• 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!

Explosions in Basement?

mike2810 said:
Seems it was you who talked to a stranger in a café shop (?) about 9/11 and you believed him. No evidence, just words. :doh:lamo

Come back when you are ready to discuss the use of nukes on 9/11. Till then you really are not offering anything of value.
Click to expand...

Your memory is not as deficient as I had thought. Yes, that total stranger told me that 3 buildings had come down that day, and I believed him, and he was making a true and accurate statement. My gut telling me the stranger was telling the truth turned out to be correct.

All I offer for you Mike is truth, and that frightens you. True irony that the FR on TV last month finally succumbed just a week later to the cancer brought by radiation. Many others met the same fate, including Matt Tartaglia who may have been the first to spill the beans regarding nuclear protocols being employed that day. May they all rest in peace. Kudos to Tartaglia for informing those of his fellow countrymen not suffering from cognitive dissonance.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Your memory is not as deficient as I had thought. Yes, that total stranger told me that 3 buildings had come down that day, and I believed him, and he was making a true and accurate statement. My gut telling me the stranger was telling the truth turned out to be correct.

All I offer for you Mike is truth, and that frightens you. True irony that the FR on TV last month finally succumbed just a week later to the cancer brought by radiation. Many others met the same fate, including Matt Tartaglia who may have been the first to spill the beans regarding nuclear protocols being employed that day. May they all rest in peace. Kudos to Tartaglia for informing those of his fellow countrymen not suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

:lamo
Still won't answer questions regarding Rodriquez.
Yes I am aware of MT death by cancer. I also know of wildland firefighters who have died of cancer. So what is your point?

Sorry T, but your trolling is getting old and tiresome. Like I said, when you are ready to discuss and answer questions we can engage. The truth is out there. Too bad you can't see it.

I am definitely not afraid of what you post. I do get a good laugh at your avoidance, dismissing evidence and your view of "the truth".
 
Didn't read this thread, don't know what anyone's arguing. But here's what I know.

Fact. Those buildings were built to withstand the impact of airplanes.

Fact. Steel doesn't melt at the temp jet fuel burns at.

Fact. Explosions in the basement, are the reason given for the collapse of tower 7's appearance of being controlled. The towers are built to one day be collapse safely, the floors are built to fall straight down. Take out the bottom supports and they do that on their own.

Fact. Jet fuel leaking down the elevator shafts wouldn't be hot enough to explode in such a way to take out tower 7.

Fact. The day of, we were running drills of that scenario, causing our pilots to not shoot down the planes.

Fact. All the hijackers were Saudi.

Fact. Bin Laden was a Saudi Billionaire.

Fact. We funded and supplied Bin Laden's rise to power, and trained his people to use these guerilla tactics against the Russians.

Fact. we never actually looked for Bin Laden til the next administration came to power.

Fact. We used this as an excuse to start a perpetual war in countries that had nothing to do with it.

Fact. We never addressed Saudi's involvement.

Supposition. I think it was Haliburton's conspiracy to insert US troops into the middle east. I think they put the Saudi's up to it, and I think they picked a dupe to run for President that didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Shoved them down our throats with a popular vote loss, and started a war to give him a mandate to provide them with unlimited funding and an oil rich playground.

I consider George W to be a good man. On a personal level. I don't think he was involved in any way. Cheney tho? He was in on it, and it was likely his ties to the military that had that drill arranged on just the right day.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Didn't read this thread, don't know what anyone's arguing. But here's what I know.

Fact. Those buildings were built to withstand the impact of airplanes.

Fact. Steel doesn't melt at the temp jet fuel burns at.

Fact. Explosions in the basement, are the reason given for the collapse of tower 7's appearance of being controlled. The towers are built to one day be collapse safely, the floors are built to fall straight down. Take out the bottom supports and they do that on their own.

Fact. Jet fuel leaking down the elevator shafts wouldn't be hot enough to explode in such a way to take out tower 7.

Fact. The day of, we were running drills of that scenario, causing our pilots to not shoot down the planes.

Fact. All the hijackers were Saudi.

Fact. Bin Laden was a Saudi Billionaire.

Fact. We funded and supplied Bin Laden's rise to power, and trained his people to use these guerilla tactics against the Russians.

Fact. we never actually looked for Bin Laden til the next administration came to power.

Fact. We used this as an excuse to start a perpetual war in countries that had nothing to do with it.

Fact. We never addressed Saudi's involvement.

Supposition. I think it was Haliburton's conspiracy to insert US troops into the middle east. I think they put the Saudi's up to it, and I think they picked a dupe to run for President that didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Shoved them down our throats with a popular vote loss, and started a war to give him a mandate to provide them with unlimited funding and an oil rich playground.

I consider George W to be a good man. On a personal level. I don't think he was involved in any way. Cheney tho? He was in on it, and it was likely his ties to the military that had that drill arranged on just the right day.
Click to expand...

A charming fantasy. Where are your links to the proof? Why not just blow up the buildings and blame Bin Laden? How were the explosives placed with nobody noticing and how did they last so long in the fires? Are you a no-planer? Hundreds of people would have been involved in the conspiracy, where are the whistleblowers? What drill?
 
zyzygy said:
A charming fantasy. Where are your links to the proof? Why not just blow up the buildings and blame Bin Laden? How were the explosives placed with nobody noticing and how did they last so long in the fires? Are you a no-planer? Hundreds of people would have been involved in the conspiracy, where are the whistleblowers? What drill?
Click to expand...

yeah i learned a long time ago, don't do the legwork for people who's only intent is to tear it down. A fact can be disproven, you wanna disprove it, then go right ahead. Otherwise, I'm not your intern, go do your own research.

The supposition is well, supposition, a guess. By it's nature, denotes itself as not fact. Trying to disprove it, without addressing the underlying facts would by folly. Or fighting supposition with supposition.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
yeah i learned a long time ago, don't do the legwork for people who's only intent is to tear it down. A fact can be disproven, you wanna disprove it, then go right ahead. Otherwise, I'm not your intern, go do your own research.

The supposition is well, supposition, a guess. By it's nature, denotes itself as not fact. Trying to disprove it, without addressing the underlying facts would by folly. Or fighting supposition with supposition.
Click to expand...

Which facts are you referring to?
 
ThoughtEx. said:
yeah i learned a long time ago, don't do the legwork for people who's only intent is to tear it down. A fact can be disproven, you wanna disprove it, then go right ahead. Otherwise, I'm not your intern, go do your own research.

The supposition is well, supposition, a guess. By it's nature, denotes itself as not fact. Trying to disprove it, without addressing the underlying facts would by folly. Or fighting supposition with supposition.
Click to expand...

I have done my research. What truthers call the official story fits the facts best. I have never come across a complete or viable alternative 911 theory. Do you have one?
 
From my perspective the broad strokes and many but not all the details ring true. I find the technical explanations for the towers collapses to be a single approach based more on assumptions and less on actual real time data. This data was unavailable so it is expected to make these assumptions.

I think the conclusions / take away from the building collapses failed to emphasize that the structural design played a key role in the form of each collapse. I don't believe any calculations for large planes burdened with lots of fuel hitting the towers at high speed were made. Since this is what happened we now know that this CAN lead to the collapse of the whole structure. And actually this is what is debated... how did those towers collapse? Truthers claim it was impossible.

7wtc is perhaps a more interesting case as its undoing was not associated with a fueled up wide bodied jet. We saw a partially damaged from falling debris... collapse from unfought fires and perhaps inadequate fire protection and suppression systems. Again... are we to believe high rise which has sub par fire protection and suppression would be subject to total collapse from fire? Or was the design of 7wtc one that enabled a runaway progressive and ultimately total collapse?

From my perspective... the conclusions about the collapse of these buildings were unsatisfying. I believe engineers learned lessons of what not to do and perhaps what to do to mitigate runaway collapses for future designs. I am not sure that existing designs were retrofitted / altered to mitigate these same risks.
 
mike2810 said:
:lamo
Still won't answer questions regarding Rodriquez.
Yes I am aware of MT death by cancer. I also know of wildland firefighters who have died of cancer. So what is your point?

Sorry T, but your trolling is getting old and tiresome. Like I said, when you are ready to discuss and answer questions we can engage. The truth is out there. Too bad you can't see it.

I am definitely not afraid of what you post. I do get a good laugh at your avoidance, dismissing evidence and your view of "the truth".
Click to expand...

I've answered pretty much every silly damn question you've asked here Mike, and we both know it.

You believe the official story and I don't. If we're going to post, let's try to be honest and present some new material.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I've answered pretty much every silly damn question you've asked here Mike, and we both know it.
Click to expand...

You did?

You answsered his question about how Rodriguez survived a nuclear detonation that he was in close proximity to?

What about Anthony Saltalamacchia who was Wiliam's supervisor and was in the same office with William when the plane struck? He survived this supposed nuclear explosion. Or the 15 other people, according to Anthony Saltalamacchia on the B1 level that were running around AFTER this supposed nuclear explosion. Yet Felipe David was the only person on the B1 level that suffered burns from this suppsoed nuclear explosion.

What a complete joke.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Fact. Those buildings were built to withstand the impact of airplanes.
Click to expand...
They DID survive the impacts. What they didn't survive, after standing for some time AFTER the impacts, was the combination of impact damage to the structure followed by further weakening by the heat of the fires. The effects of fire were never analyzed per Leslie Robertson.

ThoughtEx. said:
Fact. Steel doesn't melt at the temp jet fuel burns at.
Click to expand...
There were no temperatures observed or recorded that reached the level needed to melt steel. It was a eutectic reaction which occrus at much lower temperatures.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

ThoughtEx. said:
Fact. Explosions in the basement, are the reason given for the collapse of tower 7's appearance of being controlled.
Click to expand...
What? Can you explain this? There were explosions in WTC7's basement?

ThoughtEx. said:
The towers are built to one day be collapse safely,
Click to expand...
Ummmm, no. Buildings are built to NOT collpase at all. That's why demolition companies have to study the buildings and their plans in order to determine were the charges are placed. If what you said was true, then the engineers who designed the buildings would have already done the demolition experts work. Your statement above is complete idocy.

ThoughtEx. said:
the floors are built to fall straight down.
Click to expand...
No, gravity takes care of that.

ThoughtEx. said:
Take out the bottom supports and they do that on their own.
Click to expand...
Is that why the towers collpase from the top down?

ThoughtEx. said:
Fact. Jet fuel leaking down the elevator shafts wouldn't be hot enough to explode in such a way to take out tower 7.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense. What does jet fuel going down the levator shafts of the towers have to do with WTC7? Who is claiming this?
 
gamolon said:
They DID survive the impacts. What they didn't survive, after standing for some time AFTER the impacts, was the combination of impact damage to the structure followed by further weakening by the heat of the fires. The effects of fire were never analyzed per Leslie Robertson.


There were no temperatures observed or recorded that reached the level needed to melt steel. It was a eutectic reaction which occrus at much lower temperatures.
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf


What? Can you explain this? There were explosions in WTC7's basement?


Ummmm, no. Buildings are built to NOT collpase at all. That's why demolition companies have to study the buildings and their plans in order to determine were the charges are placed. If what you said was true, then the engineers who designed the buildings would have already done the demolition experts work. Your statement above is complete idocy.


No, gravity takes care of that.


Is that why the towers collpase from the top down?


This makes no sense. What does jet fuel going down the levator shafts of the towers have to do with WTC7? Who is claiming this?
Click to expand...

You are expecting answers? Truthers don't do answers.
 
Why even bother trying to debate with people like T72? How can you debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge basic laws of physics and any sort of logical thinking?
 
Aristaeus said:
Why even bother trying to debate with people like T72? How can you debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge basic laws of physics and any sort of logical thinking?
Click to expand...

If you or any other poster could present some facts and evidence to support the official story, we could have an actual debate and a rational discussion. But you cannot, for the same reasons that even the government commission noted many times that "we found no evidence" for many elements of the story.

You claim the laws of physics are on your side, but they are not. The laws of aerodynamics were violated, and many other laws of physics were violated, yet you march along happily, really believing that your media and elected officials would not deceive you.

Maybe you would like to give a summary regarding the laws of physics as to how molten iron was in the ground for 90 days, caused by burning office fires and gravity. Maybe you can give a quick explanation how gravity contributed to lateral ejection of massive pieces? But then just like the rest, maybe you can't.

And more, you won't even try to bring the laws of physics in, because you already know you haven't a leg to stand on. You know you've been deceived, but you just can't quite come to admit it in public.

Prove me wrong Aristaeus--call in the troops and cite any law of physics that supports the official story and your false claims.
 
Thoreau72 said:
If you or any other poster could present some facts and evidence to support the official story, we could have an actual debate and a rational discussion. But you cannot, for the same reasons that even the government commission noted many times that "we found no evidence" for many elements of the story.

You claim the laws of physics are on your side, but they are not. The laws of aerodynamics were violated, and many other laws of physics were violated, yet you march along happily, really believing that your media and elected officials would not deceive you.

Maybe you would like to give a summary regarding the laws of physics as to how molten iron was in the ground for 90 days, caused by burning office fires and gravity. Maybe you can give a quick explanation how gravity contributed to lateral ejection of massive pieces? But then just like the rest, maybe you can't.

And more, you won't even try to bring the laws of physics in, because you already know you haven't a leg to stand on. You know you've been deceived, but you just can't quite come to admit it in public.

Prove me wrong Aristaeus--call in the troops and cite any law of physics that supports the official story and your false claims.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence... that I am aware of the melted STEEL was found 3 months after the collapse. Had there been melted steel there would have been cooled melted steel and I have not seen photos of such. To claim that this evidence was spirited away is preposterous. The clean up crews would have made statements about such an unusual fine.

A fair amount of the problems about these collapses is that false statements / inaccurate statements are made about observations....

such as the speed of collapse (ie there was no "free fall" except bits that came off the towers. The collapse progressions (floor plates) reached a terminal velocity.
the distance from the towers that facade panels found
The fact that they fell / tipped away with no later force applied in almost every single case. The debris pattern confirms that the facade broke up into massive sections and tipped over.

The motion of the panels indicates they not ejected not exploded off the tower. They peeled away and fell over.

When your observations are incorrect... your understanding of what may have caused what you claim you observed cannot be correct.
 
T is at it again. The reverse burden of proof ploy.

Call in your supporters T. Show us how it was nukes that took down the towers. How nukes that needed nanothermite to assist in the demolition. Explain where the nukes were placed. At one time you supported Prager and nukes in the upper floors. Now you seem to believe it was a nuke in the basement.

Lay out the detailed controlled demolition using nukes.
 
SanderO said:
There is no evidence... that I am aware of the melted STEEL was found 3 months after the collapse. Had there been melted steel there would have been cooled melted steel and I have not seen photos of such. To claim that this evidence was spirited away is preposterous. The clean up crews would have made statements about such an unusual fine.

A fair amount of the problems about these collapses is that false statements / inaccurate statements are made about observations....

such as the speed of collapse (ie there was no "free fall" except bits that came off the towers. The collapse progressions (floor plates) reached a terminal velocity.
the distance from the towers that facade panels found
The fact that they fell / tipped away with no later force applied in almost every single case. The debris pattern confirms that the facade broke up into massive sections and tipped over.

The motion of the panels indicates they not ejected not exploded off the tower. They peeled away and fell over.

When your observations are incorrect... your understanding of what may have caused what you claim you observed cannot be correct.
Click to expand...

T is just rehashing the same old reverse burden. He has never been able to show that his belief is the correct one. imo, till something new comes along it is a waste of time to engage T72. He will not except anything that goes against his belief.
 
Thoreau72 said:
If you or any other poster could present some facts and evidence to support the official story, we could have an actual debate and a rational discussion. But you cannot, for the same reasons that even the government commission noted many times that "we found no evidence" for many elements of the story.

You claim the laws of physics are on your side, but they are not. The laws of aerodynamics were violated, and many other laws of physics were violated, yet you march along happily, really believing that your media and elected officials would not deceive you.

Maybe you would like to give a summary regarding the laws of physics as to how molten iron was in the ground for 90 days, caused by burning office fires and gravity. Maybe you can give a quick explanation how gravity contributed to lateral ejection of massive pieces? But then just like the rest, maybe you can't.

And more, you won't even try to bring the laws of physics in, because you already know you haven't a leg to stand on. You know you've been deceived, but you just can't quite come to admit it in public.

Prove me wrong Aristaeus--call in the troops and cite any law of physics that supports the official story and your false claims.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence... that I am aware of the melted STEEL was found 3 months after the collapse. Had there been melted steel there would have been cooled melted steel and I have not seen photos of such. To claim that this evidence was spirited away is preposterous. The clean up crews would have made statements about such an unusual fine.

A fair amount of the problems about these collapses is that false statements / inaccurate statements are made about observations....

such as the speed of collapse (ie there was no "free fall" except bits that came off the towers. The collapse progressions (floor plates) reached a terminal velocity.
the distance from the towers that facade panels found
The fact that they fell / tipped away with no later force applied in almost every single case. The debris pattern confirms that the facade broke up into massive sections and tipped over.

The motion of the panels indicates they were not ejected nor exploded off the tower. They peeled away and fell over.

When your observations are incorrect... your understanding of what may have caused what you claim you observed cannot be correct.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Maybe you would like to give a summary regarding the laws of physics as to how molten iron was in the ground for 90 days, caused by burning office fires and gravity.
Click to expand...
There was no molten iron or molten steel formed by the temperatures you imply. Iron melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F). There is no evidence anywhere of these tremperatures. The steel that was studied showed a eutuectic reaction that occurs at much lower temperatures.

Thoreau72 said:
Maybe you can give a quick explanation how gravity contributed to lateral ejection of massive pieces? But then just like the rest, maybe you can't.
Click to expand...
It's already been explained to you. Many times. The pieces fell in a parabolic trajectory from high up. These pieces toppled sideways due to falling debris pushing them from the inside of the facade.

Thoreau72 said:
And more, you won't even try to bring the laws of physics in, because you already know you haven't a leg to stand on. You know you've been deceived, but you just can't quite come to admit it in public.

Prove me wrong Aristaeus--call in the troops and cite any law of physics that supports the official story and your false claims.
Click to expand...
They're all supported. You think they aren't supported because of the lies you try and push, as shown above.
 
mike2810 said:
He will not except anything that goes against his belief.
Click to expand...
Didn't someone post something awhile ago saying they spoke to someone who knew him and they said he admitted that he was just here to make waves and didn't really believe all this stuff? Or something to that effect?
 
gamolon said:
Didn't someone post something awhile ago saying they spoke to someone who knew him and they said he admitted that he was just here to make waves and didn't really believe all this stuff? Or something to that effect?
Click to expand...

Of cours! After all he cant actually think he is a pilot as it is clear he has never even been in a plane let alone flown one
 
gamolon said:
Didn't someone post something awhile ago saying they spoke to someone who knew him and they said he admitted that he was just here to make waves and didn't really believe all this stuff? Or something to that effect?
Click to expand...

If so I missed it. It may be true. Especially with the way his "belief" has changed over time.
 
Every time I come across the thread title I think of some of our basement dwellers having burrito lunches.
 
Thoreau72 said:
If you or any other poster could present some facts and evidence to support the official story, we could have an actual debate and a rational discussion. But you cannot, for the same reasons that even the government commission noted many times that "we found no evidence" for many elements of the story.

You claim the laws of physics are on your side, but they are not. The laws of aerodynamics were violated, and many other laws of physics were violated, yet you march along happily, really believing that your media and elected officials would not deceive you.

Maybe you would like to give a summary regarding the laws of physics as to how molten iron was in the ground for 90 days, caused by burning office fires and gravity. Maybe you can give a quick explanation how gravity contributed to lateral ejection of massive pieces? But then just like the rest, maybe you can't.

And more, you won't even try to bring the laws of physics in, because you already know you haven't a leg to stand on. You know you've been deceived, but you just can't quite come to admit it in public.

Prove me wrong Aristaeus--call in the troops and cite any law of physics that supports the official story and your false claims.
Click to expand...

Ok. I was wrong. The planes that hundreds of people saw fly into the towers were not real, and the people on the planes never existed. The real cause of the towers falling was nuclear bombs in the basement secretly placed there by the government... or maybe death rays.

Of course, if it had really been nuclear bombs in the basement, why did the government not just say that terrorists had planted nuclear bombs in the basement? Why create an unnecessary false story?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom