9/11 Fourteen Years Later

[Titalian]

I've replied to this before, and no, I'm not quiet. Can't always spend my time on Terb as my post count might otherwise suggest lol.

Frankly TESLA, I spent part of Tuesday night watching two DVDs of a JFK Lancer Assassination Conference I missed one year, that included speakers such as James DiEugenio, Bill Simpich and ex-law enforcement officer Brian Edwards (more interesting than regular TV).

Fascinating stuff that included analysis of declassified Executive Sessions of the Warren Commission which proves even more that it was a whitewash.

If you have more convincing evidence for the 9/11 hypothesis of controlled-demolitions, I might bite, but not so far.

BTW, here's a video of a collapse without explosives. Now in this case, they used power equipment to weaken the top part of a building. In WTC 7, it was weakened by heavy pieces that fell from the North Tower (check out the video analysis on the Debunking911 webpage link I provided). Once a building is weakened, it can collapse, and the fires exacerbated the problem. (Interestingly enough, the top part crashed down on the majority of the building below).

Nice try with your video GB, but from what I can tell is that they gutted two floors from their main beams and then pulled the end beams out. First only half the building fell, second I don't thing the beams were two inches thick,
Third the collapsed concrete didn't turn to dust. Forth this was controlled. The collapse of the twin towers was more sophisticated than you think. Did you bother watching this video ? I realise Ms Woods is not as intellectual as
we would like her to be, but she does have a PHD in physics. I believe the rabbit hole runs deeper than you think.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Nice try with your video GB, but from what I can tell is that they gutted two floors from their main beams and then pulled the end beams out. First only half the building fell, second I don't thing the beams were two inches thick,
Third the collapsed concrete didn't turn to dust. Forth this was controlled. The collapse of the twin towers was more sophisticated than you think. Did you bother watching this video ? I realise Ms Woods is not as intellectual as
we would like her to be, but she does have a PHD in physics. I believe the rabbit hole runs deeper than you think.

Bldg 7 had intense fires burning. Main trusses on top were compromised when a huge section of the North Tower hit it. It also had a hole on the side. Firefighters noted a 'bulge' too, indicating that WTC 7's structural integrity was failing and on the verge of collapse.

My point with the non-explosive demolition is that:

a) a top part can come crashing down an entire building which it did

b) non-explosives demolition does occur and it is not accompanied by flashes or noises as in controlled-demolitions using TNT.

c) as long as you weaken certain key structures, an entire building can come down, which was the case for WTC 7.


Then you talk about collapsed concrete turning to dust. The WTC was comprised chiefly of steel, not concrete except mainly the floors which were constructed from semi-lightweight concrete (a standard in the industry for slab-on-deck - trust me I know, lol). There destruction caused a lot of dust, but the steel didn't turn to dust. There were many tons of steel removed and shipped to recycling plants, and it took months to clear the debris with round the clock crews working 7 days a week probably.

 

[GPIDEAL]

To many unanswered questions, this here is a big question, what happened to these vehicles ?? Who weren't even near ground zero.

The narrator comes on at the 7 minute mark.

He says no debris but the streets are covered in debris. He says nothing is crushed but look at the middle of the bus! Look at the roof of the car in the foreground?

Obviously burning chunks of debris fell on these items, and a lot of other smaller shrapnel rained down blowing out the windows and setting the cars on fire.

He doesn't come with an alternative theory or explanation? What's he implying? A Death Ray like we see in War of the Worlds? Come on guys. I'd rather believe in the Debunking 911 website than this video.

Also, check out all these other debunking website links:

http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

 

[Titalian]

Bldg 7 had intense fires burning. Main trusses on top were compromised when a huge section of the North Tower hit it. It also had a hole on the side. Firefighters noted a 'bulge' too, indicating that WTC 7's structural integrity was failing and on the verge of collapse.

My point with the non-explosive demolition is that:

a) a top part can come crashing down an entire building which it did

b) non-explosives demolition does occur and it is not accompanied by flashes or noises as in controlled-demolitions using TNT.

c) as long as you weaken certain key structures, an entire building can come down, which was the case for WTC 7.


Then you talk about collapsed concrete turning to dust. The WTC was comprised chiefly of steel, not concrete except mainly the floors which were constructed from semi-lightweight concrete (a standard in the industry for slab-on-deck - trust me I know, lol). There destruction caused a lot of dust, but the steel didn't turn to dust. There were many tons of steel removed and shipped to recycling plants, and it took months to clear the debris with round the clock crews working 7 days a week probably.

GB three buildings in the span of eight hours, all belonging to one owner. THIS IS SCIENCE FICTION. On top of which who would gain from this. Turns out MANY !
Almost like the Kennedy assassination, or should I say Kennedyies the Son included. Can't you see what's going on here.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Buildings in the world that survived fires that lasted for hours and DAYS.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours.

NOW THAT'S A BUILDING FIRE! ......18 hours, still standing.

This building did not suffer from impact damage from one or two jet airliners wherein the fireproofing material was blown off too.

Different construction from the WTC as well.

 

[GPIDEAL]

GB three buildings in the span of eight hours, all belonging to one owner. THIS IS SCIENCE FICTION. On top of which who would gain from this. Turns out MANY !
Almost like the Kennedy assassination, or should I say Kennedyies the Son included. Can't you see what's going on here.

The wars in Iraq (and WMDS) and Afghanistan were the only conspiracies.

 

[Titalian]

This building did not suffer from impact damage from one or two jet airliners wherein the fireproofing material was blown off too.

Different construction from the WTC as well.

Turn's out similar construction to WTC7 ???

 

[Titalian]

The wars in Iraq (and WMDS) and Afghanistan were the only conspiracies.

I'm surprised at you !! twizz bought up the answers. And no one bothered answering him. Who was against War Remember JFK !!! This is about the control of cheap OIL. Amongst other money making schemes !!

 

[TESLAMotors]

This building did not suffer from impact damage from one or two jet airliners wherein the fireproofing material was blown off too.

Different construction from the WTC as well.

We're talking about WTC #7 so no plane hit WTC #7 it was "fires" and one compromised INTERNAL CORNER column.
No fires in the history of the world according to that 32 year veteran firefighter have EVER brought down a building.

This is why they use them, because they require high temperatures to be compromised in any fashion.

Office fires do not reach those temperatures.

You think debris falling on a roof of a building + fires (which can't melt the frame of the building to begin with) can equate to a perfect symmetrical collapse?
Think about this, office fires + random debris = compromised structure = PERFECT fall straight down?

Are you serious?

 

[fuji]

It ain't over till the fat lady sings. My little Fugi.

The fat lady sang, went home, and died of old age.

Neither of you two clowns have had any meaningful reply since it was shown that the twin towers did not collapse from the ground, but from the impact site. Your crazy kook claims have been thoroughly disproved.

Since that time the two of you have been figures of fun, mocking yourself by carrying on like headless chickens.

The only question is how long until you concede.

 

[fuji]

We're talking about WTC #7 so no plane hit WTC #7 it was "fires" and one compromised INTERNAL CORNER column.
No fires in the history of the world according to that 32 year veteran firefighter have EVER brought down a building.

This is why they use them, because they require high temperatures to be compromised in any fashion.

Office fires do not reach those temperatures.

You think debris falling on a roof of a building + fires (which can't melt the frame of the building to begin with) can equate to a perfect symmetrical collapse?
Think about this, office fires + random debris = compromised structure = PERFECT fall straight down?

Are you serious?

Everyone knew WTC7 was about to collapse, the news reported it was going to collapse.

You still have no answer to the absolute destruction if your crazy kook nonsense claims.

 

[Titalian]

The fat lady sang, went home, and died of old age.

Neither of you two clowns have had any meaningful reply since it was shown that the twin towers did not collapse from the ground, but from the impact site. Your crazy kook claims have been thoroughly disproved.

Since that time the two of you have been figures of fun, mocking yourself by carrying on like headless chickens.

The only question is how long until you concede.

You belong in a Circus ! And excuse me ! I've answered every question head on !! Btw I would never concede, to someone who has no true inspiration, other than to be right. Should I
bring up some of your posts?

 

[TESLAMotors]

Bldg 7 had intense fires burning.

This is an intense fire.

Main trusses on top were compromised when a huge section of the North Tower hit it.

NIST and truss(t)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/index.html
NIST advances a theory that the entire "collapse" was caused by a beam disconnecting itself from its column supports through thermal expansion, nothing about "a huge section of the North Tower" hitting it as you're claiming.
In fact, NIST tries to minimize the theory of debris causing the collapse of WTC #7 in its 2008 report - the latest and last one.
"In the new Report, NIST quietly drops the theory promoted by since 2001 by the New York Times and FEMA, that diesel fuel was responsible for the collapse, and minimizes the role of purportedly extensive damage from the fallout of the North Tower. "

My point with the non-explosive demolition is that:

a) a top part can come crashing down an entire building which it did

Sure it's possible, but not visible in any videos of the collapse.
In this case, it looks like it came down from the bottom up, not from the top down.

b) non-explosives demolition does occur and it is not accompanied by flashes or noises as in controlled-demolitions using TNT.

If you have evidence of this, I would honestly like to see it. Link?
Seen the video above that you posted and while it was non-explosive, it was also VERY controlled with wires. Not random and chaotic with debris and office fires (which cannot melt/compromise structural beams).

c) as long as you weaken certain key structures, an entire building can come down, which was the case for WTC 7.

So you believe one internal CORNER column gets compromised out of 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns + some fires that aren't intense (as one can see in the videos) and that's all it takes for this building to come straight down symmetrically?


To play the percentiles game just for fun

1 column out of 58 perimeter columns = 1.7% of the perimeter columns.
1 column out of 58 perimeter + 25 core coumns = 4% of the total columns.

Man, the WTC complex was incredibly unlucky that day.




It's a good thing Larry Silverstein took out a new insurance policy for $7 billion weeks before the attacks. lol

 

[TESLAMotors]

I've replied to this before, and no, I'm not quiet. Can't always spend my time on Terb as my post count might otherwise suggest lol.

Frankly TESLA, I spent part of Tuesday night watching two DVDs of a JFK Lancer Assassination Conference I missed one year, that included speakers such as James DiEugenio, Bill Simpich and ex-law enforcement officer Brian Edwards (more interesting than regular TV).

Fascinating stuff that included analysis of declassified Executive Sessions of the Warren Commission which proves even more that it was a whitewash.

If you have more convincing evidence for the 9/11 hypothesis of controlled-demolitions, I might bite, but not so far.

BTW, here's a video of a collapse without explosives.

Yes, but it's still CONTROLLED. WTC 7 was apparently chaotic and random, not controlled, if we're to believe the mainstream media and "government bureaucrats" as that firefighter stated.
Now in this case, they used power equipment to weaken the top part of a building.

In WTC 7, it was weakened by heavy pieces that fell from the North Tower (check out the video analysis on the Debunking911 webpage link I provided).

Which NIST (government agency) claims was not the main cause of the collapse, their new (and probably not final report LOL) claims "thermal expansion".

Once a building is weakened, it can collapse, and the fires exacerbated the problem.

Again, according to NIST, the "thermal expansion" is what was the main cause, not the debris.

(Interestingly enough, the top part of this building in the video below crashed down on the majority of the building's bottom part).

What's more interesting is how 2% of a building's structure is compromised by debris, but somehow office fires compromise the metal in a building and bring it down perfectly straight down.
If fires go from one area............................... to....another ....................area...................the structures will.....................not............heat up ................evenly ...............as the fire travels.............across.................the..................floors.

Let alone that fires in buildings have never brought down buildings in the history of the world (which I will look up later this week to make sure) and to do so in a way to compromise the entire structure perfectly to bring an entire 47 story building straight down?
LOL Come on GP.

[/QUOTE]

 

[fuji]

You belong in a Circus ! And excuse me ! I've answered every question head on !! Btw I would never concede, to someone who has no true inspiration, other than to be right. Should I
bring up some of your posts?

The theory you two clowns originally presented was that the twin towers were destroyed with explosives. That theory was destroyed by the fact that they collapsed from the impact site.

You can't come back from that. You can't ignore that your primary claim was utterly wrong and go about promoting new theories ignoring that your original claim is bunk.

That destroyed your credibility and the credibility of your bogus YouTube experts.

Tesla is now making a fool of himself yammering about WTC7 having completely run from the discussion of the twin towers, meanwhile everybody and their dog knew WTC7 was going to collapse. What a clown!

 

[TESLAMotors]

I have no interest in this topic other than refuting your kook crazy conspiracy theory. That was done pages and weeks ago when it was shown that they collapsed from the impact site.

Well you were confused as to which video you were watching, claiming I was trying to pass off the collapse of WTC #7 as a video collapse of only the top portion of 1 or 2. lol

So, do you stick with your original position? The pancaking happened first?
Because NIST pancaking was the effect, not the cause.
So are we to trust you or NIST now? LOL

As for WTC7 its collapse was widely predicted before it went down, and well understood.

Sure if you're someone on the ground and just saw TWO 110 STORY buildings crumple down in just seconds with very little resistance, that fear will linger in your mind for anything else to happen that day.

I believed what the media fed me, until I heard about WTC 7 and it didn't make any logical sense, let alone physical sense.

So, no conspiracy theory.

2 planes, 3 buildings come down
2 of those buildings fall at near freefall speed in perfect symmetry with very little resistance.
3rd building goes straight down as well because only 2% of it's structure is compromised (according to some) whereas the government agency says office fires (which created "thermal expansion") caused the weakening of the structure.
Yet when things expand across a linear fashion (so to speak), reactions and events will not occur evenly, it's EXPANDING, it's not uniform and instant.
Molten metal and hot spots are found at the site - thermite involvement? Or just some matchboxes buried deep?
They find a passport amongst all the "debris" and dust, yet these planes smash into buildings getting eaten up by the exterior of the buildings and the jet fuel burns up instantly, plus there are office fires.....but somehow this passport is found intact. LOL
No videos of the Pentagon attacks - which has 80+ cameras around it's perimeter.

Halliburton > KBR > wins the most contracts worth over $38 billion no bidding contracts I might add.
http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905
Little FYI, Cheney was the Chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000.

Larry Silverstein just happens to insure the buildings a few weeks before the attacks - for $7 billion.



If that's a conspiracy, then..............


Btw, do these two buildings collapsing look similar to you?
Yes or No? - for the record, this is WTC 7. lol

 

[fuji]

The original claim on this thread was that the twin towers were blown up. It was disproven. The conspiracy theory is dead.

Then you made a fool of yourself posting a video that showed everybody knew WTC7 was about to collapse, hence no conspiracy there either.

Mindlessly arguing about arguing is all you do now.

 

[Titalian]

The theory you two clowns originally presented was that the twin towers were destroyed with explosives. That theory was destroyed by the fact that they collapsed from the impact site.

You can't come back from that. You can't ignore that your primary claim was utterly wrong and go about promoting new theories ignoring that your original claim is bunk.

That destroyed your credibility and the credibility of your bogus YouTube experts.

Tesla is now making a fool of himself yammering about WTC7 having completely run from the discussion of the twin towers, meanwhile everybody and their dog knew WTC7 was going to collapse. What a clown!

I agree ! But I still stand on the the fact, that this was deliberate !! And for monetary reasons. This was a coalition all based on money.
You are naive to think that to this day this could not happen again, given our history.

 

[TESLAMotors]

The theory you two clowns originally presented was that the twin towers were destroyed with explosives. That theory was destroyed by the fact that they collapsed from the impact site.

You can't come back from that. You can't ignore that your primary claim was utterly wrong and go about promoting new theories ignoring that your original claim is bunk.

That destroyed your credibility and the credibility of your bogus YouTube experts.

Tesla is now making a fool of himself yammering about WTC7 having completely run from the discussion of the twin towers, meanwhile everybody and their dog knew WTC7 was going to collapse. What a clown!

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!

 

[TESLAMotors]

The original claim on this thread was that the twin towers were blown up. It was disproven. The conspiracy theory is dead.

They certainly seem to be, "blow outs" going down the building during the collapse at floors WELL BEFORE any floors hit and meet (Newton's 3rd Law btw, which you claim is not relevant lol).
Squibs perhaps?
A downward explosion to weaken the floors below to allow this perfect symmetrical collapse?
You're just playing a game of semantics "blown up", fine, I'll say "blown down(ward)" as demolitions can be created in any fashion, vertically or horizontally.

Then you made a fool of yourself posting a video that showed everybody knew WTC7 was about to collapse, hence no conspiracy there either.

Yes, because one column of a building in the corner (2% of it's exterior support) caused a complete collapse.
Or was that (even) "thermal EXPANSION" compromising metal structure which requires very high temperatures which office fires cannot create to cause a PERFECT SYMMETRICAL collapse of a 47 story building.
LOL

Mindlessly arguing about arguing is all you do now.

Want to stay off the personal attacks for a little bit and refute/debate with facts, whether yours or NIST's - which seem to be contradictory as this point btw.
It's all you're doing the last few posts. A few here and there is fine, but let's debate things on merit now.
Challenge me and NIST.

Says the guy who claims that "pancaking" happened first, versus the government agency (NIST) who says it was a by-product of the collapse, aka - the EFFECT, not the cause. lol