9/11 Fourteen Years Later

TESLAMotors said:

*sigh*

It's JUST UTTERLY AMAZING how the debris seems to have targeted only WTC 7, the US Postal building and Verizon were unscathed and still standing.
In fact, parts of WTC 6 look a LOT better off than WTC 7 did in the aftermath, I mean, it's still standing. LOL
Thanks for mentioning the debris, AGAIN. You only make yourself look intentionally dishonest.
Debris of this magnitude should be random, yet, somehow, Verizon, US POST OFFICE, a bank, some other buildings, zero damage, all still standing.

Keep believing what they tell you, or believe for the sheer ideological aspect of being pro-American and/or pro-Israel, you're entitled.

Click to expand...

So exactly how do you suggest that the debris was directed to those locations? Remote control flying debris? Trucks secretly came in and moved it? Psychic levitation?

Come on. Let's pretend that you are interested in science and give an explanation for how the US government was able to use debris to target specific buildings.


p.s. I admit to be ideologically blinded by being pro-rationality.

Titalian said:

It ain't over yet !!

Click to expand...

Great. I get a good laugh out of what you and tes are claiming is scientific evidence. I'm sure you'll move on from your radiation free nuclear bombs that only target certain buildings to something even more fanciful; perhaps Israeli trained sharks were sent to chew through the foundations? George Bush used his telekinetic powers to initiate the collapse?

TESLAMotors said:

Yeah, the chorus went like this

Newton had an apple hit him on the head,
Which made him think about gravity,
Whenever he flipped his PANCAKES,
He knew that there hard to be,
A 3RD LAW INVOLVED

But some did not think it was relevant,

BOY WERE THEY FUCKING WRONG.


La la la lala lalaaaaa

Click to expand...

Actually it went like this:

The towers collapsed from the impact site, not the ground floor.

Since they chorus you and Titalian have been running around like headless chickens.

fuji said:

Actually it went like this:

The towers collapsed from the impact site, not the ground floor.

Since they chorus you and Titalian have been running around like headless chickens.

Click to expand...

Yes and they "PANCAKED" (your words) and Newton's 3rd Law is "not relevant" (your words) in the collapse of these buildings.

So it clearly shows you don't understand Newton's 3rd law.


Now, in the video above, it shows there are blowouts or "squibs" blowing out the windows.

I said they fell perfectly onto their own footprint AND it's ENTIRELY plausible that as the top 15% and 30% of the two towers fell, the floors below were blown out to allow them to fall straight down and faster.

Let's not forget, these two 110 story buildings fell at near freefall speed, that means NO RESISTANCE, meanwhile you have 85% and 70% of steel and concrete below the impact sites, that's a FUCK LOAD of resistance left.

Again, I suspect this is strictly ideological for you, pro-America/Israel.
After all, your "pancake theory" is out the window if Newton's 3rd Law is "not relevant".
Hard scientific fact you denied and cannot recant now. LOL


0:46 look at the blow outs at the windows, follow the arrows.
Interesting isn't it?

basketcase said:

So exactly how do you suggest that the debris was directed to those locations? Remote control flying debris?

Click to expand...

That's your theory "remote control debris", it's quite funny isn't it?

Trucks secretly came in and moved it? Psychic levitation?

Click to expand...

Maybe the same trucks that came in to set up the explosives earlier on when they had ample opportunities to do so.

Let's pretend that you are interested in science and give an explanation for how the US government was able to use debris to target specific buildings.

Click to expand...

I do enjoy science. As you can tell, I pointed out that Fuji's "pancake" theory is garbage as he does not believe Newton's 3rd Law is NOT relevant, when in fact for his "pancaking" of floors to happen, Newton's 3rd Law is at work.

Debris falling from 110 storys should be random and chaotic. In the aerial photo it doesn't seem suspect to you that the Verzion and US Postal building are unscathed?
The debris is damn well linear (that's a "sciency" word for - in a straight line).
WTC 6 which is IMMEDIATELY next to WTC 1 fared better than WTC 7.

Care to explain for me now, let's pretend you are interested in science.
Give it a shot.

Fuji's "pancake" theory...................but again, he rejects Newton's 3rd Law as being relevant in this scenario.
Wait, what?

Anyways, enjoy, this is "sciency" stuff Basket.

fuji said:

Actually it went like this:

The towers collapsed from the impact site, not the ground floor.

Since they chorus you and Titalian have been running around like headless chickens.

Click to expand...

Listen to me pipsqueak, this hasn't been won from a long shot, do you understand me? Especially when it comes from someone like you.

He screwed himself when he said Newton's 3rd law is not relevant yet he claimed "pancake" theory.
His understanding of the former with the latter went out the window. lol


Bet he busted his keyboard in a fit of anger.

TESLAMotors said:

Fuji's "pancake" theory...................but again, he rejects Newton's 3rd Law as being relevant in this scenario.
Wait, what?

Anyways, enjoy, this is "sciency" stuff Basket.

Click to expand...

Thank you for this TES.

Titalian said:

Listen to me pipsqueak, this hasn't been won from a long shot, do you understand me? Especially when it comes from someone like you.

Click to expand...

Don't take my word for it, everyone with eyes can see the YouTube videos for themselves and observe that the collapse involved the building falling from the impact site, not the ground floor.

Calling me pipsqueek or any other name won't change that indisputable fact.

Sorry about that.

fuji said:

Don't take my word for it, everyone with eyes can see the YouTube videos for themselves and observe that the collapse involved the building falling from the impact site, not the ground floor.

Calling me pipsqueek or any other name won't change that indisputable fact.

Sorry about that.

Click to expand...

Do you wave your hand when you say that "everyone with eyes can see the YouTube videos for themselves".

TESLAMotors said:

...

Debris falling from 110 storys should be random and chaotic. In the aerial photo it doesn't seem suspect to you that the Verzion and US Postal building are unscathed?
The debris is damn well linear (that's a "sciency" word for - in a straight line).
WTC 6 which is IMMEDIATELY next to WTC 1 fared better than WTC 7.

Care to explain for me now, let's pretend you are interested in science.
Give it a shot.

Click to expand...

That's not how it works sunshine.

To use scientific terminology, you suggested the hypothesis that someone was able to direct debris only to certain locations. So how did they do it? Do you even have a semblance of an idea as to how it could be done?


On the other side I could keep things simple and go back to Newton. F=ma. Various forces acted on different elements on the building as it collapsed causing different accelerations.

TESLAMotors said:

Fuji's "pancake" theory...............

Click to expand...

You do realize I already explained why both you and fuji are out to lunch on this but you don't seem too worried with actual scientific concepts such as finite element analysis despite your erroneous view of 'common sense' being a failure here.

Oh poor Fuji, this is news to me as well. LOL

starts 4:35
but NIST denies the floor failure was the cause...WAIT....WHAT???
Fuji, if I heard correctly, even NIST says it wasn't pancaking.
Oh oh!.....

They claim it was the simultaneous collapse of the cores, but they have not released the model to show exactly how that happened.
Doh!

TESLAMotors said:

Do you wave your hand when you say that "everyone with eyes can see the YouTube videos for themselves".

Click to expand...

All sputter. No content.

basketcase said:

That's not how it works sunshine.

Click to expand...

Term of endearment, that's nice of you. I don't swing that way, so let's keep this proper.

To use scientific terminology, you suggested the hypothesis that someone was able to direct debris only to certain locations.

Click to expand...

Exactly, so this raises the question.
Perhaps a building HALF the size of it's 2 bigger brothers fell under a different set of circumstances.
It's very curious that collapsing buildings did more damage to ONE specific building and the others were unscathed.

This is why there are questions.
Thanks for (intentionally, NOT) understanding.

fuji said:

All sputter. No content.

Click to expand...

Content here, you chose to ignore it. lol
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Years-Later&p=5352179&viewfull=1#post5352179

I'll copy/paste it for you again.

Yes and they "PANCAKED" (your words) and Newton's 3rd Law is "not relevant" (your words) in the collapse of these buildings.

So it clearly shows you don't understand Newton's 3rd law.


Now, in the video above, it shows there are blowouts or "squibs" blowing out the windows.

I said they fell perfectly onto their own footprint AND it's ENTIRELY plausible that as the top 15% and 30% of the two towers fell, the floors below were blown out to allow them to fall straight down and faster.

Let's not forget, these two 110 story buildings fell at near freefall speed, that means NO RESISTANCE, meanwhile you have 85% and 70% of steel and concrete below the impact sites, that's a FUCK LOAD of resistance left.

Again, I suspect this is strictly ideological for you, pro-America/Israel.
After all, your "pancake theory" is out the window if Newton's 3rd Law is "not relevant".
Hard scientific fact you denied and cannot recant now. LOL


0:46 look at the blow outs at the windows, follow the arrows.
Interesting isn't it?

Incredible how 110 storys fell in almost freefall speed. Just amazing, no resistance and in less than 12 seconds, BAM! on the ground, all of it.

TESLAMotors said:

Term of endearment, that's nice of you. I don't swing that way, so let's keep this proper.



Exactly, so this raises the question.
Perhaps a building HALF the size of it's 2 bigger brothers fell under a different set of circumstances.
It's very curious that collapsing buildings did more damage to ONE specific building and the others were unscathed.

This is why there are questions.
Thanks for (intentionally, NOT) understanding.

Click to expand...

So those are your questions. How about suggesting any way that the debris could have been intentionally directed to only damage certain buildings?

If you can't suggest a way to accomplish it then your 'questions' have no basis in reality.

They do have a basis.

Here it is...

Just as the twin towers fell under complete bullshit reasoning.
WTC 7 fell under the exact same conditions, not "fire", not "debris", but demolition, STRAIGHT down.
ONE COLUMN in the corner is compromised and the building just goes straight down? LOL

You mean to tell me you TRULY HONESTLY think that fires and debris brought down a building uniformly, SYMMETRICALLY straight down? (repeating it for a reason)

Those fires would have to be distributed EVENLY and at high temperatures to even CONSIDER that as a reason, even THEN it's laughable to a lot of engineers and people.

Shit, light a match on the corner of a piece of paper and tell me what happens. lol

Debris office fires bringing down a 47 story building. LMFAO
Tell me you don't believe this is the reason.

There are buildings in this world that had fires for longer and still stood upright.
One went for two days and didn't fall.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm


I think many will see through the silliness of your train of thought to be quite honest.
Pro-rational you said? lol