Seek help, or at least try to avoid topics like this.
New World Ag said:
You guys do know that the guy who planned the entire operation, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who we have locked up in Gitmo, confessed and gave all the details on the planning and logistics? We have videos of all the hijackers as they go through security and many eyewitness accounts from gate agents and other people?
For someone to believe that our government was behind this, you would have to believe that multiple people, including the POTUS, signed off on a plan that would:
Kill thousands of American citizens
Nobody would squelch on
Nobody would get caught
Would work
Nobody would squelch in the years afterwards
Was the best plan they had for the objective they wanted.
I could go on and on. The psychology, the logistics,etc…none of it holds up to any logical reasoning.
Why are you so hung up on the passport? There were hundreds of thousands of documents, paper, photos, etc in the debris before and after the towers fell. You've seen the videos and photos, we all have.Quote:
I'll believe that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the mastermind just as much as I do that Mohammed Atta's passport was somehow found in the rubble and yet thousands of bodies were essentially unrecoverable from the debris, pulverized into fine powder by the explosions of the collapse.
Gyles Marrett said:
Unless someone can factually prove a conspiracy was wrong with evidence I don't doubt peoples conspiracies anymore after the last 2 years.
JJxvi said:
Just so it's on here since it keeps getting repeated… Atta's passport was not found. It's just another small piece of information that people get totally wrong over and over and over with this thing. The passport found belonged to another highjacker on that flight, Satam Al-Suqami.
There were also other examples of jewelry, wallets, other identification found from other people on the aircraft both in the street and on rooftops, as well as recovered from the debris.
You're talking out your ass again. There is plenty of physical evidence, victims personal items (wallets, badges , etc) body parts…thousands of victims identified via DNA testing. You've seen the videos of all the paper debris falling in the air, a passerby finding a passport from one of the hijackers on the street before either tower fell is that hard for you to believe? And you call US gullible? You've gone so deep into the conspiracy culture rabbit hole you can't get out.AggiEE said:JJxvi said:
Just so it's on here since it keeps getting repeated… Atta's passport was not found. It's just another small piece of information that people get totally wrong over and over and over with this thing. The passport found belonged to another highjacker on that flight, Satam Al-Suqami.
There were also other examples of jewelry, wallets, other identification found from other people on the aircraft both in the street and on rooftops, as well as recovered from the debris.
Which is comical considering we can't find a shred of tangible physical evidence remaining from many of the victims, but conveniently a passport is found from one of the hijackers
Amazing how gullible the public is to lap this stuff up
New World Ag said:You're talking out your ass again. There is plenty of physical evidence, victims personal items (wallets, badges , etc) body parts…thousands of victims identified via DNA testing. You've seen the videos of all the paper debris falling in the air, a passerby finding a passport from one of the hijackers on the street before either tower fell is that hard for you to believe? And you call US gullible? You've gone so deep into the conspiracy culture rabbit hole you can't get out.AggiEE said:JJxvi said:
Just so it's on here since it keeps getting repeated… Atta's passport was not found. It's just another small piece of information that people get totally wrong over and over and over with this thing. The passport found belonged to another highjacker on that flight, Satam Al-Suqami.
There were also other examples of jewelry, wallets, other identification found from other people on the aircraft both in the street and on rooftops, as well as recovered from the debris.
Which is comical considering we can't find a shred of tangible physical evidence remaining from many of the victims, but conveniently a passport is found from one of the hijackers
Amazing how gullible the public is to lap this stuff up
What?AggiEE said:
The paper was from the office, the idea that the high velocity object that gets slammed into the stationary object and explodes is part of the office paper of surrounding debris is just yet one more part of the ridiculousness to the official lie
also, i think that they were hoping to squeeze Iran between 2 democratic states, which obviously didn't pan outNew World Ag said:Iraq war didn't start until until 1-1/2 years later, not "immediately"AeroAg1 said:
So the fact we immediately go to war with Iraq, who had nothing to do with this attack, doesn't give you any questions?
TRADUCTOR said:
If there is no force applied to a falling mass, the mass will fall STRAIGHT DOWN.
Another thing, when you demolish a building; work is not just putting explosives everywhere. You have to weaken the structure:partially cut beams, remove bracing etc
2 buildings 1/4 mile high fall. Never happened before, so conjecture about what should of happened or beliefs deny plane videos is ridiculous.
The physics of energy the fall created is so enormous few people in the world fully understand.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
The way the towers fell was unnatural.
They vaporized.
I watched a small portion of your 14 minute video on the previous page. Several things peaked my interest. It was clearly stated in that video of some news guy talking about the smoke dissipating or getting lighter meaning the fires were being contained or getting less intense (paraphrasing). Hell, I think I started the whole chimney starter gif joke early on in the thread but in a serious evaluation of that, when you light one of those with only paper and charcoal, it puts out a ton of smoke as the paper starts to burn, then lessens over the next several minutes. By about minute 7-10 depending on wind, you have no more smoke and just pure heat shooting out the top with glowing coals in the central core. I don't think you could find a much better example with vents (doors, windows, ventilation, elevator shafts) that are providing ample air flow to fuel a massive core fire that is basically unseen observing the skin of the building as observed in the towers and pretty well with the broken windows and damaged side of Building 7.AggiEE said:
Appreciate the tone of this response versus others in this thread. I don't disagree with the notion that aircraft + jet fuel would have induced significant local damage. That is clearly evident. What we do disagree with is the notion that this local damage at the least important section of the towers (from load bearing standpoint) would cause catastrophic systemic and complete failure of the entire building at free fall speed from top to bottom. The USS Bonhomme may have been unsalvageable from the standpoint of getting it repaired for service again, but it DID NOT exhibit complete and utter failure of all the core supporting structure.
Buildings do not completely and utterly collapse due to office fires. They sustain significant damage, of which there is no doubt. They may even feature partial collapses. But unless every single loadbearing member is removed near simultaneously it won't result in a near free fall collapse.
There was also nothing that should have caused significant molten steel, nor the extremely high thermal readings at Ground Zero that lasted for a very long time.
100% pure bullshartAggiEE said:fka ftc said:Without resorting to degree returns and offending any true basket weaving professionals from Blinn, let me refer to the below report from the American Society of Civil Engineers on potential causes.AggiEE said:
You're an embarrassment to all the basket weaving degree holders from Blinn. Time to turn in your basket weaving degree.
You cannot name a single other building that collapsed like WTC7 in the entire history of modern steel buildings. We have countless examples of many fires that have raged in an uncontrolled fashion for much longer. Should be easy to find some if buildings are THAT vulnerable to routine fires, yet you CAN'T. The fact that you believe buildings are that vulnerable to office fires to the point where they can cause complete and utter collapse of massive steel columns all simultaneously shows how much of a basket weaving mouthbreather you are. Engineering designs would never be that completely fragile and exposed.
None of the eye witnesses were "debunked". It's not just Jennings either, there are countless others. It all gets hand waived as "bububu that day was really chaotic they probably weren't hearing or seeing explosives"
Complete and utter cognitive dissonance. I do not need to speculate on the mechanics of a covert complex operation to know that it has occcurred due to the physical impossibility of WTC7's "natural collapse" which is corroborated by the university studies I've previously posted yet you continue to ignore.
Significant damage in almost certain probability occurred following the collapse of WTC1. This ignited fires on several floors as well and likely led to the chimney effect also seen on WTC1 and WTC2. This type of burning can create superheated gasses quite efficiently which undermines the steel quickly. To study this, go to your local patio store and get you a chiminea.. Enjoy a nice, overbuilt fire and watch it shoot out the top like a blow torch. Not perfect, but you get the idea.
The report below also points to a potential assist from a damaged fuel oil distribution system on floor 5. You have another complicating factor with a ConEd substation in a basement.
Finally, a 20-inch water main was damaged likely resulting in little or no flow to the buildings sprinklers. It also meant no firefighting was done as no water for hoses.
The building burned for 7 hours uncontrolled before collapsing.
And to add another point of reference, the USS Bonhomme Richard burned for just 2 hours before firefighting began and it took 5 DAYS to put the fire out. On a ship made almost entirely of steel and with less combustibles than you would find in not just an office building, but keeping in mind this was a hotel and JAM PACKED with combustibles.
It just takes common sense sometimes when you remove the tin foil hat.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-10-20/navy-failures-bonhomme-richard-fire
Appreciate the tone of this response versus others in this thread. I don't disagree with the notion that aircraft + jet fuel would have induced significant local damage. That is clearly evident. What we do disagree with is the notion that this local damage at the least important section of the towers (from load bearing standpoint) would cause catastrophic systemic and complete failure of the entire building at free fall speed from top to bottom. The USS Bonhomme may have been unsalvageable from the standpoint of getting it repaired for service again, but it DID NOT exhibit complete and utter failure of all the core supporting structure.
Buildings do not completely and utterly collapse due to office fires. They sustain significant damage, of which there is no doubt. They may even feature partial collapses. But unless every single loadbearing member is removed near simultaneously it won't result in a near free fall collapse.
There was also nothing that should have caused significant molten steel, nor the extremely high thermal readings at Ground Zero that lasted for a very long time.
Shhhhh!!!! Don't let actual facts cloud the mist of stupidity that is surrounding some of these folks like the Charlie Brown character Pig Pen.fka ftc said:Without resorting to degree returns and offending any true basket weaving professionals from Blinn, let me refer to the below report from the American Society of Civil Engineers on potential causes.AggiEE said:
You're an embarrassment to all the basket weaving degree holders from Blinn. Time to turn in your basket weaving degree.
You cannot name a single other building that collapsed like WTC7 in the entire history of modern steel buildings. We have countless examples of many fires that have raged in an uncontrolled fashion for much longer. Should be easy to find some if buildings are THAT vulnerable to routine fires, yet you CAN'T. The fact that you believe buildings are that vulnerable to office fires to the point where they can cause complete and utter collapse of massive steel columns all simultaneously shows how much of a basket weaving mouthbreather you are. Engineering designs would never be that completely fragile and exposed.
None of the eye witnesses were "debunked". It's not just Jennings either, there are countless others. It all gets hand waived as "bububu that day was really chaotic they probably weren't hearing or seeing explosives"
Complete and utter cognitive dissonance. I do not need to speculate on the mechanics of a covert complex operation to know that it has occcurred due to the physical impossibility of WTC7's "natural collapse" which is corroborated by the university studies I've previously posted yet you continue to ignore.
Significant damage in almost certain probability occurred following the collapse of WTC1. This ignited fires on several floors as well and likely led to the chimney effect also seen on WTC1 and WTC2. This type of burning can create superheated gasses quite efficiently which undermines the steel quickly. To study this, go to your local patio store and get you a chiminea.. Enjoy a nice, overbuilt fire and watch it shoot out the top like a blow torch. Not perfect, but you get the idea.
The report below also points to a potential assist from a damaged fuel oil distribution system on floor 5. You have another complicating factor with a ConEd substation in a basement.
Finally, a 20-inch water main was damaged likely resulting in little or no flow to the buildings sprinklers. It also meant no firefighting was done as no water for hoses.
The building burned for 7 hours uncontrolled before collapsing.
And to add another point of reference, the USS Bonhomme Richard burned for just 2 hours before firefighting began and it took 5 DAYS to put the fire out. On a ship made almost entirely of steel and with less combustibles than you would find in not just an office building, but keeping in mind this was a hotel and JAM PACKED with combustibles.
It just takes common sense sometimes when you remove the tin foil hat.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-10-20/navy-failures-bonhomme-richard-fire
New World Ag said:
For someone to believe that our government was behind this, you would have to believe that multiple people, including the POTUS, signed off on a plan that would:
Kill thousands of American citizens
Nobody would squelch on
Nobody would get caught
Would work
Nobody would squelch in the years afterwards
Was the best plan they had for the objective they wanted.
snowdog90 said:New World Ag said:
For someone to believe that our government was behind this, you would have to believe that multiple people, including the POTUS, signed off on a plan that would:
Kill thousands of American citizens
Nobody would squelch on
Nobody would get caught
Would work
Nobody would squelch in the years afterwards
Was the best plan they had for the objective they wanted.
Are you talking about 911 or covid?
Because you do realize that your scenario you use to discredit 911 is exactly what happened with covid?
I mean, do you not see what the government's been doing?
It's the same people in charge. It's a club and we're not in it.
It's a terrible argument: It's the same guys, 20 years later, doing completely different things.Duckhook said:snowdog90 said:New World Ag said:
For someone to believe that our government was behind this, you would have to believe that multiple people, including the POTUS, signed off on a plan that would:
Kill thousands of American citizens
Nobody would squelch on
Nobody would get caught
Would work
Nobody would squelch in the years afterwards
Was the best plan they had for the objective they wanted.
Are you talking about 911 or covid?
Because you do realize that your scenario you use to discredit 911 is exactly what happened with covid?
I mean, do you not see what the government's been doing?
It's the same people in charge. It's a club and we're not in it.
Whataboutism at its finest.
Trump signed off on the COVID show?snowdog90 said:New World Ag said:
For someone to believe that our government was behind this, you would have to believe that multiple people, including the POTUS, signed off on a plan that would:
Kill thousands of American citizens
Nobody would squelch on
Nobody would get caught
Would work
Nobody would squelch in the years afterwards
Was the best plan they had for the objective they wanted.
Are you talking about 911 or covid?
Because you do realize that your scenario you use to discredit 911 is exactly what happened with covid?
I mean, do you not see what the government's been doing?
It's the same people in charge. It's a club and we're not in it.
Panama Red said:
FBI & CIA shot down the Challenger also.
Don't believe me? Look what they did with COVID.
Steel was thrown 600 ft because energy of a jumbo jet at over 500mph... Or a structural failure; take a paper clip and squeeze lengthwise for the effect. Cannot deny there was structural failure due to a jumbo jet crashing into the building. The heat generated melted the steel. Think about a steel mill furnace using electricity and natural gas as fuel. The fuel alone is not what melts the steel. There is nothing that documents the amount of heat generated by the collapse of a 1/4 mile high skyscraper or the amount of heat generated from the flue effect on a fire in a 1/4 mile high skyscaper.AggiEE said:TRADUCTOR said:
If there is no force applied to a falling mass, the mass will fall STRAIGHT DOWN.
Another thing, when you demolish a building; work is not just putting explosives everywhere. You have to weaken the structure:partially cut beams, remove bracing etc
2 buildings 1/4 mile high fall. Never happened before, so conjecture about what should of happened or beliefs deny plane videos is ridiculous.
The physics of energy the fall created is so enormous few people in the world fully understand.
The top portion of the building starts evaporating before you even see the impact zone floors collapse.
A huge portion of the building's steel is thrown laterally over 600 feet outside the footprint of the collapse, thus providing much less gravitational force on the floors below than a true pancaking collapse. What is causing this massive ejection of steel with white hot smoke trails? What's causing the molten steel?
The structure below is providing much more resistance than the floors where the impact zone are located, the conservation of momentum theorem is violated. The "energies" you speak of are merely a matter of scale, they are not some nebulous, unknown factor we don't know how to account for.
New World Ag said:Trump signed off on the COVID show?snowdog90 said:New World Ag said:
For someone to believe that our government was behind this, you would have to believe that multiple people, including the POTUS, signed off on a plan that would:
Kill thousands of American citizens
Nobody would squelch on
Nobody would get caught
Would work
Nobody would squelch in the years afterwards
Was the best plan they had for the objective they wanted.
Are you talking about 911 or covid?
Because you do realize that your scenario you use to discredit 911 is exactly what happened with covid?
I mean, do you not see what the government's been doing?
It's the same people in charge. It's a club and we're not in it.
Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:I watched a small portion of your 14 minute video on the previous page. Several things peaked my interest. It was clearly stated in that video of some news guy talking about the smoke dissipating or getting lighter meaning the fires were being contained or getting less intense (paraphrasing). Hell, I think I started the whole chimney starter gif joke early on in the thread but in a serious evaluation of that, when you light one of those with only paper and charcoal, it puts out a ton of smoke as the paper starts to burn, then lessens over the next several minutes. By about minute 7-10 depending on wind, you have no more smoke and just pure heat shooting out the top with glowing coals in the central core. I don't think you could find a much better example with vents (doors, windows, ventilation, elevator shafts) that are providing ample air flow to fuel a massive core fire that is basically unseen observing the skin of the building as observed in the towers and pretty well with the broken windows and damaged side of Building 7.AggiEE said:
Appreciate the tone of this response versus others in this thread. I don't disagree with the notion that aircraft + jet fuel would have induced significant local damage. That is clearly evident. What we do disagree with is the notion that this local damage at the least important section of the towers (from load bearing standpoint) would cause catastrophic systemic and complete failure of the entire building at free fall speed from top to bottom. The USS Bonhomme may have been unsalvageable from the standpoint of getting it repaired for service again, but it DID NOT exhibit complete and utter failure of all the core supporting structure.
Buildings do not completely and utterly collapse due to office fires. They sustain significant damage, of which there is no doubt. They may even feature partial collapses. But unless every single loadbearing member is removed near simultaneously it won't result in a near free fall collapse.
There was also nothing that should have caused significant molten steel, nor the extremely high thermal readings at Ground Zero that lasted for a very long time.
Second, you reference the NASA observation of extremely high temperatures observed "for a very long time." The video plainly said "days". I'm an old Ag and I remember walking by bonfire a couple of days after burn and the pile was still plenty warm. So much so you could warm your hands pretty easily. Doesn't seem far fetched millions of tons of burnt building and steel would stay warm for days.
These are normal observations with real life examples, not under the stress of such a catastrophic event where bits of information are cherry picked and held up as golden nuggets. The preponderance of evidence along with the lack of thousands of feet of tension wires required to pull a building to collapse on itself closes any book in my mind on govt conspiracy.
TRADUCTOR said:Steel was thrown 600 ft because energy of a jumbo jet at over 500mph... Or a structural failure; take a paper clip and squeeze lengthwise for the effect. Cannot deny there was structural failure due to a jumbo jet crashing into the building. The heat generated melted the steel. Think about a steel mill furnace using electricity and natural gas as fuel. The fuel alone is not what melts the steel. There is nothing that documents the amount of heat generated by the collapse of a 1/4 mile high skyscraper or the amount of heat generated from the flue effect on a fire in a 1/4 mile high skyscaper.AggiEE said:TRADUCTOR said:
If there is no force applied to a falling mass, the mass will fall STRAIGHT DOWN.
Another thing, when you demolish a building; work is not just putting explosives everywhere. You have to weaken the structure:partially cut beams, remove bracing etc
2 buildings 1/4 mile high fall. Never happened before, so conjecture about what should of happened or beliefs deny plane videos is ridiculous.
The physics of energy the fall created is so enormous few people in the world fully understand.
The top portion of the building starts evaporating before you even see the impact zone floors collapse.
A huge portion of the building's steel is thrown laterally over 600 feet outside the footprint of the collapse, thus providing much less gravitational force on the floors below than a true pancaking collapse. What is causing this massive ejection of steel with white hot smoke trails? What's causing the molten steel?
The structure below is providing much more resistance than the floors where the impact zone are located, the conservation of momentum theorem is violated. The "energies" you speak of are merely a matter of scale, they are not some nebulous, unknown factor we don't know how to account for.
Also I forbid you to watch any sandy hook conspiracy videos if they can be found.
Wow! That looks so terrible it must mean the building should collapse entirely at free fall speed!TexasAggie_02 said:
FYI, here is the other side of WTC7 that you don't see in any of the videos of it falling. but let's run with the demo theory. There is literally a gash from top to bottom.