9/11 Fourteen Years Later

Titalian said:

And if you truly believe, that those planes entered those buildings like a hot knife through butter. You have no clue about true physics.
Think about it, thin aluminium hollow craft slicing through these buildings of steel, that's even more absurd than the one bullet theory.

Click to expand...

I saw the second plane hit on live TV and I know people who were in Manhattan and saw it with their own eyes. After the first plane hit the whole world was watching.

This conspiracy theory has gone from dumb to dumber.

Here are the facts that destroyed your claims:

1. The twin towers collapsed from the impact site, contradicting your controlled demolition theory and proving your experts to be liars

2. Everybody and their dog was discussing the impending collapse of WTC7 after it was damaged, it surprised none

Sorry about that.

Titalian said:

And if you truly believe, that those planes entered those buildings like a hot knife through butter. You have no clue about true physics.
Think about it, thin aluminium hollow craft slicing through these buildings of steel, that's even more absurd than the one bullet theory.

Click to expand...

Please T. We saw it with our own eyes right on live television and homemade videos.

Getting my dinner. Be right back!

You went right around what I was describing. Like a true politician. Not that their are many good ones left.

GPIDEAL said:

Please T. We saw it with our own eyes right on live television and homemade videos.

Getting my dinner. Be right back!

Click to expand...

Well OK then, well, that settles that.

Titalian said:

Well OK then, well, that settles that.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, it does.

TESLAMotors said:

These "blow outs" are well below the floors where there is any "panicking" taking place.
Odd.

Click to expand...

TESLA,

You assume the whisps of smoke are detonation charges because they occur several floor belows.

However, the beginning video of this link followed by his explanation debunks your claim. => http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

He first proves that the 'squibs' increase in intensity as the top part crashes down. This means great pressure as it approaches the floor below where you see the squib. An actual explosion does not increase in intensity like that.

Secondly, he explains that air pressure found the path of least resistance being THE CORE and stairwells. Therefore, it would not have to be from one floor above.

TESLAMotors said:

I am? -> This was posted a few days ago all you said was "yes they pancaked from the top down" (which goes ENTIRELY AGAINST what NIST claims), since you claim the pancaking caused the collapse and NIST says it was a by-product of the collapse. lol
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Years-Later&p=5352179&viewfull=1#post5352179

I'll post it again here for you.
es 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 below, 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.

Look at 0:46 and 1:11 (this is obviously for everyone reading this and it's pretty clear), especially at 1:11.
The floors above are nowhere near the floors below to cause these "blow outs", it would make sense for a floor or two below to have "blow outs" but 10 or more floors?
1:10, look.

Not running from anything, in fact, I'm keeping building #7 inclusive in all this. It's very suspect and important.


minimum* in photo, doh!

Click to expand...

Pancaking is a misnomer. I wouldn't get hung up on semantics. The force of several stories of building came crashing down on those below. Their force (and increasing force) could not be retarded by the floors below which easily failed due to their design. Free fall is a fallacy too. Here's from 911Debunking.com's Q & A section.

The NIST changed their mind and said the buildings did not pancake

The NIST never said pancaking caused the global collapse
The NIST was talking about what they investigated which was the collapse initiation. The collapse did not start by pancaking
There is photographic evidence of pancaking on ground zero which happened after collapse initiation
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm


The towers fell at free fall/near free fall speed

In every video and photo you can see the perimeter columns far outpacing the collapse.
The building took over 12-16 seconds to completely collapse. The actual event was covered by debris so no one can say for sure. One rare video has the south tower collapsing at about 22 seconds.
Conspiracy theorists cut their videos out when the perimeter columns hit the ground and not the building.
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

GPIDEAL said:

Please T. We saw it with our own eyes right on live television and homemade videos.

Getting my dinner. Be right back!

Click to expand...

I'm curious, how long ago and what was it that sparked your interest in the Kennedy affair.

Titalian said:

I'm curious, how long ago and what was it that sparked your interest in the Kennedy affair.

Click to expand...

You should switch to that conspiracy theory, this one had run its course.

fuji said:

you should switch to that conspiracy theory, this one had run its course.

Click to expand...

lmao!

GPIDEAL said:

lmao!

Click to expand...

I'm really disappointed in you. So be it. Btw thanks for answering my question.

Titalian said:

I'm curious, how long ago and what was it that sparked your interest in the Kennedy affair.

Click to expand...

In university, while studying with my buddy, I saw that he had a copy of Best Evidence. He did a book report on it in high school. Then I read it and got hooked, but the real kicker was a gentleman from Richmond Hill/Thornhill, who is a retired teacher now, that gave slideshow presentations including a demonstration of the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt action rifle allegedly used by Oswald, and then the best part, an actual playing of a bootleg copy of the Zapruder Film.

I've gotten to know him and purchased some interesting reading material from him, including rare items, like the special edition tabloid that included an ad placed by the owner of Hustler Magazine, Larry Flynt, to reward anyone with knowledge of the JFK assassins, one million dollars. Flynt got shot after that, which paralyzed him.

He also has the actual Warren Commission Report and volumes owned by ex-CIA director, Allen Dulles, who was fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs. I've seen the inside of the book which includes a page signed by all the Commissioners. He bought that in an auction in the 1970s. That's bequeathed to his sons. He's told me fascinating stories about his dealings with the late Penn Jones, the late James Garrison, Dr. Cyril Wecht and a visit by a CIA agent (that he later befriends) during one of his presentations after the popularity of JFK the movie (I've seen that agent's phony business card and his letters).

I've met witnesses to the assassination including James Tague (the wounded bystander) and Beverly-Oliver (the Babushka Lady), and respected authors and researchers.

One researcher from B.C. sold me some out-of-print or rare books like End of Power by H.R. Haldimand, and The CIA & The Cult of Intelligence by ex-CIA agent, Victor Marchetti, the first book ever censored by the CIA after their lawsuit. Another rare book I own is Six Seconds In Dallas, by Dr. Josiah Thompson (got from a researcher who owned a book store on Avenue Road called The Handy Book Exchange - his name is Al Navis).

Another rare book is Cover-Up by Stewart Galanor. Excellent little book and easy to read.

There's a book store in Philadelphia called The Last Hurrah Bookshop, dedicated to JFK and the assassination, in which I've ordered books over the phone. I've met the owner at a conference in Dallas and he sells books there too.

http://www.lasthurrahbookshop.com/

There's a ton of stuff elsewhere online too.

Other than the assassination mystery, I feel that JFK was a great president and shining light that was snuffed out. So it's a search for the truth and justice perhaps.

Titalian said:

I'm really disappointed in you. So be it. Btw thanks for answering my question.

Click to expand...

I just finished writing a long answer. Don't take it personally. I thought Fuji's quip was funny.

I've been at the end of ridicule by the owner of this site => http://www.jfk-online.com/home.html on a newsgroup moderated by this guy => http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Some of the stuff they have written is well-researched and debunks certain JFK Assassination myths, but a lot of stuff (particularly on the Mcadams webpage) is pure SPIN or disinformation.

CIA assets? I dunno. Maybe. The CIA engages it's assets to discredit JFK conspiracy theorists in this early inter-office memo of theirs => http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...heorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

The owner of this site gets all my respect => http://www.ctka.net/home.html

This is another site to bring anyone up to speed on the JFK assassination => http://www.jfklancer.com/

There are also websites that include archived government documents including many declassified ones such as http://www.history-matters.com/ and https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/JFK_Assassination.html

Another great site which includes a discussion forum is www.JFKFacts.org

GPIDEAL said:

You're taking my response out of context.

The various points was meant to address both Twin Towers and WTC 7.

The top part of that building demolished without explosives came crashing down just like the top parts of WTC 1 and 2. Proven.

Secondly, every controlled-demolitions involves a multitude of explosive charges being set off in a sequential pattern. This is not at all evident prior to the collapse of WTC 7. You don't even see flashes of light. What are you suggesting? Invisible and silent explosive charges?


Excerpt from Debunking911's Q & A page on Building 7:

Building 7 only had a few small fires.

Building 7's south side was covered by smoke for most of the event.
Firefighters said the building's south side showed fires on multiple floors
Firemen said the building was "fully involved"
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Building 7 had no or little structural damage

The firefighters put a transit on the building and concluded the building was going to collapse
There was a very large gash in the building which ran from the top floor to at least the tenth floor
Firemen said there was a 10 story hole in the middle of the building
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Click to expand...

I'm not taking it out of context because in post #562 I knew exactly what I was replying to and that was your mentioning of...
..."Bldg 7......had intense fires burning. Main treusses on top were compromised when a huge section of the North Tower hit it. It also had a hole on the side"
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Years-Later&p=5355082&viewfull=1#post5355082

So I was replying specifically to your specifics. Again, nothing being taken out of context.

In the video of WTC 7 falling, you see a demolished "top part"?
Really?
I don't, where. Please show us. I mean for a debris to fall that far from that sort of height and that velocity, it would have to be very noticeable and it's not.
The roof of WTC 7 looks pretty straight and linear to me here on the horizontal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc
(it's the building on the left)


Every controlled demolition involves a multitude of explosive charges being set off?
But you stated earlier that there are controlled demolitions that exist without explosives.
Even non-explosive demos have to be controlled in some fashion, otherwise it's random chaos, isn't it?
Btw, here are what seem to be your differing views on explosive and non-explosive demolitions...

GPIDEAL
b) non-explosives demolition does occur and it is not accompanied by flashes or noises as in controlled-demolitions using TNT."
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Years-Later&p=5355082&viewfull=1#post5355082

"Secondly, every controlled-demolitions involves a multitude of explosive charges being set off in a sequential pattern."
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Years-Later&p=5355747&viewfull=1#post5355747

Well yes, and this is exactly why WTC #7 is VERY questionable and raises a red flag.
If you look at the comparison video, side by side with a building blown UP (Fuji reference =), most people will see that they look eerierly similar.

This is why I asked a simple direct question to which neither basketbase, fuji, nor yourself have answered with a simple yes or no. Can't blame you guys, because you know that if you said "no" and the answer is rather obvious that they in fact look identical in how they fall perfectly straight down.

So, do you care to answer now?
Does WTC 7's collapse look similar to a controlled demolition or not?
Yes or no, I'll be content with either answer, it's so simple, yet avoided.
Can't wait to hear Fuji's ranting to deflect the question.

TESLAMotors said:

I'm not taking it out of context because in post #562 I knew exactly what I was replying to and that was your mentioning of...
..."Bldg 7......had intense fires burning. Main treusses on top were compromised when a huge section of the North Tower hit it. It also had a hole on the side"
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Years-Later&p=5355082&viewfull=1#post5355082

So I was replying specifically to your specifics. Again, nothing being taken out of context.

In the video of WTC 7 falling, you see a demolished "top part"?
Really?
I don't, where.
Looks pretty straight and linear to me here on the horizontal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc
(it's the building on the left)


Every controlled demolition involves a multitude of explosive charges being set off?
But you stated earlier that there are controlled demolitions that exist without explosives.
Even non-explosive demos have to be controlled in some fashion, otherwise it's random chaos, isn't it?
Btw, here are what seem to be your differing views on explosive and non-explosive demolitions...

GPIDEAL
b) non-explosives demolition does occur and it is not accompanied by flashes or noises as in controlled-demolitions using TNT."
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Years-Later&p=5355082&viewfull=1#post5355082

"Secondly, every controlled-demolitions involves a multitude of explosive charges being set off in a sequential pattern."
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Years-Later&p=5355747&viewfull=1#post5355747

Well yes, and this is exactly why WTC #7 is VERY questionable and raises a red flag.
If you look at the comparison video, side by side with a building blown UP (Fuji reference =), most people will see that they look eerierly similar.

This is why I asked a simple direct question to which neither basketbase, fuji, nor yourself have answered with a simple yes or no. Can't blame you guys, because you know that if you said "no" and the answer is rather obvious that they in fact look identical in how they fall perfectly straight down.

So, do you care to answer now?
Does WTC 7's collapse look similar to a controlled demolition or not?
Yes or no, I'll be content with either answer, it's so simple, yet avoided.
Can't wait to hear Fuji's ranting to deflect the question.

Click to expand...

Let's see.

Have you disputed that the twin towers collapsed from the impact site?

No.

Have you disputed that everyone and their dog knew WTC7 was about to collapse?

No.

So your post is just pointless nonsense.

fuji said:

Let's see.

Have you disputed that the twin towers collapsed from the impact site?

No.

Have you disputed that everyone and their dog knew WTC7 was about to collapse?

No.

So your post is just pointless nonsense.

Click to expand...

Sure, but that doesn't mean that a controlled demolition is/was not possible.
ALL THREE BUILDINGS FELL PERFECTLY ONTO THEIR FOOTPRINTS, STRAIGHT DOWN.
It could have happened from a point of impact from the 10th floor, 90th floor or 109th floor but if they all fell straight down, THEY ALL FELL STRAIGHT DOWN.
Your "point of impact" is a red herring, it means nothing to be honest.

You can still set off explosives and blow up core columns to weaken the structure and aid the collapse STRAIGHT DOWN.

Point of impact = Red Herring


Have you answered a simple YES/NO question?
No

Does WTC #7 collapse look similar to the collapse of a building under a controlled demolition?
Yes or No?

What's the big deal? Why do you guys seem to be avoiding such a simple question.

TESLAMotors said:

Sure, but that doesn't mean that a controlled demolition is/was not possible.
ALL THREE BUILDINGS FELL PERFECTLY ONTO THEIR FOOTPRINTS, STRAIGHT DOWN.
It could have happened from a point of impact from the 10th floor, 90th floor or 109th floor but if they all fell straight down, THEY ALL FELL STRAIGHT DOWN.
Your "point of impact" is a red herring, it means nothing to be honest.

You can still set off explosives and blow up core columns to weaken the structure and aid the collapse STRAIGHT DOWN.

Point of impact = Red Herring


Have you answered a simple YES/NO question?
No

Does WTC #7 collapse look similar to the collapse of a building under a controlled demolition?
Yes or No?

What's the big deal? Why do you guys seem to be avoiding such a simple question.

Click to expand...

Everybody and their dog knew that the damage and the fire were bringing it down. You helpfully provided a link to a video with loads of people saying so.

And your conspiracy theory was dead before that: you lost when it turned out the twin towers collapsed from the impact site. No point to even discuss anything beyond that as at that point your theory is dead.

I see no point to debate your walking dead zombie theory, you lost the foundation points, you are just jibbering about nothing.

GPIDEAL said:

Pancaking is a misnomer. I wouldn't get hung up on semantics. The force of several stories of building came crashing down on those below. Their force (and increasing force) could not be retarded by the floors below which easily failed due to their design. Free fall is a fallacy too. Here's from 911Debunking.com's Q & A section.

The NIST changed their mind and said the buildings did not pancake

The NIST never said pancaking caused the global collapse
The NIST was talking about what they investigated which was the collapse initiation. The collapse did not start by pancaking
There is photographic evidence of pancaking on ground zero which happened after collapse initiation
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm


The towers fell at free fall/near free fall speed

In every video and photo you can see the perimeter columns far outpacing the collapse.
The building took over 12-16 seconds to completely collapse. The actual event was covered by debris so no one can say for sure. One rare video has the south tower collapsing at about 22 seconds.
Conspiracy theorists cut their videos out when the perimeter columns hit the ground and not the building.
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Click to expand...

I'll match your squibs with your site with this one, if you're going to go this route, it'll make things easier for me as well. Save some typing like you're doing. lol
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/585-faq-8-squibs.html

I'm surprised you're using the word "pancake" but okay, take a peek here at 29:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqqelDq4P48

The towers fell at free fall/near free fall speed

Click to expand...

Yes, they did, not bad for a 110 story building huh?

How can you have NO resistance from well over 75% of the building PLUS the mass of the earth supporting the building?
Here's science explaining how that is not possible.
32:34 - Newton's 3rd Law which fuji claimed was not relevant. LOL
1:03:58 - big explosion heard in the background and reported by reporters on the scene. Listen to that one reporter mention multiple explosions going off.
The firefighter mentioning 3 explosions


So free fall speed of a 110 story building with no resistance and explosions by eye witnesses, reporters and firefighters.

fuji said:

Everybody and their dog knew that the damage and the fire were bringing it down. You helpfully provided a link to a video with loads of people saying so.

And your conspiracy theory was dead before that: you lost when it turned out the twin towers collapsed from the impact site. No point to even discuss anything beyond that as at that point your theory is dead.

I see no point to debate your walking dead zombie theory, you lost the foundation points, you are just jibbering about nothing.

Click to expand...

So, I'm glad your quiet about the red herring (point of impact).

Care to answer a very simple question.

Did building #7's collapse look similar to a controlled demolition or not?



You always have an answer for every topic posted ever, every comment, but you can't answer a simple question with a maximum of 3 letters and 1 syllable.
Similar in how the buildings look when they collapse?
YES or NO?

Titalian said:

Click to expand...

Great video and scientific testing.
Now if only NIST would release their CGI models for people to test against.