Thinking about 9/11

Thoreau72 · Jun 18, 2019

Gerry

Yes of course, almost anything is possible, but regarding the molten iron, which you seem to acknowledge, the more compelling question is how on earth did molten iron get there in the first place? If the NIST report were true and accurate, office fires and gravity cannot produce temperatures necessary to boil iron for 3 months. Clearly, that is the elephant in the room.

Khazelov's theory is somewhat supported by the testimony of Rodriguez in describing the massive explosion in the basement area. FEMA photos also corroborate that theory, but those photos were quickly withdrawn from public view. Why were there any hotspots at all?

As for lateral displacement of massive pieces, and considering our mutual acknowledgment that neither of us are nuclear experts, how can you then describe what the characteristics of a nuclear event would be? All that really matters is that significant energy was present to blow massive pieces hundreds of feet with sufficient energy to impale. Office fires and gravity cannot do that, and neither can thermite. That those pictures too were removed from public view speaks volumes. Neither you nor I are privy to how directional, or NOT, such a device might be.

As to Judy and DEW, I have no opinion. I am skeptical, simply because we know nothing of a platform for such a weapon, and there is no visual clue at all. I consider it possible, but highly unlikely.

The presence in massive numbers of humans with radiation poisoning and resultant cancers IS yet another piece of evidence favoring the nuclear theory. The testimony of Matt Tartaglia, ALSO removed from Google searches just in the last few years, is also evidence, and its removal is more evidence still of the cover-up.

There are pictures, black and white from the 50's with I think Barry Goldwater in one, that show a nuclear device shown to Congress. In those days it was small enough to fit into a large briefcase, perhaps giving rise to the term "suitcase nukes". Can you imagine what progress has been made since those days?

Some say that nuclear devices the size of a grapefruit exist. I don't know, but that seems quite plausible to me.

It was an inside job, and all that implies.

Quag · Jun 18, 2019

Thoreau72 said:
Gerry

Yes of course, almost anything is possible, but regarding the molten iron, which you seem to acknowledge, the more compelling question is how on earth did molten iron get there in the first place? If the NIST report were true and accurate, office fires and gravity cannot produce temperatures necessary to boil iron for 3 months. Clearly, that is the elephant in the room.

Khazelov's theory is somewhat supported by the testimony of Rodriguez in describing the massive explosion in the basement area. FEMA photos also corroborate that theory, but those photos were quickly withdrawn from public view. Why were there any hotspots at all?

As for lateral displacement of massive pieces, and considering our mutual acknowledgment that neither of us are nuclear experts, how can you then describe what the characteristics of a nuclear event would be? All that really matters is that significant energy was present to blow massive pieces hundreds of feet with sufficient energy to impale. Office fires and gravity cannot do that, and neither can thermite. That those pictures too were removed from public view speaks volumes. Neither you nor I are privy to how directional, or NOT, such a device might be.

As to Judy and DEW, I have no opinion. I am skeptical, simply because we know nothing of a platform for such a weapon, and there is no visual clue at all. I consider it possible, but highly unlikely.

The presence in massive numbers of humans with radiation poisoning and resultant cancers IS yet another piece of evidence favoring the nuclear theory. The testimony of Matt Tartaglia, ALSO removed from Google searches just in the last few years, is also evidence, and its removal is more evidence still of the cover-up.

There are pictures, black and white from the 50's with I think Barry Goldwater in one, that show a nuclear device shown to Congress. In those days it was small enough to fit into a large briefcase, perhaps giving rise to the term "suitcase nukes". Can you imagine what progress has been made since those days?

Some say that nuclear devices the size of a grapefruit exist. I don't know, but that seems quite plausible to me.

It was an inside job, and all that implies.

The explosion of radioactive nukes in the basement that dont explode or emit radiation casing buildings to start to collapse from the points of impact many stories above ground is not possible or even remotely logical

gerrycan · Jun 18, 2019

Thoreau72 said:
Gerry

Yes of course, almost anything is possible, but regarding the molten iron, which you seem to acknowledge, the more compelling question is how on earth did molten iron get there in the first place? If the NIST report were true and accurate, office fires and gravity cannot produce temperatures necessary to boil iron for 3 months. Clearly, that is the elephant in the room.

Khazelov's theory is somewhat supported by the testimony of Rodriguez in describing the massive explosion in the basement area. FEMA photos also corroborate that theory, but those photos were quickly withdrawn from public view. Why were there any hotspots at all?

As for lateral displacement of massive pieces, and considering our mutual acknowledgment that neither of us are nuclear experts, how can you then describe what the characteristics of a nuclear event would be? All that really matters is that significant energy was present to blow massive pieces hundreds of feet with sufficient energy to impale. Office fires and gravity cannot do that, and neither can thermite. That those pictures too were removed from public view speaks volumes. Neither you nor I are privy to how directional, or NOT, such a device might be.

As to Judy and DEW, I have no opinion. I am skeptical, simply because we know nothing of a platform for such a weapon, and there is no visual clue at all. I consider it possible, but highly unlikely.

The presence in massive numbers of humans with radiation poisoning and resultant cancers IS yet another piece of evidence favoring the nuclear theory. The testimony of Matt Tartaglia, ALSO removed from Google searches just in the last few years, is also evidence, and its removal is more evidence still of the cover-up.

There are pictures, black and white from the 50's with I think Barry Goldwater in one, that show a nuclear device shown to Congress. In those days it was small enough to fit into a large briefcase, perhaps giving rise to the term "suitcase nukes". Can you imagine what progress has been made since those days?

Some say that nuclear devices the size of a grapefruit exist. I don't know, but that seems quite plausible to me.

It was an inside job, and all that implies.

You're correct, I do not have the knowledge about nukes but I would presume they'd not be a directional thing that could be focussed on one area. Why are the firefighters distress alarms still going off in the pile. Where's the EMP ?

Agreeing to disagree seems like the best thing. I certainly would never discourage anyone from looking at 911 from whatever perspective they chose to.

zyzygy · Jun 18, 2019

gerrycan said:
You're correct, I do not have the knowledge about nukes but I would presume they'd not be a directional thing that could be focussed on one area. Why are the firefighters distress alarms still going off in the pile. Where's the EMP ?

Agreeing to disagree seems like the best thing. I certainly would never discourage anyone from looking at 911 from whatever perspective they chose to.

But the best perspective is reality. No magic mini nukes and no controlled demolition.

gerrycan · Jun 18, 2019

zyzygy said:
But the best perspective is reality. No magic mini nukes and no controlled demolition.

Clearly you need a plausible fire based hypothesis to make that statement. (the bolded bit)

I won't hold my breath.

zyzygy · Jun 18, 2019

gerrycan said:
Clearly you need a plausible fire based hypothesis to make that statement. (the bolded bit)

I won't hold my breath.

It is the only plausible hypothesis. What is your hypothesis? I won't hold my breath.

NWO_Spook · Jun 18, 2019

gerrycan said:
Yeah. There's many.

Where may I locate these papers?

Do you think it would be reasonable to just "adjust" the inward bowing in a model to match the observation, if the model did not produce that inward bowing by itself?

I don't know, you tell me.

gerrycan · Jun 18, 2019

zyzygy said:
It is the only plausible hypothesis. What is your hypothesis? I won't hold my breath.

Your belief is based on faith, not evidence.

Skilling said well placed cutter charges could bring it down, but a passenger jet could not. He was the lead structural engineer for the towers.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. You don't have any, and there's no dispute that CD could do it.

NWO_Spook · Jun 18, 2019

gerrycan said:
Clearly you need a plausible fire based hypothesis to make that statement. (the bolded bit)

I won't hold my breath.

No, one doesn't. CD is clearly absurd and one doesn't need to know the actual cause to be able to recognise this. CD is impractical, irrational and completely unnecessary. It raises more questions than it answers and can be dismissed owing to a complete lack of evidence.

gamolon · Jun 18, 2019

gerrycan said:
Skilling said well placed cutter charges could bring it down, but a passenger jet could not.

How about a passenger jet damage AND resulting fires? They never did a study on how fires, along with damage from a passenger jet, would affect the towers.

gerrycan · Jun 18, 2019

NWO_Spook said:
Where may I locate these papers?

That depends what detail you are looking for, and how much time you have. NIST didn't actually analyse the collapse of these, but only up to that point of initiation. But the reports are a decent place to start in order to understand the structure a bit more.

NIST also didn't produce the models for these buildings. That was a company called SGH, who clearly state that they adjusted the inward bowing of perimeter columns to match observed movements.

gamolon · Jun 18, 2019

gerrycan said:
You don't have any, and there's no dispute that CD could do it.

That's faith based also then. Not one single engineer has come forth with an accurate, calculations based scenario showing how many cutter charges and their placement showing the towers coming down like they did.

NWO_Spook · Jun 18, 2019

gerrycan said:
That depends what detail you are looking for, and how much time you have. NIST didn't actually analyse the collapse of these, but only up to that point of initiation. But the reports are a decent place to start in order to understand the structure a bit more.

I'm just looking for a link to a credible paper that supports your claim.

NIST also didn't produce the models for these buildings. That was a company called SGH, who clearly state that they adjusted the inward bowing of perimeter columns to match observed movements.

Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that a portion of the work was subcontracted out to independent companies. I fail to see how adjusting the parameters for the model to match reality invalidates the findings.

gerrycan · Jun 18, 2019

gamolon said:
That's faith based also then. Not one single engineer has come forth with an accurate, calculations based scenario showing how many cutter charges and their placement showing the towers coming down like they did.

So the guy who actually did the structural engineering for these buildings is wrong, and a guy from "debatepolitics" who doesn't understand basic words like "transverse" knows better.

Aye, sure Gamolon.

Can cutter charges cut steel? - YES

Would enough cuts in the right places at the right time cause the building to fail? - YES, (and you cannot dispute that because you are claiming that fire did the same thing)

Is there a need to prove that CD has the CAPABILITY of bringing down the towers ? NO

gerrycan · Jun 18, 2019

NWO_Spook said:
I'm just looking for a link to a credible paper that supports your claim.

If it's the claim that the inward bowing could not be from sagging trusses alone, then look at the NIST report and check their calculations for yourself. They added a 5 kip lateral force to the perimeters.

NWO_Spook said:
Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that a portion of the work was subcontracted out to independent companies. I fail to see how adjusting the parameters for the model to match reality invalidates the findings.

Their model didn't produce the inward bowing that was observed. That means that their model is wrong.
Adjusting it to match observations by adding an imaginary force doesn't make the model correct.

NWO_Spook · Jun 18, 2019

gerrycan said:
If it's the claim that the inward bowing could not be from sagging trusses alone, then look at the NIST report and check their calculations for yourself. They added a 5 kip lateral force to the perimeters. Their model didn't produce the inward bowing that was observed. That means that their model is wrong.
Adjusting it to match observations by adding an imaginary force doesn't make the model correct.

Yes, but does it matter? The buildings collapsed, the inner bowing was observed and obviously fire was the cause. If the model is erroneous, how does this change the facts? All that shows is simply that the model may be inaccurate or wrong, however, the outcome remains the same.

gerrycan · Jun 18, 2019

NWO_Spook said:
Yes, but does it matter? The buildings collapsed, the inner bowing was observed and obviously fire was the cause. If the model is erroneous, how does this change the facts? All that shows is simply that the model may be inaccurate or wrong, however, the outcome remains the same.

Models don't change reality - correct. And the building collapsed, so of course the outcome is the same.

Maybe better if you actually read the reports and look at the models and try to understand for yourself.

zyzygy · Jun 18, 2019

gerrycan said:
So the guy who actually did the structural engineering for these buildings is wrong, and a guy from "debatepolitics" who doesn't understand basic words like "transverse" knows better.

Aye, sure Gamolon.

Can cutter charges cut steel? - YES

Would enough cuts in the right places at the right time cause the building to fail? - YES, (and you cannot dispute that because you are claiming that fire did the same thing)

Is there a need to prove that CD has the CAPABILITY of bringing down the towers ? NO

Then what are you going on about? It's a cd then it's not a cd. You are all over the place.

NWO_Spook · Jun 18, 2019

gerrycan said:
Models don't change reality - correct. And the building collapsed, so of course the outcome is the same.

Maybe better if you actually read the reports and look at the models and try to understand for yourself.

Well, I've read quite a bit of the NIST report, yet I'm not an engineer, hence the questions. I fail to see how the NIST getting a few details wrong actually matters in the real world. No report is ever perfect and all this talk doesn't change a thing or offer evidence of any credible alternatives.

Is it simply a case of 'the NIST got it wrong therefore CD'? Because that conclusion would be quite specious.

gerrycan · Jun 18, 2019

NWO_Spook said:
Is it simply a case of 'the NIST got it wrong therefore CD'? Because that conclusion would be quite specious.

No. It's a case of NIST got it wrong so there's not yet a plausible fire based hypothesis that resonably explains collapse due to fire.

Scroll back and remind yourself that Skilling said that fire and specifically a passanger jet couldn't do it, but well placed cutter charges could.

Should the default position when we do not have an adequate explaination for a collapse such as this therefor be "Fire" ? Of course not. The default position is CD, because we know it has the capability.

zyzygy · Jun 18, 2019

gerrycan said:
No. It's a case of NIST got it wrong so there's not yet a plausible fire based hypothesis that resonably explains collapse due to fire.

Scroll back and remind yourself that Skilling said that fire and specifically a passanger jet couldn't do it, but well placed cutter charges could.

Should the default position when we do not have an adequate explaination for a collapse such as this therefor be "Fire" ? Of course not. The default position is CD, because we know it has the capability.

There is no evidence for a CD. How were the buildings prepped with nobody noticing?

NWO_Spook · Jun 18, 2019

gerrycan said:
No. It's a case of NIST got it wrong so there's not yet a plausible fire based hypothesis that resonably explains collapse due to fire.

That a somewhat extreme POV based upon a mere detail. Of course fire is plausible and it is CD that is implausible.

Scroll back and remind yourself that Skilling said that fire and specifically a passanger jet couldn't do it, but well placed cutter charges could.

Who cares what this idiot said? Did he demonstrate that it couldn't be the case? Because many firefighters I know would argue the opposite based upon real world experience.

Should the default position when we do not have an adequate explaination for a collapse such as this therefor be "Fire" ? Of course not. The default position is CD, because we know it has the capability.

That is logically unsound, owing to the fact that we know the buildings suffered the insult of the collision and sustained fires. We do not have any reason whatsoever to suspect CD, as the hypothesis is impractical, irrational in light of the evidence and completely unnecessary in light of the proposed motives. The concept of CD is simply the product of an irrational confirmation bias and wholly divorced from reality, as the evidence is against it.

gerrycan · Jun 18, 2019

NWO_Spook said:
Who cares what this idiot said? Did he demonstrate that it couldn't be the case? Because many firefighters I know would argue the opposite based upon real world experience.

WOAH champ. You're saying that John Skilling, the Lead Structural Engineer for the Twin Towers, The guy who designed them, is an idiot ? Seriously ??

NWO_Spook · Jun 18, 2019

gerrycan said:
WOAH champ. You're saying that John Skilling, the Lead Structural Engineer for the Twin Towers, The guy who designed them, is an idiot ? Seriously ??

Well, if he said that then yes, but I know he was talking about an old 737 lost in a fog low on fuel. It does not matter what he said, or how others interpret it, if he believes in CD, then sure, he is an idiot. But I don't think he actually said that he believed CD was the cause.

Don't call me Champ. That is the last time I will ask you.

zyzygy · Jun 18, 2019

NWO_Spook said:
Well, if he said that then yes, but I know he was talking about an old 737 lost in a fog low on fuel. It does not matter what he said, or how others interpret it, if he believes in CD, then sure, he is an idiot. But I don't think he actually said that he believed CD was the cause.

Don't call me Champ. That is the last time I will ask you.

All he has is insults. Typical truther behaviour.