• 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!

FBI being sued by Lawyer's Committee, Families, AE911T to present evidence as required by Congress

plutonium said:
Do you believe aircraft fuel brought down those 2 buildings. they have over a hundred scientist ,physicist and architects that say hell no.... we have never had a metal constructed skyscraper in this world fall from a fire period and this one had a steel inside and outside skeleton..... impossible for it to fall and guess what ignorant folks aircraft fuel(kerosene) does not burn hot enough to melt steel........ that is science not wishful thinking...what you cant believe is the bush administration allowed this to go to war with iraq and get control of the oil and please dont forget about the 4000 soldiers killed there and no weapons of mass destruction reallly!!!!!oh i forgot they were republicans!!!! just like your friend Trump!!!
Click to expand...

Please give us your full alternative 911 theory. Be the first truther to do that.
 
NWO_Spook said:
.....
Fact: You claim nukes were deployed on 9/11

Fact: there is no proof of this: no Monroe effect, no seismic signature, no fallout, no noise.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the big one that is fatal to all claims for "CD"...NO NEED.

The physics is definitive for all three towers... damage plus unfought fires was enough...no help needed whether Nuclear, Explosive, ThermXte, termites, midgets with angle grinders.
 
ozeco41 said:
Don't forget the big one that is fatal to all claims for "CD"...NO NEED.

The physics is definitive for all three towers... damage plus unfought fires was enough...no help needed whether Nuclear, Explosive, ThermXte, termites, midgets with angle grinders.
Click to expand...

Remember that truthers believe that planes could not destroy the towers... could not set off a chain of events leading to the collapse. That is their core belief. Since planes CAN'T do the deed... they were simply the "distraction" and the hijacker story casts the blame upon supposed radical Islamists and away from the perps who did the CD. Crucial element to the conspiracy was to have "patsies" take the blame.
 
SanderO said:
Remember that truthers believe that planes could not destroy the towers... could not set off a chain of events leading to the collapse. That is their core belief. Since planes CAN'T do the deed... they were simply the "distraction" and the hijacker story casts the blame upon supposed radical Islamists and away from the perps who did the CD. Crucial element to the conspiracy was to have "patsies" take the blame.
Click to expand...

Please don't be so arrogant to speak for us troofers. Is that asking too much?

Troofers have only one issue, the truth. They have one unifying understanding--the official narrative is false. It is impossible.

That is apparently very difficult for you to grasp, so you are forgiven for your arrogant transgression.

As to your claim that we believe the planes "could not have destroyed the towers", that is because the man who designed the buildings went on the record very early that, in fact, the towers had incorporated into their design features the ability to withstand the strike of a 707. Lo and Behold, the towers did just that, as designed.

Yes, when the debate is lost, slander and misinformation become the tools of the loser.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Please don't be so arrogant to speak for us troofers. Is that asking too much?

Troofers have only one issue, the truth. They have one unifying understanding--the official narrative is false. It is impossible.

That is apparently very difficult for you to grasp, so you are forgiven for your arrogant transgression.

As to your claim that we believe the planes "could not have destroyed the towers", that is because the man who designed the buildings went on the record very early that, in fact, the towers had incorporated into their design features the ability to withstand the strike of a 707. Lo and Behold, the towers did just that, as designed.

Yes, when the debate is lost, slander and misinformation become the tools of the loser.
Click to expand...

Which truth is that HD? The one you believe, or Gage, or Prager, Wood, or DRG?

One could say those who do not "believe" the nuke, nanothermite, energy beam, etc. explanation have "one unifying understanding"- those explanations are false. That the explanations do not fit the evidence.:peace
 
Thoreau72 said:
....

As to your claim that we believe the planes "could not have destroyed the towers", that is because the man who designed the buildings went on the record very early that, in fact, the towers had incorporated into their design features the ability to withstand the strike of a 707. Lo and Behold, the towers did just that, as designed.

Yes, when the debate is lost, slander and misinformation become the tools of the loser.
Click to expand...

Robertson clarified his study of a 707 flying at slow speed hitting the tower. He said he did NOT consider what a fully loaded with fuel wide body could do. The planes themselves did not destroy the towers... the fires that the fuel they delivered into them did. The building collapse was driven by gravity... like every collapse... even CD.
 
SanderO said:
.... the fires that the fuel they delivered into them did. The building collapse was driven by gravity... like every collapse... even CD.
Click to expand...
Certainly DRIVEN by gravity but...

...The part played by the planes was essential. They "BoeingDozed" fuel into a concentration, provided an accelerant AND started fires simultaneously at several levels.

An interesting side issue for those who like to think. The planes cut the fire sprinkler systems.
Do you think the failure of sprinklers was a significant factor?
Or - stated in the contrary - would the collapses still started if the sprinklers had been serviceable?

Prize for the best answer - one Mars Bar collectable at my front door.
 
ozeco41 said:
Certainly DRIVEN by gravity but...

...The part played by the planes was essential. They "BoeingDozed" fuel into a concentration, provided an accelerant AND started fires simultaneously at several levels.

An interesting side issue for those who like to think. The planes cut the fire sprinkler systems.
Do you think the failure of sprinklers was a significant factor?
Or - stated in the contrary - would the collapses still started if the sprinklers had been serviceable?

Prize for the best answer - one Mars Bar collectable at my front door.
Click to expand...

The sprinklers required that the tanks on the upper mech floors be replenished. This would required intact water risers, electricty and working lift pumps. Spinklers are intended to cool steel rather than extinguish fires in steel frames. My hunch is that in the extremely unlikely case that the sprinkler system worked it might have prevented the frame from warping, expanding and contracting.... which was a factor in its failure.
 
mike2810 said:
Which truth is that HD? The one you believe, or Gage, or Prager, Wood, or DRG?

One could say those who do not "believe" the nuke, nanothermite, energy beam, etc. explanation have "one unifying understanding"- those explanations are false. That the explanations do not fit the evidence.:peace
Click to expand...

The truth that eludes you Mike.
 
SanderO said:
Robertson clarified his study of a 707 flying at slow speed hitting the tower. He said he did NOT consider what a fully loaded with fuel wide body could do. The planes themselves did not destroy the towers... the fires that the fuel they delivered into them did. The building collapse was driven by gravity... like every collapse... even CD.
Click to expand...

Gravity cannot be turned off Geoffrey, so let's be honest. OF COURSE gravity was in the equation. Are you attempting to introduce a straw man?

The fact is the towers were designed to withstand such a strike, AND DID WITHSTAND the strike.

Gravity did not blow those pieces horizontally. Gravity did not pulverize all the concrete. Gravity did not cause those strangely burned vehicles littering the area. Gravity did not cause iron to remain molten for 90 days. Gravity did not cause the massive explosion in the basement reported by dozens including Rodriguez. Gravity did not cause all those working at Ground Zero to become sick from radiation.

You've lost sir. 18 years on you foolishly sit here defending a bright and shining lie.

And I think we all know that.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The truth that eludes you Mike.
Click to expand...

Still avoiding questions. The truth is known. You just won't accept it.

Fact. AE911T who you support with contributions does not support your mini nuke theory.
 
Thoreau72 said:
...Gravity did not blow those pieces horizontally. Gravity did not pulverize all the concrete. Gravity did not cause those strangely burned vehicles littering the area. Gravity did not cause iron to remain molten for 90 days. Gravity did not cause the massive explosion in the basement reported by dozens including Rodriguez. Gravity did not cause all those working at Ground Zero to become sick from radiation.....
Click to expand...
All true. :2razz:
 
ozeco41 said:
All true. :2razz:
Click to expand...

It is true "gravity" did not cause those working at Ground Zero to become sick...…….. It is the radiation part that is false. Therefore not all what T72 posted is true.

Many wildland fire fighters and first responders who never worked ground zero have become sick with the same illness. It is exposure to toxic ash and smoke.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The fact is the towers were designed to withstand such a strike, AND DID WITHSTAND the strike.

Gravity did not blow those pieces horizontally. Gravity did not pulverize all the concrete. Gravity did not cause those strangely burned vehicles littering the area. Gravity did not cause iron to remain molten for 90 days. Gravity did not cause the massive explosion in the basement reported by dozens including Rodriguez. Gravity did not cause all those working at Ground Zero to become sick from radiation.


And I think we all know that.
Click to expand...

The towers were not knocked over by the strike of a plane. The vast majority of the structure remained intact... until the effects of heat caused various structural failures and the slabs began dropping and crushing and then became pulverized from billions of collisions on the way down.

gravity destroyed pulverized the concrete... the same way gravity does in stone tumblers.

Fire spread it tends to do that by various mechanisms... including creating an environment exceeding the flash point of various materials.

The explosion in the sub basement was caused by high voltage switching gear/ circuit protection shorting and then instantly exploding. What do think a 13.8kv short circuit would do. Try shorting an auto battery and see what happens .

YouTube

If there's power and a building is coming apart there will be explosions.
 
SanderO said:
The towers were not knocked over by the strike of a plane. The vast majority of the structure remained intact... until the effects of heat caused various structural failures and the slabs began dropping and crushing and then became pulverized from billions of collisions on the way down.

gravity destroyed pulverized the concrete... the same way gravity does in stone tumblers.

Fire spread it tends to do that by various mechanisms... including creating an environment exceeding the flash point of various materials.

The explosion in the sub basement was caused by high voltage switching gear/ circuit protection shorting and then instantly exploding. What do think a 13.8kv short circuit would do. Try shorting an auto battery and see what happens .

YouTube

If there's power and a building is coming apart there will be explosions.
Click to expand...

Oh Geoffrey, you are such a smart feller knowing all those things. :lol:

That's a new one you offer regarding high voltage switching gear. Inspector Clouseau SanderO at your service! :lamo
 
Thoreau72 said:
Oh Geoffrey, you are such a smart feller knowing all those things. :lol:

That's a new one you offer regarding high voltage switching gear. Inspector Clouseau SanderO at your service! :lamo
Click to expand...

Better than the ever changing story of Rodriguez. His qualification as an explosive expert is? As you claim, bet he is one of the first persons to survive a nuclear bomb being that close to it when it went off. By the way, has Rodriquez develop cancer yet? :lamo
 
mike2810 said:
It is true "gravity" did not cause those working at Ground Zero to become sick...…….. It is the radiation part that is false. Therefore not all what T72 posted is true.

Many wildland fire fighters and first responders who never worked ground zero have become sick with the same illness. It is exposure to toxic ash and smoke.
Click to expand...
<< The facts are known and understood.
This is what HD claimed:
Thoreau72 said:
..... Gravity did not cause all those working at Ground Zero to become sick from radiation.
Click to expand...
As far as I know gravity is not a causal factor in radiation poisoning. If I'm wrong on that fact - gravity does cause radiation poisoning - it leads to interesting conclusions such as "You cannot get radiation poisoning when in space under net zero gravitation".
 
More nonsense from Down Under. :doh
 
ozeco41 said:
So you don't like me supporting you when you get something right?
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that is the case. You seem to post vaguely, rather in circles.
 
A radiation event at ground zero would still be detectable with a geiger counter. Go check.
 
Deuce said:
A radiation event at ground zero would still be detectable with a geiger counter. Go check.
Click to expand...

Just as the EPA was not standing around measuring the air quality, none of its employees were standing around with Geiger counters. At least that we were told of.

An interesting point for the layman is that Geiger counters do not measure all radiation, just A, B and Gamma. It does not detect neutron radiation.

Even as she told NYC residents that the air was OK without testing it, in fact the air was toxic with many particles including microparticles from the boiling iron in the belly. That was determined a week or more later when the DELTA Group was brought in from California by perhaps the sole conscientious federal employee with USGS. Only one good man in the entire federal bureaucracy?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Just as the EPA was not standing around measuring the air quality, none of its employees were standing around with Geiger counters. At least that we were told of.

An interesting point for the layman is that Geiger counters do not measure all radiation, just A, B and Gamma. It does not detect neutron radiation.

Even as she told NYC residents that the air was OK without testing it, in fact the air was toxic with many particles including microparticles from the boiling iron in the belly. That was determined a week or more later when the DELTA Group was brought in from California by perhaps the sole conscientious federal employee with USGS. Only one good man in the entire federal bureaucracy?
Click to expand...

Read my post again because you missed the tense.
 
Deuce said:
Read my post again because you missed the tense.
Click to expand...

Yes, you offered a hypothetical, with innuendo that nobody at WTC had a Geiger counter.

Your hypothetical would be valid IF the detonation were more conventional, releasing A, B or G radiation.

If your detonation were of the neutron variety, the Geiger counter would be unable to detect neutron radiation.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, you offered a hypothetical, with innuendo that nobody at WTC had a Geiger counter.

Your hypothetical would be valid IF the detonation were more conventional, releasing A, B or G radiation.

If your detonation were of the neutron variety, the Geiger counter would be unable to detect neutron radiation.
Click to expand...

Please explain why one of the authors you believe is wrong on the neutron bomb explanation. You seem to believe Jones on the nanothermite.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...re-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

Also explain how and why "William Rodriguez, after rescuing many people in the Towers, survived the collapse of the North Tower, adjacent to the building during its collapse. He did not show effects of a nuclear blast. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom