• 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]

Flipping burgers is my bet.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

ralphcdp said:
The designers of the twin towers not only imagined it, they designed the buildings to ensure that such an event would not cause their demise.
Click to expand...
That's a lie. They never analyzed the effects of fire on the structure due to plane impacts and how fire would affect the damaged structure. Robertson stated that. Also they DID survive the impacts. It was the damaged structure coupled with the resultant fire that cause the towers to collapse.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
That's a lie. They never analyzed the effects of fire on the structure due to plane impacts and how fire would affect the damaged structure. Robertson stated that. Also they DID survive the impacts. It was the damaged structure coupled with the resultant fire that cause the towers to collapse.
Click to expand...

Plus they were larger, heavier planes travelling at much higher speeds
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Quag said:
Plus they were larger, heavier planes travelling at much higher speeds
Click to expand...

They did a study on the impact of a 707-DC8 travelling at 600 MPH.
Context of 'February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It'
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.
Here's A&E For 9/11 truths calculations:
FAQ #2: Were the Twin Towers designed to withstand the impact of the airplanes?

For 707 traveling at 600 mph
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
Click to expand...

For AA Flight 11 traveling at 470 mph
The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).
Click to expand...

For UA Flight 175 traveling at 590 mph
The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).
Click to expand...

AA Flight 11's impact created less energy than what was originally analyzed and UA flight 175 created more energy than was originally analyzed. AE tries to hand wave away the Flight 175 by claiming it was within 10% of the analyzed 707 impact.

The other side of this is the fact that they didn't analyze the effects of fire on the structure after being damaged by the impacts, so I'm not quite sure what AE is getting at.

EDIT: There's far more to determining if a structure will remain standing after an impact than just providing the energy of the impact yet AE seem to think these calculation are the only things needed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

ralphcdp said:
The grand jury is dealing with the evidence that shows the US governments' story is drivel.
Click to expand...
What evidence are you speaking of? Do you have an example?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
That's a lie. They never analyzed the effects of fire on the structure due to plane impacts and how fire would affect the damaged structure. Robertson stated that. Also they DID survive the impacts. It was the damaged structure coupled with the resultant fire that cause the towers to collapse.
Click to expand...

Obviously more of the zero evidence from the metabunkers.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

ralphcdp said:
Obviously more of the zero evidence from the metabunkers.
Click to expand...

Zero evidence of what? You made a claim and I provided a statement from one of the lead designers of the towers that they didn't analyze the effects that resultant fires would have on the damaged structural steel. How is that not evidence?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

ralphcdp said:
It's all on the LC website.
Click to expand...

Right.

There's no evidence of explosives/controlled demolition on that website.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
Right.

There's no evidence of explosives/controlled demolition on that website.
Click to expand...

From the LC site says it all:
"LONG TERM STRATEGIES
The Lawyers’ Committee is well aware that short-term strategies will not be sufficient in and of themselves to achieve our goals. The Lawyers’ Committee is willing to undertake direct litigation wherever investigation yields strong evidence of fraud, corruption, or conspiracy in regard to any aspect of the 9/11 tragedy, provided that funding is in place.
[bold by me]

Typical AE911T tactic. Keep asking for money.
 
Last edited:
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
They did a study on the impact of a 707-DC8 travelling at 600 MPH.
Context of 'February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It'
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.

Here's A&E For 9/11 truths calculations:
FAQ #2: Were the Twin Towers designed to withstand the impact of the airplanes?

For 707 traveling at 600 mph


For AA Flight 11 traveling at 470 mph


For UA Flight 175 traveling at 590 mph


AA Flight 11's impact created less energy than what was originally analyzed and UA flight 175 created more energy than was originally analyzed. AE tries to hand wave away the Flight 175 by claiming it was within 10% of the analyzed 707 impact.

The other side of this is the fact that they didn't analyze the effects of fire on the structure after being damaged by the impacts, so I'm not quite sure what AE is getting at.

EDIT: There's far more to determining if a structure will remain standing after an impact than just providing the energy of the impact yet AE seem to think these calculation are the only things needed.
Click to expand...

Agreed more is involved than just impact.
The numbers I saw was for a 707 at 250 Kts as it was based on the idea the plane would crash accidentally landing or taking off. Below 10000 feet that is the max speed a plane is allowed to fly. Not sure where the 600 mph came from it seems to be a claim by someone after 911 and not a document from before.
I will try to do some digging to see where I saw that
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

gamolon said:
Right.

There's no evidence of explosives/controlled demolition on that website.
Click to expand...

It is being presented to the grand jury.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Still no evidence from our metaflunker.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

zyzygy said:
Still no evidence from our metaflunker.
Click to expand...

It must drive the metabunkers mad that their zero evidence metabunk will never be presented to a grand jury. Why? You can't present a case with no evidence, ie. the US government story of 9/11, and that is all there is, zero evidence for the US government story.

It obviously takes a particular goofy individual to keep "believing" in a story that has zero evidence. But there you have it - the metabunkers.

Who is presenting evidence, huge volumes of evidence to the grand jury, scientific evidence that will see myriad US government officials in jail, NOT the metabunkers.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Yet those who support the explanation that it was a controlled demolition using "military grade nanothermite" have yet to present anything here.
Lay out how it was done. Why keep it secret for a Grand Jury?

Question: Will the controlled demolition supporters accept the GJ findings if it does not go there way?

Still waiting for the CD supporters to commit and tell us which controlled demolition explanation is wrong. No takers do far.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
Yet those who support the explanation that it was a controlled demolition using "military grade nanothermite" have yet to present anything here.
Lay out how it was done. Why keep it secret for a Grand Jury?

Question: Will the controlled demolition supporters accept the GJ findings if it does not go there way?

Still waiting for the CD supporters to commit and tell us which controlled demolition explanation is wrong. No takers do far.
Click to expand...

And I am waiting for the no-hijackers to tell me who was flying the planes.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
Yet those who support the explanation that it was a controlled demolition using "military grade nanothermite" have yet to present anything here.
Lay out how it was done. Why keep it secret for a Grand Jury?
Click to expand...

Why on earth would any metabunker consider for even a second that scientists, lawyers, engineers, physicists, professionals of any kind would have any interest in the rantings of zero evidence metabunkers?

It sure illustrates what a terribly loony bunch they are.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

zyzygy said:
And I am waiting for the no-hijackers to tell me who was flying the planes.
Click to expand...

Because, as a metabunker, you are totally incapable of providing your own evidence.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

ralphcdp said:
Why on earth would any metabunker consider for even a second that scientists, lawyers, engineers, physicists, professionals of any kind would have any interest in the rantings of zero evidence metabunkers?

It sure illustrates what a terribly loony bunch they are.
Click to expand...

Yet you rant on. Tell you what, I will bank the scientist, engineers, physicists, and professions against yours.
Your turn. Present your position. What scientist? Name one.

I won't stoop to your style of name calling. How about actually discussing the controlled demolition explanation
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

mike2810 said:
I won't stoop to your style of name calling. How about actually discussing the controlled demolition explanation
Click to expand...

There is no need whatsoever discussing this with no name no qualifications metabunkers. They have never provided any evidence because they know that the US governments' story has no evidence. No photos of any "hijackers".

It takes either incredibly stupid or venal, deeply evil metabunkers to continue to lamely defend a government that murders its own, not to mention millions of others. That is death camp guard evil, the kind of folks who willfully and joyfully volunteer for such duties.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

ralphcdp said:
There is no need whatsoever discussing this with no name no qualifications metabunkers…..
Click to expand...

Yet you post on a discussion forum. I think there are much more suited forums for you. I have asked questions which you refuse to answer. You respond with insults and name calling. One can almost see a camlock in you or an AE911T / P4911T plant.

Now if you want to discuss in a civil manner I would be happy to respond. It is also true that you are a "no name" which one can only guess what qualifications you may have.

I will accept that you have no need to discuss the controlled demolition explanation here. The main reason is you know it would not stand up to scrutiny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom