ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Consensus 9/11 , truth movement

Reply
Old 9th September 2019, 05:36 AM   #1
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,465
Consensus 9/11: The truth movement ignores their best shot

In a recent thread, forum member tanabear claimed that "[t]he official account is verifiably false on almost every single level", without realizing how far from the truth that claim is. I won't discuss the overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the well-established facts about the 19 terrorists that flew the planes against the buildings, though. I want to focus on what the truth movement considers evidence.

There are many different 9/11 conspiracy theories. Some say there were no planes on 9/11, and there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes were military ones, and there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes launched missiles, and there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes were actually remote controlled, and there's a lot of evidence for that. Some say the WTC planes were real, but AA77 was not the plane that flew into the Pentagon. And some say all the planes were real, but still that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were demolished. And that there is, of course, a lot of evidence for that.

That's just one example. Each of these groups believes that the evidence for their belief is incontrovertible, without realizing that, being mutually exclusive with the other options, their evidence must not be so clear as they think it is. A frequent conflicting hypothesis resolution technique is to claim that the other groups are made of disinformation agents working for the government.

This, of course, makes the 9/11 crowd look like a bunch of kooks living in a fantasy world. It's hard for anyone rational to be aware of these many conflicting claims and take any of them seriously. Personally I don't think any of the ones has any merit, but let's imagine for a moment that there's one that is correct. People would be dismissing it just because it would look just like any other of the mutually contradictory theories. Yet every group thinks theirs is the only true one.

Enter the Consensus 9/11 Panel. It seems to be constituted by a group of people who believe that the government intentionally intervened in 9/11, but they have realized the dangers of this schism, and focus their efforts in reaching a consensus on certain points that (they think) constitute evidence. Even if I don't agree with most points, and I think other points they reached consensus on are moot, I also commend them for identifying the basic problem and trying to seek a solution.

Unfortunately, the fact that they're basically not going anywhere and receive little attention from the truth movement, the big majority of which is being just charmed by the sweet words of a professional salesman, tells a lot about (1) how wrong tanabear's claim was, and (2) how hard the truth movement seeks to run away from the truth.

Last edited by pgimeno; 9th September 2019 at 06:05 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:11 AM   #2
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,331
There's an XKCD for that.





How do you reach a "consensus" with people that you believe are "in on it"? Even trying to reach such a consensus would likely look like a conspiracy to a lot of them, because they believe that almost every other truther group out there are disinfo shills. It's like the old joke about two wolves and a sheep voting about what to have for dinner. They'd expect all the shills to work together to vote against a consensus on "their best evidence" as part of the plan to suppress Teh* Twoof.




*And in a twist of fate, I almost misspelled that as "The". Goddamn it, fingers!
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 08:15 AM   #3
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,465
Yes, I had that exact cartoon in mind when I wondered how can MIHOP proponents reconcile the overwhelming evidence demonstrating the presence of 19 terrorists in the planes, with the intentional demolition of WTC7.

Let's take for example the passenger manifests of the flights. Were these fabricated by the government? Well, if that were the case, it would need to have been a covert operation that would have been easy to uncover after the fact, because the manifests were provided by private companies, not by the government. If the person responsible for providing the manifest to the FBI was, say, substituted that day by a covert government agent, it would have raised quite some alarms after all things that happened that day.

To my knowledge, the manifests have not been seriously challenged by any conspiracy theorist. There was a myth a long time ago that the terrorists were not in the lists, but that claim was proven in error and put to rest. Also, if the lists that were made public were different from the lists that the companies provided, I'm sure they would have spoken out.

Yeah, I know that most truthers claim that several of the terrorists were found to be alive after the fact. But since they haven't established that the people alive are the real terrorists instead of people with the same names, which is a very reasonable explanation for that, that claim doesn't constitute any proof.

Those manifests prove that 19 terrorists were on board of the four planes that day. There are many more pieces of evidence pointing to that, therefore this remains an indisputable fact.

With that established, if the collapse of WTC7 was intentional, as truthers insist, what other possibility is there other than a situation similar to what that XKCD strip proposes?

Unfortunately for them, they show no actual evidence whatsoever that points to an intentional collapse.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 08:25 AM   #4
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,075
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
There's an XKCD for that.


https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/semicon...demolition.png


How do you reach a "consensus" with people that you believe are "in on it"? Even trying to reach such a consensus would likely look like a conspiracy to a lot of them, because they believe that almost every other truther group out there are disinfo shills. It's like the old joke about two wolves and a sheep voting about what to have for dinner. They'd expect all the shills to work together to vote against a consensus on "their best evidence" as part of the plan to suppress Teh* Twoof.


*And in a twist of fate, I almost misspelled that as "The". Goddamn it, fingers!
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 08:42 AM   #5
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,228
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
There are many different 9/11 conspiracy theories. Some say there were no planes on 9/11, and there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes were military ones, and there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes launched missiles, and there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes were actually remote controlled, and there's a lot of evidence for that. Some say the WTC planes were real, but AA77 was not the plane that flew into the Pentagon. And some say all the planes were real, but still that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were demolished. And that there is, of course, a lot of evidence for that...
(all bolding mine) There's a lot of evidence for Santa Claus' North Pole Toy Shop and fairies in the garden, too. But it's not good evidence.

Give us your best evidence for each of these assertions. The very best, and just one for each. Otherwise, we are on a Mobius Horse in an endless Gish Gallop.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 10:46 AM   #6
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
(all bolding mine) There's a lot of evidence for Santa Claus' North Pole Toy Shop and fairies in the garden, too. But it's not good evidence.

Give us your best evidence for each of these assertions. The very best, and just one for each. Otherwise, we are on a Mobius Horse in an endless Gish Gallop.
Sorry, I think that wasn't very well worded. I mean their believers claim there's a lot of evidence. Anyway, in case you haven't misunderstood me and you're still questioning my claim that they believe to have evidence, let me offer what I base those on.

No planes: see September Clues; it presents a lot small apparent anomalies that many people take as actual evidence.

Military planes, I think it was mostly in the form of witness testimonies, that they take as gospel. I recall having seen testimonies of witnesses at the WTC who believed they saw a small plane that could have been a military plane, but most of it happened in the Pentagon, where the same happened (see Pentagon Strike for an example that has convinced many), conflated with the presence of the C-130 seen by several witnesses.

For the missile launch to the WTC towers, see yankee351's threads, claiming that the cuts of the wings are proof of missiles. For the Pentagon, see CIT and their followers.

For the remote control, I think I exaggerated. They don't believe to have actual evidence, it's mostly speculation. Yet, since some don't believe the actual airliners hit, they think that by elimination, the planes that were flown into the buildings must have been remotely controlled.

I can show you many more people who question AA77 based on things like "the entry hole was too small", "there was no plane debris", etc. than people who claim the WTC planes were not real. This, to me, indicates that they believe the videos were real and take them as evidence, yet for the Pentagon case they don't believe that the two frames of the security cameras where the plane is shown, really show a plane.

Finally, there are people who don't question the videos, but they believe that the evidence of controlled demolition presented by truthers is obvious.

I hope I made it clear enough.

Last edited by pgimeno; 9th September 2019 at 10:50 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 10:50 AM   #7
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,228
pgimeno, do you think any of these claims are good evidence? If so, which one(s) and why?
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 10:59 AM   #8
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,331
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
pgimeno, do you think any of these claims are good evidence? If so, which one(s) and why?


Geeze, listen to him will you? No, he doesn't think it's good evidence. He's having a meta-discussion about what the truthers believe. And what they believe is that all their evidence is rock-solid, even if it contradicts all the other truthers rock-solid evidence.

That's the whole point of the discussion.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 11:05 AM   #9
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,465
Thanks, Horatius. That, and I commend the Consensus 9/11 panel because unlike Gage et al, they at least try to do it right even if they don't go anywhere, yet it's AE911Truth's siren chants that most truthers buy into.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 11:36 AM   #10
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,937
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Thanks, Horatius. That, and I commend the Consensus 9/11 panel because unlike Gage et al, they at least try to do it right even if they don't go anywhere, yet it's AE911Truth's siren chants that most truthers buy into.
Consensus panel is a joke... all of the people who are in the project are truthers!
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 12:08 PM   #11
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Consensus panel is a joke... all of the people who are in the project are truthers!
Of course! But my point is that they are truthers that try to make things right. They are truthers that have realized that their hypotheses can't be taken seriously when there are so many contradictions, and they try to reach a consensus in order to offer a base that can be relied on and agreed by everyone, so they can be taken seriously.

They don't go anywhere because that route is a dead end, but when I compare their effort to most other truthers, I see that they take more action than merely trying to convince more and more people. They do something. They try to offer evidence. They seek to offer a case, even if they are very far from that.

By contrast, AE911Truth has no case: their claims of fire not explaining the collapse are bogus, and the evidence for explosives, in the form of explosive remains in the debris, explosively cut columns, and booms during the collapse, is completely missing, and they're somehow happy with completely ignoring that.

I guess they fantasize with being able to show thermite/thermate cuts some day. We're still waiting.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 12:32 PM   #12
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,331
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
They don't go anywhere because that route is a dead end, but when I compare their effort to most other truthers, I see that they take more action than merely trying to convince more and more people. They do something. They try to offer evidence. They seek to offer a case, even if they are very far from that.


Did you ever watch the TV show "The Americans"? There's one quite appropriate quote in that show, "Even when it comes to matters of national security, they can't help being Americans". You can't really escape your fundamental nature, particularly when you're (wilfully?) blind to that nature. Even when trying to cooperate, truthers will still always be suspicious of everyone they meet, even if it's the suspicion alone that destroys their chances of successful cooperation.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 01:11 PM   #13
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 538
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
[snipped]
By contrast, AE911Truth has no case: their claims of fire not explaining the collapse are bogus, and the evidence for explosives, in the form of explosive remains in the debris, explosively cut columns, and booms during the collapse, is completely missing, and they're somehow happy with completely ignoring that.

I guess they fantasize with being able to show thermite/thermate cuts some day. We're still waiting.
Flapdoodle !
Bogus ?
"evidence for explosives", in the form of "explosive remains in the debris"
NIST - (NO) NIST did not test for explosive residues......

"explosively cut columns"
Hanger 19 was filled with evidence of "explosively cut columns"
Watch this video in order to correctly identify explosively cut columns...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgSYtUyKf0U


stop the video at timestamp

3:20 column torch cuts with cutter charge holes
3:39 cutters charges placed without pre-cuts
5:28 mark angled cutting charges both sides of column.make note of the angled severs on the hanger 19 warehouse of "saved" columns.

BTW - OZ swears every steel member displaying evidence of explosive angle cuts
and other physical evidence of explosives or incendiaries were ALL tested.
ALL ZERO of THEM.

"Booms" ?
Firemen speak of explosives
http://911proof.com/11.html

"I guess they fantasize with being able to show thermite/thermate cuts some day. We're still waiting."


Fonebone<

Wait no longer !



This is how explosive columns are set up for cutting
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 01:18 PM   #14
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,475
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
pgimeno, do you think any of these claims are good evidence? If so, which one(s) and why?
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
(all bolding mine) There's a lot of evidence for Santa Claus' North Pole Toy Shop and fairies in the garden, too. But it's not good evidence.

Give us your best evidence for each of these assertions. The very best, and just one for each. Otherwise, we are on a Mobius Horse in an endless Gish Gallop.
I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying. He's not claiming there is a lot of evidence for these things, he's saying the believers are claiming there is a lot of evidence for their beliefs

I have to say I found his wording confusing to begin with, but I was able to parse it once I read on.


ETA: If pgmeno doesn't mind, perhaps I could rephrase what he said to make it how I understood it.
Some say there were no planes on 9/11, and they believe there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes were military ones, and they believe there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes launched missiles, and they believe there's a lot of evidence for that; some say the planes were actually remote controlled, and they believe there's a lot of evidence for that. Some say the WTC planes were real, but AA77 was not the plane that flew into the Pentagon. And some say all the planes were real, but still that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were demolished. And they believe that there is, of course, a lot of evidence for that.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 9th September 2019 at 01:24 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 03:01 PM   #15
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Did you ever watch the TV show "The Americans"? There's one quite appropriate quote in that show, "Even when it comes to matters of national security, they can't help being Americans". You can't really escape your fundamental nature, particularly when you're (wilfully?) blind to that nature. Even when trying to cooperate, truthers will still always be suspicious of everyone they meet, even if it's the suspicion alone that destroys their chances of successful cooperation.
You can feel the struggle.

http://www.consensus911.org/press-release-addressing-controversy-within-the-911-truth-community/
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 03:05 PM   #16
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,849
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Flapdoodle !
Bogus ?
"evidence for explosives", in the form of "explosive remains in the debris"
NIST - (NO) NIST did not test for explosive residues......

"explosively cut columns"
Hanger 19 was filled with evidence of "explosively cut columns" ...
Uhhh, perhaps they had to cut some of the columns out of the wreckage?
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 03:54 PM   #17
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,075
A consensus of truther panelist believe 9/11 was an inside job!
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:03 PM   #18
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,465
See, Fonebone, that's your "evidence". Many truthers will agree with some of your points, and disagree on others.

Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Flapdoodle !
Bogus ?
"evidence for explosives", in the form of "explosive remains in the debris"
NIST - (NO) NIST did not test for explosive residues......
Right. And no first responder found any devices characteristic of demolitions either. The National Institute for Standards and Technology was interested in whether there was a need to change a standard, based on the collapse. Had the FBI suspected about the possibility that explosives were used, or had the first responders told NIST, in their interviews, that they saw suspicious materials that could indicate the use of explosives, I'm sure they would have asked NIST to test for that. No such thing happened.


Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
"explosively cut columns"
Hanger 19 was filled with evidence of "explosively cut columns"
Watch this video in order to correctly identify explosively cut columns...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgSYtUyKf0U
Think a bit, please. You're saying that the angle cuts are a proof of the use of explosives. That does not make sense. Angle cuts were used by cleanup workers to facilitate the toppling of the column in a desired direction. They do these kinds of cuts with torches.



Explosives can't possibly leave such clean cuts.

Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
BTW - OZ swears every steel member displaying evidence of explosive angle cuts
and other physical evidence of explosives or incendiaries were ALL tested.
ALL ZERO of THEM.
I agree with him on that.


Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
No. I mean booms immediately preceding the collapse. Have you ever paid attention to when the building falls in demolitions? It actually begins to fall right after the explosives cut the columns, as a direct effect of that.

Let's take Hulsey's case of all core and perimeter columns of WTC7 being removed at the same time for 8 floors. Let's imagine for a moment that that was done with explosives (he doesn't really explain how it was done, for good reasons).

NIST studied the amount of explosives necessary to blow column 79, and the noise they would produce. IIRC it was 130 dB at half a mile.

Now multiply that by 24, for all core columns. Let's say the perimeter columns take half that much explosive. There are 57 perimeter columns. That amounts to a bit over 50 times the explosives necessary to blow column 79. Note that the perimeter columns would be much harder to muffle, even if that was possible.

But Hulsey says they are removed for 8 stories. That means that the columns need to be cut at two points: one at the top of the 8 stories and another at the bottom. That's double the explosives, i.e. more than 100 times the single explosion postulated by NIST.

And that's not the end of it. The columns are still attached to the floors, therefore the connections to the floors need also to be blown for the columns to become separated; otherwise these connections would still hold the columns in place and there would be no free falling. The explosives required for blowing the connections are probably less than for blowing the columns, let's say they are 10%. But the core columns are braced from several sides, so there are several connections for each of them. I'll ignore the added difficulty due to the trusses used in the outer tube, because I haven't looked into that yet.

I count 96 explosives for the core at 4 per column, and 171 for the perimeter at 3 per column. I haven't really looked at the plans to see how off that estimation is. Let's say I'm off by 20%. That's 213 additional explosives, each with 10% of the power of the explosives necessary for column 79 according to NIST. Therefore, around 20 times the power necessary to blow column 79.

Per storey.

This means that for all 8 stories, you need 160 times the explosives, in order to remove the connections. Plus the 100 times calculated before to blow the top and the bottom, that's 260 times the explosives necessary to blow column 79. At least a lot of them would be simultaneous, or in a very short period.

That's not counting the advance blowing of the east mechanical penthouse columns.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that these explosions would be completely unheard just prior to the collapse?

ETA: One would also think that the adjacent buildings should also appear to be "somewhat" affected by these nearby explosions.

Last edited by pgimeno; 9th September 2019 at 04:21 PM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:26 PM   #19
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,475
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
See, Fonebone, that's your "evidence". Many truthers will agree with some of your points, and disagree on others.


Right. And no first responder found any devices characteristic of demolitions either. The National Institute for Standards and Technology was interested in whether there was a need to change a standard, based on the collapse. Had the FBI suspected about the possibility that explosives were used, or had the first responders told NIST, in their interviews, that they saw suspicious materials that could indicate the use of explosives, I'm sure they would have asked NIST to test for that. No such thing happened.



Think a bit, please. You're saying that the angle cuts are a proof of the use of explosives. That does not make sense. Angle cuts were used by cleanup workers to facilitate the toppling of the column in a desired direction. They do these kinds of cuts with torches.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...cache/cut2.jpg

Explosives can't possibly leave such clean cuts.


I agree with him on that.



No. I mean booms immediately preceding the collapse. Have you ever paid attention to when the building falls in demolitions? It actually begins to fall right after the explosives cut the columns, as a direct effect of that.

Let's take Hulsey's case of all core and perimeter columns of WTC7 being removed at the same time for 8 floors. Let's imagine for a moment that that was done with explosives (he doesn't really explain how it was done, for good reasons).

NIST studied the amount of explosives necessary to blow column 79, and the noise they would produce.

Now multiply that by 24, for all core columns. Let's say the perimeter columns take half that much explosive. There are 57 perimeter columns. That amounts to a bit over 50 times the explosives necessary to blow column 79. The perimeter columns would be much harder to muffle, even if that was possible.

But Hulsey says they are removed for 8 stories. That means that the columns need to be cut at two points, one at the top of the 8 stories and another at the bottom. That's double the explosives, i.e. more than 100 times the single explosion postulated by NIST.

And that's not the end of it. The columns are still attached to the floors, therefore the connections to the floors need also to be blown for the columns to become separated; otherwise these connections would still hold the columns in place and there would be no free falling. The explosives required for blowing the connections are probably less than for blowing the columns, let's say they are 10%. But the core columns are braced from several sides, so there are several connections for each of them. I'll ignore the added difficulty due to the trusses used in the outer tube, because I haven't looked into that yet.

I count 96 explosives for the core at 4 per column, and 171 for the perimeter at 3 per column. I haven't really looked at the plans to see how off that estimation is. Let's say I'm off by 20%. That's 213 additional explosives, each with 10% of the power of the explosives necessary for column 79 according to NIST. Therefore, around 20 times the power necessary to blow column 79.

Per storey.

This means that for all 8 stories, you need 160 times the explosives necessary to blow column 79, in order to remove the connections. Plus the 100 times calculated before to blow the top and the bottom, that's 260 times the explosives.

That's not counting the advance blowing of the east mechanical penthouse columns.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that these explosions would be completely unheard just prior to the collapse?

And quite aside from all that stuff, anyone who has ever personally witnessed (and I mean actually at the event, not on TV or Youtube) the CD of a high rise building will see that it is exactly NOTHING like the way any of the WTC collapses happened. The explosives are detonated in a very obvious sequence so that the building collapses down on itself. I have stood half a mile from a building that was brought down with CD... the sequence of explosions was very obvious and the noise of those explosions was very loud.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 04:43 PM   #20
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
And that's not the end of it. The columns are still attached to the floors, therefore the connections to the floors need also to be blown for the columns to become separated; otherwise these connections would still hold the columns in place and there would be no free falling.
I forgot a detail. Even assuming you manage to separate the columns from their original position, at least the core's removed column sections are still vertical and trapped in the holes of the floors, unable to rotate to a horizontal position. They would impact the upper and lower floors, producing jolts. The only solution I can think for that is to open holes in the floors with more explosives, all for the sake of producing free fall.

Can you please explain to me why was so important for the perps to induce free fall, when it's so hard to achieve by removing columns?

Alternatively, can you explain how 8 stories worth of column can suddenly disappear?
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:02 PM   #21
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Consensus panel is a joke... all of the people who are in the project are truthers!
Of course! But my point is that they are truthers that try to make things right. They are truthers that have realized that their hypotheses can't be taken seriously when there are so many contradictions, and they try to reach a consensus in order to offer a base that can be relied on and agreed by everyone, so they can be taken seriously.
Agreed that the attempt for a common agreed position is a positive move. Sadly they lost much momentum because they went for "Highest Common Factor" of what they could agree on. Without addressing and resolving any of their differences. That tactic automatically weakens the strength of the consensus.

Another more recent attempt to gain consensus is the D Chandler - W Coste led attack on "Pentagon no-planers". A serious attempt to resolve an internal fight in AE911 which they have taken into the wider context of 9/11 debate. That one also has interesting possibilities. My first cynical reaction was 'Now that Chandler has "outed" himself as being capable of following scientific method - does that leave him exposed to challenge on the false technical claims which have been the foundation of his rise to truther prominence'.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:06 PM   #22
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
And quite aside from all that stuff, anyone who has ever personally witnessed (and I mean actually at the event, not on TV or Youtube) the CD of a high rise building will see that it is exactly NOTHING like the way any of the WTC collapses happened. The explosives are detonated in a very obvious sequence so that the building collapses down on itself. I have stood half a mile from a building that was brought down with CD... the sequence of explosions was very obvious and the noise of those explosions was very loud.
Agreed. Back in the days of more active debate I often speculated that I would like to take members - both "sides" - onto a demolition range and let off a few samples of Det Cord and HE. Once heard never forgotten. I've never seen a civilian demolition where "Controlled" was the big factor... but same noises.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:37 PM   #23
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,985
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Agreed. Back in the days of more active debate I often speculated that I would like to take members - both "sides" - onto a demolition range and let off a few samples of Det Cord and HE. Once heard never forgotten. I've never seen a civilian demolition where "Controlled" was the big factor... but same noises.
This, and the lack of "thermite" bright light, are the 800 lb gorillas Truthers studiously avoid, because it is the showstopper for them. If it wasn't fire, well it might have been aliens, because there is none of the audiovisual evidence necessary for CD.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 06:59 PM   #24
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,465
I've never seen a demolition. But I live in Valencia, province where the mascletàWP is very popular (mostly in March), which means I know what over 120 dB of continued explosions that are just 20 or 30 metres away sound like, and how it feels to have your guts vibrate and the ground tremble from the explosions.

I'm not sure I know what a HE sounds like. Wikipedia cites "light firecrackers" as examples of LEs, but I'm not sure if the masclets can be considered as 'light' in that context. 130 dB must be quite more impressive.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 08:16 PM   #25
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,937
One cannot forget about the time delay between sound and light/visual when observed from a distance as little as 5 blocks away... sounds come a second after what you see and it's very hard to use sound to make sense of the visual. Video taken from a half mile away would have to sync the sound track.

Ear witness testimony is pretty unreliable as it relates to the sounds coming from the towers that day.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 08:22 PM   #26
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,172
I have a relevant question about the thread title.

Do the 9/11 Troofers actually have any "best shot" at all with which to go with or ignore?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2019, 09:02 PM   #27
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
This, and the lack of "thermite" bright light, are the 800 lb gorillas Truthers studiously avoid, because it is the showstopper for them. If it wasn't fire, well it might have been aliens, because there is none of the audiovisual evidence necessary for CD.
Yes.

Then - we often get so involved in meeting the "Reversed Burden of DISproof" - that we forget the underlying bit of reality:
The physics is definite - no need for help from any form of "CD". (Or to be even more pedantic - from "D" )

... so we focus on disproving explosives or thermXte when no truther has ever "proved" either was used. No truther has even proved that any CD help was needed - which has to be step one. Alternately stated as "falsify the extant hypothesis - fire and impact damge was enough without needing help".
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2019, 04:17 AM   #28
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,937
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Yes.

Then - we often get so involved in meeting the "Reversed Burden of DISproof" - that we forget the underlying bit of reality:
The physics is definite - no need for help from any form of "CD". (Or to be even more pedantic - from "D" )

... so we focus on disproving explosives or thermXte when no truther has ever "proved" either was used. No truther has even proved that any CD help was needed - which has to be step one. Alternately stated as "falsify the extant hypothesis - fire and impact damge was enough without needing help".
Their thinking has been clear. It begins with the false premise that steel high rise buildings cannot collapse without someone doing things to them to make the collapse.... an engineered demolition. They falsely reason that since we don't see them collapsing from fire... it can never happen.

The twins did not collapse when the planes hit them and as fire can't do it... then they had to have been engineered destruction.

++++

Presenting a detailed engineered destruction is likely the same level of complexity of engineering computation as reverse engineering the collapse... something that ridicule NIST for.

Most engineered destruction use gravity and to do that they sequentially destroy axial load paths low in the building. Twins were top down collapses which Truthers dismiss out of hand as impossible... the little block can destroy the bigger one.

7wtc was larger than any tower taken down with a CD. The columns low down were much more mass and the amount of explosives etc. would have to be very large... and the explosions seen and definitely heard. They weren't.

So truthers came up with silent ThermXte... which would cut the steel and destroy axial load paths. This is conceivable. But the signs of the cuts would have left some tell tale signs in the steel debris.... such as diagonal cuts. Jones was caught lying about a column showing a diagonal cut which was made during the clean up. No other steel from 7wtc shows anything like a diagonal cut column.

It may been possible to cause the massive transfers to fail with the use of engineered devices. Truthers didn't bother to present an engineered destruction of the transfers.

And of course the placement of these destruction devices would take days and weeks and there are no reports of they being placed.

Grasping at straws.

++++

The formal truth movement is really about making money marking false narratives... a cottage industry for Gage and a few "authors"... who understand that cults can generate revenue. As HL Mencken said:

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2019, 11:47 AM   #29
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
I have a relevant question about the thread title.

Do the 9/11 Troofers actually have any "best shot" at all with which to go with or ignore?
It depends on their goal, I guess. If their goal is to prove that the government did it, then no. But if they keep refining their claims and shifting their goal until they stay with what is actually proved, something can come out of that; for example, they could establish that there was some negligence and the culprits should pay for it (if they are still alive).

They don't seem to be able to let go, unfortunately. The closest thing they are doing is trying to blame NIST for their errors. But even if they conclusively proved there were errors in the "probable collapse sequence" and NIST were shown to be negligent, that wouldn't need to have any consequences. Something that NIST did definitively right, was to document how the exceptional circumstances of the events of that day were crucial to the end results; for example, how the plane impacts were necessary for the collapses of the TTs to happen, or how their collapses left the sprinklers in the lower floors of WTC7 without water. Since these exceptional circumstances are not expected to be repeated, there was actually little or no need to change building codes, which is the only major consequence that NIST's reports could and did have, and what was expected from NIST by normal people. Even then, NIST was conservative and emitted some recommendations regarding building codes, and there was no prejudice in emitting them.

That's why the attacks to NIST by truthers are meaningless: they lack perspective. Proving NIST wrong doesn't do anything to advance towards a new investigation, because NIST's most relevant results were not the simulation that they are attacking.

Sorry for the digression. Since it's unlikely that their focus will ever shift out of their fantastic view, the most probable answer is no.

Last edited by pgimeno; 10th September 2019 at 11:49 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2019, 02:07 PM   #30
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,981
The NIST WTC7 report can be debated honestly among professionals, and it has been debated here on this board by guys who know what they're talking about. As a layman the debate seems to focus on if a beam "walked off"and if that was enough to bring it down as it did. That's a long way from global collapse and nano-non-existent-thermite and nobody with any serious knowledge entertains this nincompoopery.

Remember that the NIST WTC7 - WAS - the new investigation and Truthers got their panties in a wad because the findings didn't include whatever their relative mental illnesses allow them to believe.

As for the Truther's best remaining shot?

There could be a final, definitive answer about the FBI and CIA's colossal failures at the key management points.

There could be an honest discussion of shortcuts made during construction of the Twin Towers and WTC7 that NIST not-so-subtly hints at in its recommendations.

There could be honest discussions about why the Air National Guard and USAF launched interceptor fighters which were unarmed leaving the pilots with the only option of ramming hijacked jet liners, and how badly our national defense abilities had degraded under the Clinton Administration.

There could be MORE discussion about how NYC under Rudy Giuliani short-changed FDNY and the NYPD SDU with crappy radio communications equipment that would have saved lives on 9-11.

Maybe we could take a painfully honest look at how US Customs and INS was forced to bend over backwards to allow Saudi nationals and visitors from Middle Eastern oil-producing states into the country at will, with no accountability for staying past their visa expiration dates.

See, there is a lot of "Truth" surrounding the events of 9-11-2001 that has yet to see the light of day. The problem is that Truthers don't think it's sexy, there's no Bush/Chimpy/Cheney/Right-Wing War Mongering CT at the root.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 10th September 2019 at 02:08 PM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2019, 02:20 PM   #31
The Common Potato
Scholar
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
pgimeno, do you think any of these claims are good evidence? If so, which one(s) and why?
LEARN TO READ.

Sorry, being a bit abrupt, there.

Last edited by The Common Potato; 10th September 2019 at 02:27 PM.
The Common Potato is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2019, 03:22 PM   #32
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,465
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
As for the Truther's best remaining shot?

[snipped a very good "top five" list of the real unsolved issues of 9/11]

See, there is a lot of "Truth" surrounding the events of 9-11-2001 that has yet to see the light of day. The problem is that Truthers don't think it's sexy, there's no Bush/Chimpy/Cheney/Right-Wing War Mongering CT at the root.
Yes, exactly this. For some reason I imagine the Consensus 9/11 panel or some similar truther organization coming to the conclusion that these kinds of issues are the only ones they really have good evidence for, and exposing them.

I realize I'm dreaming too much, but still I try. I created this thread because, when the topic of the truther objectives was raised by tanabear in another thread, I really wanted to make the truthers who read this forum reflect on how misguided their embracing of AE911Truth is, as Gage's strategy purely consists of marketing without any real claims to offer, and just to cry "we want a new investigation" instead of working on offering real evidence in order to show the rest of the world that they have a case. They're not going anywhere with that strategy, and the analysis in the thread "When will the AE911 petition finally reach juggernaut strength of 1%?" suggests that they won't in future either.

It appears that they see their dreamed new investigation as the be-all end-all of the evidence discovery. That's a fantasy; the world doesn't work that way. They need to take action, investigate themselves and reach points of common agreement, and use that to expose their case to the relevant authorities. Personally I don't know of anyone in the truther world other than the Consensus 9/11 panel doing that, and that's why I tried to point them in that direction as an example of what they should be doing, instead of promoting fake simulations and suggesting silent explosives.

I hope I've invited some of them to reflect.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2019, 03:29 PM   #33
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,788
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I've never seen a demolition. But I live in Valencia, province where the mascletàWP is very popular (mostly in March), which means I know what over 120 dB of continued explosions that are just 20 or 30 metres away sound like, and how it feels to have your guts vibrate and the ground tremble from the explosions.

I'm not sure I know what a HE sounds like. Wikipedia cites "light firecrackers" as examples of LEs, but I'm not sure if the masclets can be considered as 'light' in that context. 130 dB must be quite more impressive.
The closer you are the more impressive. I have watched many a YT video of the WTC disaster and have yet to hear any HE explosions prior to and during the collapse. I have been in Vegas when they brought down the old Aladdin and they were load from maybe a 1/4 mile away.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2019, 06:03 AM   #34
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,894
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
The closer you are the more impressive. I have watched many a YT video of the WTC disaster and have yet to hear any HE explosions prior to and during the collapse. I have been in Vegas when they brought down the old Aladdin and they were load from maybe a 1/4 mile away.
This. And I pretty much gave up on arguing explosion sounds a long time ago.

I was trained as a combat engineer in the Army, so a large part of that training was learning how to rapidly turn large things into lots of small, high-velocity things. Including practical examples. And there's not much that sounds like HE in the collapse.

Most people get their idea of an explosion from movies (which tend to use gasoline deflagrations more than actual detonations, because they're slower and flashier) and similar. An actual HE explosion tends to be VERY quick: a bang, not a rumble. There's usually little flame involved (unless it's set on something like a gasoline tank or similar)...it's the concussion and fragmentation that do the most damage.

But it's really hard to describe it in words.

Actually, one of the best examples for a large HE explosion is the early mythbusters episode where they blow up the cement truck. If you watch that, when it goes off, there's not any of the slow expansion and bright fireball you see in movies. There's a loud bang and a dust cloud that seems to appear instantaneously, and that's it.
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2019, 07:18 AM   #35
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,788
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
This. And I pretty much gave up on arguing explosion sounds a long time ago.

I was trained as a combat engineer in the Army, so a large part of that training was learning how to rapidly turn large things into lots of small, high-velocity things. Including practical examples. And there's not much that sounds like HE in the collapse.

Most people get their idea of an explosion from movies (which tend to use gasoline deflagrations more than actual detonations, because they're slower and flashier) and similar. An actual HE explosion tends to be VERY quick: a bang, not a rumble. There's usually little flame involved (unless it's set on something like a gasoline tank or similar)...it's the concussion and fragmentation that do the most damage.

But it's really hard to describe it in words.

Actually, one of the best examples for a large HE explosion is the early mythbusters episode where they blow up the cement truck. If you watch that, when it goes off, there's not any of the slow expansion and bright fireball you see in movies. There's a loud bang and a dust cloud that seems to appear instantaneously, and that's it.
Field artillery here and yes those explosions are nothing like the movies.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2019, 12:43 PM   #36
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 538
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
See, Fonebone, that's your "evidence". Many truthers will agree with some of your points, and disagree on others.
[snip]


Quote:
No. I mean booms immediately preceding the collapse.
Have you ever paid attention to when the building falls in demolitions?
It actually begins to fall right after the explosives cut the columns, as a

direct effect of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCPVNLLo-mI

[excerpt]
HUGE EXPLOSION !! DEBRIS RAINING DOWN ON ALL of US. !!![/excerpt]

NJ Burkett , ABC News reporter on live TV as WTC2 exploded and collapsed in the background.
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw

Last edited by Fonebone; 12th September 2019 at 01:02 PM.
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2019, 01:02 PM   #37
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,670
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCPVNLLo-mI

[excerpt]
HUGE EXPLOSION !! DEBRIS RAINING DOWN ON ALL of US. !!![/excerpt]

NJ Burkett , ABC News reporter on live TV as WTC2 exploded and collapsed in the background.
And ... your argument and conclusion now is ... what?
Can you spell out, in a short string of full grammatical English sentences, what you mean to say?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2019, 01:36 PM   #38
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 538
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Uhhh, perhaps they had to cut some of the columns out of the wreckage?

Agreed - While the firemen and rescue teams were frantically searching for survivors,
including their missing comrades, other teams of welders and rescue workers risked their lives
using every type of cutting and welding tools available to cut away steel into the three smoking
and burning WTC towers interiors to explore. I'm pointing out columns were cut at an angle.



the video I linked to exactly how explosive cutting charges are placed and
the reasons for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgSYtUyKf0U


All you have to do is click the link and pay attention.
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2019, 01:59 PM   #39
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,670
Great. Fonebone discovered that they demolished the remaining structure in the weeks and months after the attacks.

You are about 17 years behind most of us - but welcome anyway
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2019, 04:06 PM   #40
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,266
now pay attention...

Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
... I'm pointing out columns were cut at an angle.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...bcf3b8e733.jpg
the video I linked to exactly how explosive cutting charges are placed and
the reasons for them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgSYtUyKf0U

All you have to do is click the link and pay attention.
You have never chopped down trees? "Pay Attention", playing the irony card, as you failed to pay attention for 18 years.

What is your point? Why would the clean up crews not cut at an angle, for some of the same reasons CD charges use an angle? Clean up is also controlled demotion using torches. You have no point.

"They" cut the steel columns at an angle after 9/11 (during clean up, there are photos), you missed the boat of massive rational evidence, again.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.