WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  5. People keep flogging a dead horse!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Indeed, the article was written pretty soon after 9/11, and has an overestimate of the death toll too. I don't see what significance it has, it states the scrap was found, and it was stolen for profit, not as part of some coverup (although that's probably what Tony is alluding to.)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
    And you do?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    didnt you read my post?
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    The only bombing investigation I've participated in lately, was waking up super-hungover from getting bombed, trying to figure out how I got home, who I drunk dialed, and where these bruises came from.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    and the million dollar question: "where did all this dental floss come from?"
     
  9. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    John, this isn't an argument here. It is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority.

    Sure we do. There was a new security system put in place by people under the direction of Marvin Bush for one and there was an elevator renovation project going on during the year before Sept. 11, 2001 occurred. The core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts without being seen and when you have control over the security company you can do a lot of things without being seen.

    Good luck on making more legitimate arguments in the future.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2009
  10. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
     
  11. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Logical fallacy?

    Access to elevator shafts alone is not even a consideration for the kind of work needed to acheive a controlled demo scenario. You just say that because you have no other explanation, but that is not good enough because it is entirely impossible and fantasy.

    The amount of explosives needed and the precision of placing them cannot be done sneakily and unnoticed to do a job like that would take an incredible amount of planning and there would be evidence left behind but there was no evidence of explosives at all and the elevators alone would not be enough.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W...Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangment.svg
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2009
  12. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    Didn't you mean "Believe" and "by toofers" in your comment above?

    You simply have no basis for saying that the planting of explosives was impossible, and after being shown how it could have been done you now mutter something about the planning and time needed couldn't have happened. The elevator project was going on for a year prior to 911. Did you miss that part? The new security system was installed over a couple of years time.

    The use of explosives was never tested for by FEMA or NIST and it is ludicrous to say there would have been obvious large remains of explosives afterwards. Only lab testing could discern whether or not they were used.
     
  13. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    First of all, i hit the send button by mistake so the post was made not ready to go- #2148.

    You are wrong about lab testing for explosives because both the police and fire dept. had experts on site (teams of experts) to examine the collapse. This is how it is always done.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2009
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the video i seen shows the charges being bolted on and the cables are used to to direct the fall.
    again, he doesn't elaborate on what he wasn't able to do.
    but he does make the following statement" it doesn't take much removal of the insulation for the steel to fail".
    this by no means says WTC7 wasn't investigated.
     
  15. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    One instance doesn't mean it is a standard rule.


    You need to watch the clip at the 3:00 minute mark where Barnett does discuss what is normally done in cases of collapse where they examine and photograph every piece of the structrue and then say and says they were not able to do that with Bldg. 7. It doesn't sound like you watched that part.


    Okay, tell us when the WTC 7 steel was examined and analyzed.
     
  16. psikeyhackr Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,020
    .
    Does this mean you "have a sensible answer as to how" the top of the north tower destroyed everything below in less than 18 seconds and enplains why the distribution of steel and concrete is irrelevant to that answer even though skyscrapers can't be built without that information.

    The only floors in the core as far as I know were in front of the elevators. I have heard there were a number of empty floors in the building. So the perps get two empty floors, one near the top and the other further down around 40 or so. Punch holes through the walls into the core to climb up and down inside the core to place the explosives. That is why so much excessive force was used and we see those banana plumes of smoke shooting out of the top of the building during the "so called" collapse. A solid piece coming down from the top crushing stuff below would not do that. There had to be enough power to destroy the building from all of the way inside the core.

    psik
     
  17. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    "The Evidence of Absence does not mean the Absence of Evidence". If something stuck out a mile, investigators would of found it. you aren't talking about a sophisticated data crime that can go nearly transparent, you are referring to the destruction of an entire building.
     
  18. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    This thread has long run out of debate material, it's the same circular arguments with the same tired points argued again and again. It's not new and it can only get old fast, so I'm going to do the only sane thing which should have been done a long time ago, This thread is now closed. If you feel the need to complain about this closure, Feel free to take this up with Plazma or James.

    (After months of threads on this subject and no conclusion other than "The building was destroyed by Terrorists alone" has truly come to light, everything else is just conspiracy. [not even feasible speculation])
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page