In other words, UN is now questioning official 9/11 claim

Quiksilver

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
2,853
Reaction score
55
Rogue said:
Someday I should write a long post about historical revisionism.

9/11 deniers are heretics. Holocaust deniers are heretics. Engaging in herectical revisionist history does not equate with correctness.
What is a 9/11 denier? :confused:
 

Rogue

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
545
Reaction score
23
Alle_Gory said:
So what you're saying is, always believe the official story. If the story says that the Pentagon was hit by an airplane on 9/11, despite the evidence to the contrary by experts, and fairly reliable eye witnesses (like firefighters) we should believe it.
Pickup and read the science book Why People Believe Weird Things by science historian Michael Shermer, in particular the chapters "Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened, and Why Do They Say It?" and "How We Know the Holocaust Happened." The chapters outline the cognitive methodologies of Holocaust revisionist historians in their deconstructions and how real historians can scientifically know something really did happen. The chapters apply to 9/11 denial—the deniers being the "truthers"—as the denial tactics are the same. You can probably still find the book at a Barnes & Noble or Borders bookstore, in the science section. You don't need to buy the book, just sit down and read it.
 

Alle_Gory

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
4,200
Reaction score
79
Location
T-Dot
So what's the difference in tactics between denying something (with evidence to prove your claim) compared to making up your own evidence with a bullsh*t claim?

The way I see it, the evidence and how well it was gathered and the accuracy is more important than the tactics used to present it.
 

cordoncordon

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
2,890
Reaction score
109
I have always said that 9/11 is not what it appeared to be.

The buildings, especially building 7, fell in a matter of seconds, straight down, just like a demolition. If the building had really collapsed from fire damage, it would have fallen in ragged pieces, and some would have remained standing. Instead it fell like a house of cards.

There are many events throughout history where the powers that be would benefit from either a war, or a financial collapse. The powers that be being the Fed and old money bankers. Look at how they benefited from the orchastrated financial collapse of 2 years ago. They cleaned up. Same as this Irag and Afghan war. When the US goes to war. The govt borrows money. LOTS of money. At interest. From the Fed. End of story.

Now, am I saying that the US govt, or a faction of it, is responsible? No. We may never know the truth. But there certainly are a number of open questions that imo deserve to be looked at more closely.
 

ArcBound

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
114
Location
U.S. East
cordoncordon said:
The buildings, especially building 7, fell in a matter of seconds, straight down, just like a demolition. If the building had really collapsed from fire damage, it would have fallen in ragged pieces, and some would have remained standing. Instead it fell like a house of cards.
Steel starts becoming soft at 425 C, and loses half its strength at 650 C. Jet fuel burns at 1525 C.

Then we have:

"The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."


Then to your question as to why it fell straight down:
"Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
 

If you want to talk, talk to your friends. If you want a girl to like you, listen to her, ask questions, and act like you are on the edge of your seat.

Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.

Alle_Gory

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
4,200
Reaction score
79
Location
T-Dot
Building 7 was never hit by a plane, there was no jet fuel. Why did it fall?
 

DJ Logic

Senior Don Juan
Joined
May 18, 2003
Messages
338
Reaction score
14
I have a lot more to say on this topic but short on time. All I can tell you is what I saw, felt and heard as an eye witness. The ground shook, THEN the tower fell. Does that mean explosives were DEFINITELY used? I can't say that, but it does seriously call into question the official story, and when you combine it with forensic evidence of explosives that has been corroborated by hundreds of scientists in a peer-reviewed paper, which nobody has debunked yet it's not hard to put two and two together.

I can't say with 100% certainty who did this or why, but that explosion was very real and is audible in several news reports shortly before the collapse of the 2nd tower.

Now if you want to call me a '911 denier' so be it. I both deny and reject the official story which in my opinion is a classic case of revised history.
 

DJ Logic

Senior Don Juan
Joined
May 18, 2003
Messages
338
Reaction score
14

Alle_Gory

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
4,200
Reaction score
79
Location
T-Dot
That's nice, but falling debris doesn't set off a fire. On multiple floors.

And from your link:

The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.
Exactly how does a 47 level building have fires on level 7 to 9 and 11 to 13? Caused by falling debris from another building?

Even if let's say that it progressed from the higher up floors down through levels 13 until reaching level 7. How can a fire like that progress through an office building only burning office equipment and consumables (no jet fuel or accelerants). It even says that:

The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.
So we can assume that the sprinkler systems for the upper floors did not rely on the city supply which was damaged. So what was located on the upper floors that required a completely separate fire supressing system? And if this fire suppressing system did work, how did the fire progress through from the upper floors down to the lower ones with a fire suppression system on. The fire sett off by "debris".
 

Just because a woman listens to you and acts interested in what you say doesn't mean she really is. She might just be acting polite, while silently wishing that the date would hurry up and end, or that you would go away... and never come back.

Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.

ArcBound

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
114
Location
U.S. East
Alle_Gory said:
That's nice, but falling debris doesn't set off a fire. On multiple floors.

And from your link:



Exactly how does a 47 level building have fires on level 7 to 9 and 11 to 13? Caused by falling debris from another building?
If you read even the 3rd paragraph or the 7th sentence on the page you had your answer. I see you didn't even read that far in?

And it says most notably. Other floors had fires to, but fires raged out of control on the floors you posted.

Also to the whole bombing theory on WTC 7

"NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day."

So someone snuck in 100lbs of thermite PER support column and no one saw?
 

JustLurk

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
301
Reaction score
2
Alle_Gory said:
Even if let's say that it progressed from the higher up floors down through levels 13 until reaching level 7. How can a fire like that progress through an office building only burning office equipment and consumables (no jet fuel or accelerants). It even says that:.
A couple of the floors had large transformers.
ArcBound, possibly. Given enough time, it would be a piece of cake. Even easier if it was there while being built.. But why does it have to be thermite?
I don't know what happened and I find it ridiculous that the lot of you could assume so yourself without having been there.. and maybe not even then.
 

DJ Logic

Senior Don Juan
Joined
May 18, 2003
Messages
338
Reaction score
14
I love how not a single debunker on here has commented on the fact that there is irrefutable scientific evidence of SUPER-thermite in the debris.

That sh-t right there is f8ckin kryptonite for debunkers. They will pull NIST reports out their ass and quote popular mechanics. But start talking about nano thermite and its crickets chirping all around.

So someone snuck in 100lbs of thermite PER support column and no one saw?
This aint regular thermite or C4, it's built at the molecular level to be 10 times more flammable so you need far less quantities of it to bring a building down. It is usually applied in paint form, so maintenance workers could easily have rolled it on without being the wiser.

Again I am not arrogant enough to think this is exactly what happened, but I am surprised at how many people really think this is an open/shut case, and take the official story at face value without questioning it.
 

ArcBound

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
114
Location
U.S. East
Danger said:
Thus we should expect any structure with a steel frame to completely collapse after being on fire for several hours?
Did you read the rest of my post? I'll post it again: "

The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures."

@ DJ Logic Post the link to the "credible" journal with hundreds of peer reviewed scientists. You mentioned it, but didn't post it anywhere in this thread. Let's see it.

God is not debunked. Ghosts are not debunked. Unicorns are not debunked. Does it make them all real?
 

Rogue

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
545
Reaction score
23
Alle_Gory said:
So what's the difference in tactics between denying something (with evidence to prove your claim) compared to making up your own evidence with a bullsh*t claim? The way I see it, the evidence and how well it was gathered and the accuracy is more important than the tactics used to present it.
Read the book. These tactics are cognitive processes and how people think is extraordinarily important. I'm not going to waste my time on this topic—except wasting my time typing this paragraph—without the book first being read. Consider it homework.
 

DJ Logic

Senior Don Juan
Joined
May 18, 2003
Messages
338
Reaction score
14
ArcBound, I posted it in my first response. Funny how you just berated Allegory for not paying attention and then do the same thing :D

DJ Logic said:
FWIW the presence of explosive material has been confirmed in the debris. A Danish scientist published a paper that was peer-reviewed by the scientific community for over a year before it went public.

The consensus is that NANO-THERMITE was indeed found from several samples of debris. This should not be confused with plain thermite, which debunkers point out could be mistaken for rust. It is a sophisticated type of explosive that can only be engineered in a lab. Here is the lead scientist on Danish television talking about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

Countless eyewitnesses/survivors reported various explosions, both directly before impact and before the collapse. In fact you can hear the explosions for yourself (@ 4:30)
We are not talking about God or unicorns, but hard, scientific, chemical evidence reviewed and confirmed by multiple scientists.
 

cordoncordon

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
2,890
Reaction score
109
ArcBound said:
Did you read the rest of my post? I'll post it again: "

The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures."

@ DJ Logic Post the link to the "credible" journal with hundreds of peer reviewed scientists. You mentioned it, but didn't post it anywhere in this thread. Let's see it.

God is not debunked. Ghosts are not debunked. Unicorns are not debunked. Does it make them all real?
Building 7 collapsed like a house of cards. Poooof! Straight down. Just like a demolition. Im sorry, but there is no way IN HELL a building falls like that just from a fire. I know of and have seen all kinds of buildings on fire, and besides the fact that hardly any of them actually fall, the ones that do, fall in a very raggedy and halfhazard way. For THREE buildings to all fall in that manner? Cmon. Where there is money to be made, BIG MONEY, people will scam. How do you not believe this just because its our country? They are the biggest scammers of all.
 

ArcBound

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
114
Location
U.S. East
DJ Logic said:
ArcBound, I posted it in my first response. Funny how you just berated Allegory for not paying attention and then do the same thing :D



We are not talking about God or unicorns, but hard, scientific, chemical evidence reviewed and confirmed by multiple scientists.
Actually one of the scientists Steven Jones from that journal not only was relieved of his university since 2006, but he also published a scientific paper that Jesus visited Central America :rolleyes:.

So a man who claims scientific evidence God visited Central America, that's who's scientific expertise you are listening to.

Regarding the samples the whole journal is based on it

"He saved some of the dust and,
on 2/02/2008, sent a sample directly to Dr. Jones for analysis."

"Two small samples of this dust were simultaneously sent to Dr. Jones and to Kevin Ryan on 2/02/2008
for analysis""

And the other two samples were sent in during 2006 and 2007. So your saying sending in scientific samples at least 5 years later from the date of occurence, handled by non-scientists no less had NO CONTAMINATION? BS.

And to add some of those scientists on the project are scientists in areas like cold fusion and other unrelated fields. Those scientists are hardly suited to comment on this situation.

Credibility of that study shot to hell.
 

ArcBound

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
114
Location
U.S. East
Danger said:
Yes I read it. My question still applies.

Should we expect a steel-framed building to collapse after it has been on fire for several hours. My understanding is that you are saying Yes.
Depends on the condition and nature of the fire. You are asking a very general question.
 

ArcBound

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,529
Reaction score
114
Location
U.S. East
Danger said:
A normal to high temperature fire that can be expected in an office environment (around 325 Celcius).
Still a very general question. What is the nature of the building? The structures? The supports?

for example:
"
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse."

^Which explains why some buildings on fire won't collapse and why the WTC 7 did.
 
Top