public knew that there was a rectangular, tubular concrete core, they would be asking, "Where are all the big chunks of concrete?", because there are almost none.

Yes thermite is the only way that much heat could get where is was and sustain. Particles of thermite kept igniting. The thermal imaging could be used to quantify the total thermal event. I don't do that.

What do you do?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

There was a lot of hose time cooling the excavator grapples because they were using steel chunks to pull up molten that would stick to it. There are photos. Your labeling is infantile.

moltensteelenclose5mt.jpg

You need to learn the meaning of molten it doesn't mean glowing with heat
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

What do you do?

I work in engineering, mostly surveying and layout for construction.

I also present photographic evidence of the true core structure of the Twins with independent evidence verifying it. For example, see page 5 of the November 2001 report by a structural engineer certified in 12 states identifying a concrete core.

This pdf was originally hosted on the the server of ncsea, "National Council of Structural Engineers Associations"

NCSEA
I downloaded it and then put it on my server
http://algoxy.com/psych/images3/domel-www.ncsea.down.pdf
 
Back
Top Bottom