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.
Reply
Old 21st August 2016, 11:55 PM   #281
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,859
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
In case you missed it, I could have placed 1000 pounds of explosives on each floor level of the WTC Towers and detonate them all at once and the results would have been blown out walls and windows, but the steel structure would have remained intact.
I may have said this before, but I am fascinated in learning your interpretation of the Oklahoma City Bombing.

Quote:
You can't properly pre-weaken the steel structure of a building or rig explosives in an occupied building in secret because of the intense noise generated and hazardous conditions that would result.
What's wrong with pre-weakining? Wasn't there some fire alarm in WTC 7 that was turned off at different intervals, allowing someone to work in the elevator shafts with a torch?
MicahJava 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 22nd August 2016, 12:05 AM   #282
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The foam looks exactly the same as the stray-applied fireproofing material. What are you literally even?

It doesn't make any difference. The sound of explosions would have been detected. you don't seem to understand that if you don't properly pre-weaken a steel structure before placing explosives, you can detonate the explosives and the steel structure will simply redistribute structural loads and remained standing. Structural pre-weakening is a long process and in fact, it took months of preparation just to bring down a steel bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas and that was nothing compared to what it would have taken to properly pre-weaken the steel structure of just one of the WTC Tower.


Quote:
There is no photographic evidence for fires in the building until 12:10 PM.

There were uncontrolled fires raging within WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 and it was all captured on video before they collapsed.


Quote:
Let that be a marking point for when any serious fires could have developed. The building fell according to that engineer's prediction somewhere around 11:30 AM.

Buckling of the WTC buildings observed before they collapsed was indicative of structural failures due to uncontrolled fires.
skyeagle409 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 22nd August 2016, 12:12 AM   #283
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,709
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What's wrong with pre-weakining? Wasn't there some fire alarm in WTC 7 that was turned off at different intervals, allowing someone to work in the elevator shafts with a torch?
Far from all of the WTC7 core columns were in lift shafts. And of those that were not all the faces of the columns were accessible - walls that abutted occupied space would have needed stripping down to get to the columns.

I'd have thought you'd be aware of this, but it seems you've relied on "saying any old stuff" by way of research.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 22nd August 2016, 12:18 AM   #284
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I may have said this before, but I am fascinated in learning your interpretation of the Oklahoma City Bombing.

That building did not fullly collapse. The wall of the building received the effects of blast wave, which was devastating. That same blast wave would flow around steel columns. Have you ever seen a video of a steel frame building withstanding the blast wave of a nuclear bomb? There were no walls or windows, but the steel structure remained standing.


Quote:
What's wrong with pre-weakining?

It is a requirement in order to bring down a steel frame building, otherwise, the steel structure will simply redistributed structural loads as was the case when the WTC Towers were struck by those aircraft and when debris struck the south wall of WTC 7.


Quote:
Wasn't there some fire alarm in WTC 7 that was turned off at different intervals, allowing someone to work in the elevator shafts with a torch?

Structural pre-weakening is a process that would have taken many months and would not have been tolaterated in a crowded building, especially with all of the dust, fumes and high noise levels that would have been generated during that operation.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 22nd August 2016 at 12:23 AM.
skyeagle409 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 22nd August 2016, 12:48 AM   #285
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,709
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post

Structural pre-weakening is a process that would have taken many months and would not have been tolaterated in a crowded building, especially with all of the dust, fumes and high noise levels that would have been generated during that operation.
That too. CTists have watched too many 'Mission Impossible' variants where experts nip in and do months of work in 30 minutes. Szamboti's demolition crew being a prime example.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 22nd August 2016, 05:11 AM   #286
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I may have said this before, but I am fascinated in learning your interpretation of the Oklahoma City Bombing.



What's wrong with pre-weakining? Wasn't there some fire alarm in WTC 7 that was turned off at different intervals, allowing someone to work in the elevator shafts with a torch?
I think you need to educate yourself on exactly how this pre-weakening is done.
NoahFence 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 22nd August 2016, 06:31 AM   #287
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I see. So you are going to create a fairly detailed description of what was done at the three of seven WTC buildings you have concerns about.
This apparently will include installation of some number of explosive sets with foam and sheet metal sound dampening.

When might this description be completed?
Before or after the turn of this decade?
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do you have reason to think that such a retrofit couldn't last the turn of the decade?.
You apparently did not read my post with comprehension.

WHEN will we see your detailed report on installation of 1000+ explosives(in three buildings)? Off the top of my head it would first have an estimate of the time it would take to complete each installation, materials required at each installation and manpower required per installation. (noting that some locations would be more difficult to access than others)
It would include a description of detonation coordination and sequencing(How and when the explosives are timed and set off)
It would outline the operation of said installations. How many installation teams, when such work would be done (keeping in mind the estimate of installation time).
It would include the cover story used to explain those installations that are in public view, or those that will be seen by maintenance personnel over the course of time between start of installation operation, and Sept 11/01.

If YOU aren't doing this report then I suppose AE911T will doing it.
It should be obvious that no one should hold their breath waiting for JAQ'ers like you to EVER actually DO something.
jaydeehess 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 22nd August 2016, 06:39 AM   #288
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I may have said this before, but I am fascinated in learning your interpretation of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
9 storey building, 6500 pounds of explosives, directed charge, the front of the building was destroyed, some floors collapsed, the vertical supports remained.


What is your interpretation of the OKC bombing?

ETA: and btw it was LOUD and also took out windows in other structures for miles around.
from wiki:hilites mine
Quote:
The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings.[3][4] The broken glass alone accounted for 5% of the death total and 69% of the injuries outside the Murrah Federal Building.[4] The blast destroyed or burned 86 cars around the site.[3][66] The destruction of the buildings left several hundred people homeless and shut down a number of offices in downtown Oklahoma City.[67] The explosion was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage.[68]

The effects of the blast were equivalent to over 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of TNT,[56][69] and could be heard and felt up to 55 miles (89 km) away.[67] Seismometers at Science Museum Oklahoma in Oklahoma City, 4.3 miles (6.9 km) away, and in Norman, Oklahoma, 16.1 miles (25.9 km) away, recorded the blast as measuring approximately 3.0 on the Richter

Last edited by jaydeehess; 22nd August 2016 at 06:44 AM.
jaydeehess 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 22nd August 2016, 06:41 AM   #289
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,709
Shaped charges on an "I" column:

__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 22nd August 2016, 06:57 AM   #290
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,343
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The foam looks exactly the same as the stray-applied fireproofing material.
It would break apart very easily, liberating most of the sound. That's why the tin is there. The foam needs something to compress against. The blast energy must turn into something (heat from compression, in this case) in order to be dissipated.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There is no photographic evidence for fires in the building until 12:10 PM. Let that be a marking point for when any serious fires could have developed.
That's Pentagon no-planer logic. I can't see it therefore it didn't happen. Never mind the testimony of engineer Mike Catalano, who reported a generator catching fire when WTC2 collapsed.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 22nd August 2016, 07:34 AM   #291
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post

Now, here is how it's done.


How Building Implosions Work

The first step in preparation, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building. Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

Notice in following photo how CD explosives that are firmly attached to structural columns are wrapped with a fabric covering.

http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/building-implosion-20.jpg

What you see in the photo was not found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Here is what happens when the demolition preparation process is not done properly.


Demolition Failure Video 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E__8ULsY3zo


Demolition Failure Video 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJDX9V_pPV8


Demolition Failure Video 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC8R-kndyn8


Demolition Failure Video 4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lntJyHYOxw8


You can't just pack a steel frame building with explosives and expect the building to collapse without doing the properly preparations beforehand, which would have taken about a year for each of the WTC buildings if not longer, otherwise you will get something like this in case you missed it when I posted this photo before.


1993 WTC 1 Bombing Aftermath

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...TF_Commons.jpg

Last edited by skyeagle409; 22nd August 2016 at 07:36 AM.
skyeagle409 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 22nd August 2016, 07:47 AM   #292
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
That's Pentagon no-planer logic. I can't see it therefore it didn't happen. Never mind the testimony of engineer Mike Catalano, who reported a generator catching fire when WTC2 collapsed.
It seems that people such as MJ have this idea that a smoldering fire would be detected when FFs searched WTC 7 earlier in the day. One wonders at the cognitive dissonance that it takes to believe that. When FFs went through WTC 7 it was filled with dust, there were fires in the rubble of the towers and several other buildings in the WTC area were on fire making all of Manhattan smell of dust and smoke. FFs did in fact find some small fires burning, again contributing to the undetectability of any smoldering fires. but did not engage them.

Because the building was determined to be unstable and because the FDNY had lost hundreds of men already, and because water supply was an issue and because there was no one left in WTC 7 and because personnel were concentrating on search and rescue, WTC 7 was left alone. Therefore fires grew and spread. That necessarily meant that continuing structural damage would ensue.

WHAt is it that makes this so difficult for MJ et al to comprehend? The mind reels at the idiocy.
jaydeehess 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 22nd August 2016, 09:06 AM   #293
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,859
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
It would break apart very easily, liberating most of the sound. That's why the tin is there. The foam needs something to compress against. The blast energy must turn into something (heat from compression, in this case) in order to be dissipated.
Wrap it in duck tape? I don't know, man. I already showed that the basic outline for relatively simple noise abatement technology does exist.

Do you happen to know how loud the actual collapses were, by decibel and distance?

Quote:
That's Pentagon no-planer logic. I can't see it therefore it didn't happen. Never mind the testimony of engineer Mike Catalano, who reported a generator catching fire when WTC2 collapsed.
Not doubting Catalano, but on a side note could you fill me on on how that is actually possible?
MicahJava 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 22nd August 2016, 09:10 AM   #294
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Wrap it in duck tape? I don't know, man. I already showed that the basic outline for relatively simple noise abatement technology does exist.

It wasn't used during the 9/11 attack. Do you know why? No evidence on audio, seismic data or found within the rubble of the WTC buldings. I might add that there were no secondary explosions when the aircraft struck and no secondary explosions observed after debris punched a huge hole on WTC 7 and no secondary explosions observed within WTC 7 depite the building burning for hours.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 22nd August 2016 at 09:14 AM.
skyeagle409 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 22nd August 2016, 09:33 AM   #295
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Wrap it in duck tape? I don't know, man. I already showed that the basic outline for relatively simple noise abatement technology does exist.

Do you happen to know how loud the actual collapses were, by decibel and distance?
YOU are the one pushing a noise abatement to mask the sound of explosives. It's YOUR burden to research and come up with a coherent description of such a thing in this specific case of the towers and WTC 7.

If not you then SOMEONE who is trying to tell the world at large that explosives were used has the burden of proof to AT LEAST come up with such a coherent description, a report, on how it was done.
Can you not see that this is required before the idea of explosives use is anything other than imaginative fiction?



Quote:
Not doubting Catalano, but on a side note could you fill me on on how that is actually possible?
How is it possible for a generator to catch fire? ANY electrical equipment can catch fire and that goes just as well for devices that USE power as it does for devices that PRODUCE power.

In August of 1997 the hydroelectric station powerhouse at Ear Falls, Ontario, Canada, burned down. The dam and dam controls were undamaged and the powers station rebuilt. I spoke with a resident who said that late at night a huge squealing sound came from the dam that was audible everywhere in the small town. Shortly afterwards it was seen that the unmanned power station building was on fire.
There are videos on the internet of power transformers on fire.

What is your issue with this?
jaydeehess 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 22nd August 2016, 09:36 AM   #296
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
It wasn't used during the 9/11 attack. Do you know why? No evidence .... found within the rubble of the WTC buldings....
MJ's estimate there were 1000+ explosives planted. Thus there were 2000+ explosively severed pieces of structural components (sever a solid item and two pieces now show evidence of being explosively severed). Yet there is NO evidence of ANY such explosively severed structural components.

NONE!
jaydeehess 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 22nd August 2016, 09:45 AM   #297
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,343
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Wrap it in duck tape? I don't know, man. I already showed that the basic outline for relatively simple noise abatement technology does exist.
Well, now show that it was actually used and you might have something.

You are trying "A exists, B exists, therefore A was caused by B" (where A = absence of noise; B = technology for noise suppression). That's ridiculously flawed logic. I'm sure you can realize that.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Not doubting Catalano, but on a side note could you fill me on on how that is actually possible?
He said the generators were jammed by dust and debris from the WTC2 collapse and that caused them to catch fire. [Edit: by the way, they were diesel generators]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2565
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 22nd August 2016 at 09:47 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 22nd August 2016, 09:48 AM   #298
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
...................

Demolition Failure Video 4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lntJyHYOxw8


You can't just pack a steel frame building with explosives and expect the building to collapse without doing the properly preparations beforehand, which would have taken about a year for each of the WTC buildings if not longer...
Highlighted is the relevant point.

911TM says that explosives were planted TO DEFINITIVELY CAUSE total collapse of three buildings.
That requires planning and engineering of an explosive placement and sequence. Simply loading up with explosives will not ensure such a supposedly necessary total collapse.
That type of operation did not work in the WTC 1 in the bombing , nor did it cause total collapse of the 9 storey Murrah building on Ok City, nor did it do so in the Serbian(or was it Croatian) Chinese Embassy building.

Sure, such a thing might work if the explosive power is sufficiently huge (shades of mini-nukes) but that also then negates any talk of noise abatement, as well as negating the supposed requirement of total collapse and undetectable explosive use.
jaydeehess 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 22nd August 2016, 10:01 AM   #299
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,859
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Far from all of the WTC7 core columns were in lift shafts. And of those that were not all the faces of the columns were accessible - walls that abutted occupied space would have needed stripping down to get to the columns.

I'd have thought you'd be aware of this, but it seems you've relied on "saying any old stuff" by way of research.
If drywall panels had to be removed to access the bare columns, then what's wrong with that being done during the heavy renovations of 1998/1999?
MicahJava 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 22nd August 2016, 10:08 AM   #300
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,209
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If the upper 60 stories of a tower were rigged (because there's no chance of a plane flying lower than that), I'd estimate that would take 400 charges per twin tower if they're only placed on the outer core columns. Same math depending on how long the WTC 7 columns were, rigging all columns through the span of 8 floors.

Devices placed on the perimeter, who knows? I already gave photographic evidence for the perimeter being dismembered artificially. Someone asked for evidence of explosive destruction, I gave it, and they moved the goalpost with their coked out "silent explosives" meme. Imagine if this wasn't the World Trade Center, this was john's skyscraper down the street that burned down, no casualties or political pressure; Mr. Arson Investigator watches a video and sees how the perimeter of the building appears to be dismembering in mid-air after a flash of light and puff of smoke. What is that observation consistent with?





foam? foam?! FOAM?! FOAM?! WHERE WERE THE 50 TON HYDRAULIC PRESSES MAN.
Why can't you answer simple questions?

Try reading the above again and this time answer the questions.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 22nd August 2016, 10:12 AM   #301
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,209
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If drywall panels had to be removed to access the bare columns, then what's wrong with that being done during the heavy renovations of 1998/1999?
The top 60 stories in WTC 1 and 2, along with 8 stories in WTC were "heavily renovated" in 1998/1998?

Do you have proof of this? Who did this work?
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 22nd August 2016, 10:13 AM   #302
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,709
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If drywall panels had to be removed to access the bare columns, then what's wrong with that being done during the heavy renovations of 1998/1999?
Because cutter charges have a significant thickness. You can't have short sections of drywall sticking out with charges underneath, as it would look stupid and people would be asking questions, and loudly. You'd have to re-clad the whole height of it.

And where the column was at the end of the central elevator block you'd have to extend *all* the drywall outwards for the entire length and width of the block to avoid the same problem. It's a ludicrous idea.

Then you'd need to demonstrate that these 'renovations' covered the entirety of the floors supposedly blown-up.

Does it ever occur to you that you're so devoted to believing this CT guff that you'll grasp at absolutely anything - however absurd - to defend your belief?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 22nd August 2016, 10:18 AM   #303
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,859
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
The top 60 stories in WTC 1 and 2, along with 8 stories in WTC were "heavily renovated" in 1998/1998?

Do you have proof of this? Who did this work?
I was referring to WTC 7, but there was a heavy fireproofing renovation in 1999-2000 for the Twin Towers on the top floors: http://911blogger.com/node/13272
MicahJava 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 22nd August 2016, 10:33 AM   #304
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,080
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I was referring to WTC 7, but there was a heavy fireproofing renovation in 1999-2000 for the Twin Towers on the top floors: http://911blogger.com/node/13272
So? What is the point? The fire proofing was knocked off by the 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impacts...

So?> Your inside job remains a fantasy; 15 years of failure. You remain 8 years behind, and clueless on what happened on 9/11, and how the tower collapsed due to fire.
__________________
"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

Last edited by beachnut; 22nd August 2016 at 10:35 AM.
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
Old 22nd August 2016, 10:38 AM   #305
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,209
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I was referring to WTC 7, but there was a heavy fireproofing renovation in 1999-2000 for the Twin Towers on the top floors: http://911blogger.com/node/13272
Did you even read what you linked to?

Hint it doesn't mention anything about 60 floors or renovations on entire floors.

Massive fail yet again.

Who performed this work by the way?
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 22nd August 2016, 10:43 AM   #306
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,379
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
That too. CTists have watched too many 'Mission Impossible' variants where experts nip in and do months of work in 30 minutes. Szamboti's demolition crew being a prime example.
Even more basically, there was NO evidence pre-weakening was done, so it is a call to magic.

ETA: And it is a red herring in the thread.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 22nd August 2016 at 10:44 AM.
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 22nd August 2016, 10:49 AM   #307
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,379
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I was referring to WTC 7, but there was a heavy fireproofing renovation in 1999-2000 for the Twin Towers on the top floors: http://911blogger.com/node/13272
And you have no evidence this noise abatement was installed, so it is a call to magic, and also it has nothing to do with this thread.

Masterful derail you've got going, good luck with stretching it out and keeping the hope alive, especially when the demolitions theory really has no hope.
__________________
"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 22nd August 2016, 10:49 AM   #308
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,343
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I was referring to WTC 7, but there was a heavy fireproofing renovation in 1999-2000 for the Twin Towers on the top floors: http://911blogger.com/node/13272
Read this again:
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Well, now show that it was actually used and you might have something.

You are trying "A exists, B exists, therefore A was caused by B" (where A = absence of noise; B = technology for noise suppression). That's ridiculously flawed logic. I'm sure you can realize that.
Then provide proof that such foam was actually used. Show us some foam with explosive residue, or some WTC steel cut with cutter charges, or some detonation cord, or some triggering device... Anything that actually proves it was used. There's plenty of photographic material that has been analyzed by tons of truthers. The best they could come up with so far is to claim that this is the result of thermite cutting:

http://americanbuilt.us/images/911/e...f-thermite.jpg

when it's obviously the result of cutting torches.

I'm sure you can do better. Go ahead.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 22nd August 2016, 10:57 AM   #309
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Devices placed on the perimeter, who knows? I already gave photographic evidence for the perimeter being dismembered artificially. Someone asked for evidence of explosive destruction, I gave it, and they moved the goalpost with their coked out "silent explosives" meme. Imagine if this wasn't the World Trade Center, this was john's skyscraper down the street that burned down, no casualties or political pressure; Mr. Arson Investigator watches a video and sees how the perimeter of the building appears to be dismembering in mid-air after a flash of light and puff of smoke. What is that observation consistent with?
Riddle me this: if bright flashes are explosives AND the sound of explosives is dampened by foam and sheet metal, then how in the hell do we see bright flashes AND not hear them?


Quote:
foam? foam?! FOAM?! FOAM?! WHERE WERE THE 50 TON HYDRAULIC PRESSES MAN.
What about THE (afaik only one is ever mentioned) 50 ton press?
Its a chunk of metal weighing in at about 500 pounds. What about it?


ETA: perhaps I am on ignore to MJ

Last edited by jaydeehess; 22nd August 2016 at 10:59 AM.
jaydeehess 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 22nd August 2016, 11:01 AM   #310
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,209
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Riddle me this: if bright flashes are explosives AND the sound of explosives is dampened by foam and sheet metal, then how in the hell do we see bright flashes AND not hear them?



What about THE (afaik only one is ever mentioned) 50 ton press?
Its a chunk of metal weighing in at about 500 pounds. What about it?


ETA: perhaps I am on ignore to MJ
Micah? Answer please.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 22nd August 2016, 11:17 AM   #311
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I was referring to WTC 7, but there was a heavy fireproofing renovation in 1999-2000 for the Twin Towers on the top floors: http://911blogger.com/node/13272

Didn't you stop to think about security personnel, building inspectors, and janitorial employees, not to mention the thousands of workers inside those buildings, who would have noticed the thousands of feet of detonation wires and explosive hardware and required equipment needed to demolish steel frame buildings with explosives?

Now, think about all of the waste material created during the preparation process.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 22nd August 2016 at 11:24 AM.
skyeagle409 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 22nd August 2016, 11:28 AM   #312
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I was referring to WTC 7, but there was a heavy fireproofing renovation in 1999-2000 for the Twin Towers on the top floors: http://911blogger.com/node/13272

Let's hear it from a demolition expert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgGOlAWqHIg
skyeagle409 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 22nd August 2016, 11:34 AM   #313
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
The top 60 stories in WTC 1 and 2, along with 8 stories in WTC were "heavily renovated" in 1998/1998?

Do you have proof of this? Who did this work?
Part of me wants too google that, but the better part of me knows it'll just link to crackpot websites.
NoahFence 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 22nd August 2016, 12:17 PM   #314
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Here MichJava, this is what a 50 ton press looks like before it gets crushed by a million tons of office building materials.
http://www.powerstationusa.com/brand...php?mod=AE50TM
Here's instructions on its use.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFis4Pr5Lw8


On a similar note, I own a 10 ton, and a 20 ton, hydraulic bottle jack. I can easily lift them. Could, if I had reason to, lift one with each hand, off the bench. Might be hard pressed to do arm curls with them though.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 22nd August 2016 at 12:24 PM.
jaydeehess 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 22nd August 2016, 12:39 PM   #315
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Part of me wants too google that, but the better part of me knows it'll just link to crackpot websites.
Here's an article from (the obviously NWO controlled ) Fire Engineering magazine.
http://www.fireengineering.com/artic...tc-towers.html
jaydeehess 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 22nd August 2016, 01:19 PM   #316
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,343
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Here MichJava, this is what a 50 ton press looks like before it gets crushed by a million tons of office building materials.
http://www.powerstationusa.com/brand...php?mod=AE50TM
Here's instructions on its use.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFis4Pr5Lw8


On a similar note, I own a 10 ton, and a 20 ton, hydraulic bottle jack. I can easily lift them. Could, if I had reason to, lift one with each hand, off the bench. Might be hard pressed to do arm curls with them though.
You're making it look like a 50 ton press does not actually weigh 50 tons. Every truther knows that you're lying.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 22nd August 2016, 01:53 PM   #317
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
You're making it look like a 50 ton press does not actually weigh 50 tons. Every truther knows that you're lying.
Ya think?

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
You understand that a 50 ton press does not weigh 50 tons right?
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post

BTW you did not answer the question, you do know what a 50 ton press is and that you could put one in your garage. I suppose I should also ask how you know for certain that no one found a badly damaged 50 ton press that you claim was in WTC7? (or was it in WTC1 or 2?)
To which Mich Java replied
Quote:
What?
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post

What is so difficult about these questions?
Do you know that a 50 ton press does not actually weigh 50 tons? Easy question..........
Yes there was a press in one of the WTC building's basement levels. Do you know which one? Easy question.....
You brought it up and seemed to be implying that said press was pulverized and never found. Is that or is that not what you were saying? Easy question.....
Then
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
foam? foam?! FOAM?! FOAM?! WHERE WERE THE 50 TON HYDRAULIC PRESSES MAN.
I must be on MichJava's ignore list. (along with Beachnut who also mentioned that a 50 ton hydraulic press does not weigh 50 tons.)

If I am not on ignore then this is:
- obvious trolling or
- sheer stupidity or
- something else(don't want to set up any false dichotomy )

Last edited by jaydeehess; 22nd August 2016 at 02:02 PM.
jaydeehess 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 22nd August 2016, 02:02 PM   #318
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Riddle me this: if bright flashes are explosives AND the sound of explosives is dampened by foam and sheet metal, then how in the hell do we see bright flashes AND not hear them?



What about THE (afaik only one is ever mentioned) 50 ton press?
Its a chunk of metal weighing in at about 500 pounds. What about it?


ETA: perhaps I am on ignore to MJ
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
Micah? Answer please.
testing testing,,,, is this thing on ,,, IS THIS THING ON?
jaydeehess 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 22nd August 2016, 02:05 PM   #319
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
I note that there would have been several types of items that could have survived relatively intact through the collapses, whereas a hydraulic press in a machine shop is NOT one of those things. Air conditioning condenser cores, elevator motors, large transformer coils/cores. I do not find it at all odd that there are no references to finding such items in the rubble. It's just NOT important in the least to warrant mention.
jaydeehess 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 22nd August 2016, 02:06 PM   #320
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,709
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
testing testing,,,, is this thing on ,,, IS THIS THING ON?
Let me see if we can get a response ...

How much does a 50-ton press weigh?


(I once had a 5-ton jack in the back of my car, back in the day. Dunno how that car managed to scrape along )
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 11:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.