No matter how many memes or stupid youtube videos you post on this, I have already explained why it is full of shit.
This warped basic principles only apply to warped, basic people incapable of actually understanding anything about the topic.
9/11 Fourteen Years Later
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
This warped basic principles only apply to warped, basic people incapable of actually understanding anything about the topic.
And your claim is DESTROYED by watching the videos of the collapse where you can SEE it pancake. No expert opinion required, everybody with eyes can see the building above the failure falls and crushes the building below, totally unlike a controlled demolition.
I'm just hanging around this thread waiting for you to provide one that applies.
For example, you have claimed many times that the towers fell at free fall. The scientific fact that debris is clearly visible falling past the still intact lower sections, totally refuting that claim. Scientific fact.
Another example is that in the same post you claim the buildings fell straight down in a symmetrical fashion while posting a picture showing non-symmetric distribution of debris that didn't fall straight down. Scientific fact is that both those claims can not be true.
How about giving some scientific facts to support your insinuation that the debris was intentionally directed to certain places?
Again, after all your supposed research (if that's what you call watching youtube) you would know that the core was not solid but merely a bunch of steel beams held together by those little bolts (you said 5/8" - thinner than a finger)
And just to repeat, My engineering degree makes me at least as qualified as those 'expert' architects and engineers you keep quoting. If I posted something to youtube would you take that as 'scientific fact' too?
So no follow up on your nuclear bomb claims? I'm disappointed.
And yes, there was some resistance but little steel bolts don't do much to slow down a building with a GPE close to the the energy of the Hiroshima bomb.
Sorry but you are making the same physics mistake that tes is. The building and the floors were not solid elements that would pancake but rather engaged in a progressive failure. Completely different mode of failure.
I will say that pancaking is a closer analogy than his beer case meme.
Engineers and Architects web site Dedicated to the truth, over 2300 strong I suggest you read, many interesting articles and Videos. I do not believe any of us know more than they do Including Fugi.
http://www.ae911truth.org/about.html
http://www.ae911truth.org/about.html
This excellent article explains that the WTC Towers were 95 % AIR! => http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html It explains how the collapse occurred. It doesn't dwell on the core issue that I have trouble with.
However, the core was not solid. I repeat, it was not solid concrete. It was structural steel frame.
This video shows an amazing graphic representation of the building elements and the core, however, it seems to understate the damage to the core.
On the other hand, it demonstrates that the core should not have fallen like the surrounding parts. In fact, I think it demonstrates in an analysis of the actual building collapse THAT the core stood intact for a moment before it collapsed too. (I will concede this - maybe). Check at the 6 minute mark in particular and onward. Just before the 7 minute mark, it shows the actual video and claims that the core was still intact but soon falls too. Is that the core? Or is it a silhouette of the exoskeleton?
It shows that this can only happen with "help". It shows how steel columns are cut at the base to assist in the collapse. So in essence, it did not require a massive rigging of explosives, but part plane crash and part explosives at the base? I dunno. What explosives cut steel like that? Perhaps an electric torch to weaken the structure before?
Maybe you 9/11 conspiracy guys are looking at this wrong. Maybe it was cutting of structural members prior to the attack? The video graphic shows that there are MANY steel columns in the core. Lotsa redundancy. How can this happen without welding fumes? Maybe the jury is not out yet Tesla.
Why don't you read this, it will enlighten you.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium26.htm
So which was it, a controlled demolition (with invisible explosives) or a nuclear bomb (with no radiation)?
This website explains pretty well everything.
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
I will send the author an email about the collapse of the core, but his site seems to have debunked everything we have discussed here (controlled-demolition, free fall, thermite, cut columns, pancaking, fireproofing or its failure, etc. etc.)
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
I will send the author an email about the collapse of the core, but his site seems to have debunked everything we have discussed here (controlled-demolition, free fall, thermite, cut columns, pancaking, fireproofing or its failure, etc. etc.)
Good link.
And here is the nail in the coffin: no scientific explanation is ever perfect, there is always some data that doesn't quite fit, the world is messy and complex.
So we pick the theory that best fits the data, in this case the explanation with the fewest gaps.
The explanation in the official report largely explains what happened with only a few odd details here and there not fully covered, but it is a fairly robust explanation that fits the facts.
The explanation provided by Tesla and Titalian is full of holes so big you could drive a supertanker through them. Like the claims that there were bombs at the base and hey the building visibly collapsed from the middle, and the unbelievable number of people who would have to have been involved in an attack on their own country killing many fellow citizens yet not one felt guilty enough to come forward.
And a long list of other problems with the conspiracy.
Therefore the official explanation has stood up much better to criticism than they kooky claims, and explains much more of the data we have.
/thread
OMFG! If you want a real laugh read the article in the Destruction of the Death Star. Showing all the flaws and how a conspiracy theory can be apples to anything.
That has to be one of the best things written in a long time.
I didn't want to read the 9/11 Report so this site seemed to be an ideal site to get at the root of many issues, although he does quote or link to the official report.
He did reply to my email and said that his website covers the point that the core was never designed to stand on its own.
No time for that lol.
The only criticism I have is that in his criticism of conspiracy theorist scholars, he simply lists Dr. James Fetzer as writing books on the JFK and moon-landing conspiracies. I don't believe in moon-landing conspiracies but I do believe in a JFK assassination conspiracy. Dr. Fetzer however has some outlandish ideas about even the JFK assassination, although he's written one good book or articles, one being a compendium of essays by academics and serious researchers. However, I disagree with Dr. Fetzer if he claims there was a 9/11 conspiracy too.
I'm sorry T but this website doesn't pass muster.
The nuclear demolition vids don't seem to work.
The only organization that has the authority to use nuclear bombs to perform demolitions is the U.S. military (edit: also the Department of Energy)
I doubt very much that nuclear weapons are permitted for use in civilian purposes.
There was no evidence of a cavern below the WTC towers from an underground nuclear detonation. This article claims that 450 kilotons were used. Is he crazy?
Have you seen what an underground nuclear detonation looks like?
You get a mushroom like expansion of the ground followed by it's collapse, creating a crater. If it's detonated really deep, you might see a slight rise of the ground which quickly retracts, or nothing at all but a mini earthquake. (For deep detonations, an underground nuclear explosion would create a deep, underground cavern as the rock would melt or vaporize or be compressed away).
Last edited:
What is the difference between an old concept of an atomic demolition and that of a modern nuclear demolition? The main difference is that in an old atomic demolition with atmospheric nuclear explosion, while in a modern nuclear when buried deep underground, produces a typical deep underground nuclear explosion which has very different physical properties compare to an atmospheric nuclear blast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear_Demolition
Little is understood about nuclear devises by the common man other than its very destructive power when used for that perpose, yet we tend to forget that
some of our power plants are based on this concept. Btw the Cheapest form of power as well as Demolition, when in a controlled environment.
I think some of you should read up on nuclear energy and remove the negative part of its tremendous power which
can be put to good use. Enrico Fermi (Physicist) was the inventor of this power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi. I won't go into details.
Einstein who was a visionary and believed in this energy, was worried about how it could be used, I won't go into details with that.
Last edited:
So it wasn't a controlled demolition with invisible explosives, it was an underground nuclear explosion with no radiation that was able to selectively target only a couple building on a massively dense island (and according to tes were able to direct the debris to only damage what they wanted to). Wow those evil Americans sure have some advanced technologies.
