You seem pretty bright for some non-sciency type of moron. The science I've had makes me concur with your basket weaving opinion.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

You've failed to indicate what is "gross" about it. What in particular do you disagree with when it comes to the evidence of that call?

---

My followup sentence stating their claim that Beamer was not on the plane. They are saying it was all faked. That they were given a script then another plane was crashed. Yea that is gross.

Also you ignored my followup FBI document (as you did through out when people brought up evidence).

They also are making the claim that the Airfone calls were in fact cell phone calls. That is pretty dumb considering they can relay where each call came from and had cell phone records to back it up. Again, relying on those who were contacted as the source that they were cell phone calls. The family members probably assumed that since they were calls from an airplane. Again, video taking a lot of liberties outside of known information from the flight. It's half assed research on their part.

---

So you have to choose which source you believe. The phones of those receiving the calls or the FBI. Certainly the government would never lie or fabricate evidence or omission?

Odd that Beamer's call is still connected after the plane is alleged to have crashed

---

---

Where did this graph come from? The typo makes me think it isn't official.

---

I pulled it from earlier in the thread. But the original comes from the NTSB report on Flight 93.
Page 4 of the report:
https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/Flight_Path_Study_UA93.pdf

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

You seem pretty bright for some non-sciency type of moron. The science I've had makes me concur with your basket weaving opinion.

---

Technically, even though I never took a science class in college, A&M did give me credit to start with for CHEM 101, PHYS 201, and PHYS 202, for whatever thats worth. Im sure engineers would surely have taken fancier classes with higher numbers.

We are not comparing feathers to bowling balls, these are steel beams of similar sizes and orientations dropping in free air, the drag coefficient differences is insignificant in comparison to the increased acceleration being exhibited by that one particular piece.

We already know the towers essentially collapsed at nearly freefall gravitational rates, this is known since the height of the tower is known and the time to collapse is known. Whatever is moving rapidly down the building is doing so at a faster rate than the rest of the leading edge debris cloud that's already clocked at near freefall.

The eye test clearly shows a significant difference in acceleration, and the software tool he's using to approximate it doesn't need to be highly precise when we have such a large disparity that's clearly evident. That's why the value it generates is significantly greater than gravity.

It's also probable that the piece was under tension from the collapse and was launched away from the building.

Rockets, fireworks, bullets, all need compression to work. Just slathering a beam down the side with something explosive is not going to launch it like a rocket and leave a contrail.

This is the most obvious answer. So many different energy sources and energy transfers in a falling building like that. Trying to apply basic mathematics like the high school physics teacher is futile. It's like climate scientists pretending to fully understand and predict climate change. Also the air pressures being exerted out as each floor falls on one another.

Thanks for confirming its legit. Lots of bull**** to sift through in this thread.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

It's also probable that the piece was under tension from the collapse and was launched away from the building.

Rockets, fireworks, bullets, all need compression to work. Just slathering a beam down the side with something explosive is not going to launch it like a rocket and leave a contrail.

---

it changes acceleration while already in freefall

AggiEE said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

It's also probable that the piece was under tension from the collapse and was launched away from the building.

Rockets, fireworks, bullets, all need compression to work. Just slathering a beam down the side with something explosive is not going to launch it like a rocket and leave a contrail.

---

it changes acceleration while already in freefall

---

Any chance you can tell us the fantasy land story again about people being systematically removed from planes that were diverted without air traffic controllers noticing, being forced to make fake phone calls, then being magically removed from the world?

Because, of all of the ridiculous things you've posted on this thread, these take the case and are worth repeating.

Just want to make sure that the people debating "science" with you know what they're dealing with.

AggiEE said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

So, engineering?

---

Elementary Ed

---

What is something 99% of this thread couldn't get past, Alex

---

This makes no sense. I see a pattern...

How do you watch that building 7 gif and conclude that's anything other than a controlled demolition?

How do you reach that conclusion?

That building was demoed.

What's the point of not coming right out and saying that?

Why are people arguing that that building wasn't demoed?

I can't wrap my head around that.

How can you watch that gif and think wasn't demoed?

Somebody explain their thought process.

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

It's also probable that the piece was under tension from the collapse and was launched away from the building.

Rockets, fireworks, bullets, all need compression to work. Just slathering a beam down the side with something explosive is not going to launch it like a rocket and leave a contrail.

---

it changes acceleration while already in freefall

---

Any chance you can tell us the fantasy land story again about people being systematically removed from planes that were diverted without air traffic controllers noticing, being forced to make fake phone calls, then being magically removed from the world?

Because, of all of the ridiculous things you've posted on this thread, these take the case and are worth repeating.

Just want to make sure that the people debating "science" with you know what they're dealing with.

---

The plandemic caused countless millions of deaths, shut down people's livelihood, and mandated that the public be forced to take an experimental vaccine.

The war on terror caused over a decade long war campaign in the middle east, based on known lies (WMDs), countless deaths by both Americans and foreigners.

There are disclosed government documents of false flag terrorist attacked to be staged against Americans, signed off by military leaders.

Is it really any stretch to think that government policy isn't always completely benign?

Not to me. But I'm not swayed by emotional arguments about how atrocities like that aren't possible. Facts don't care about your feelings, and the facts point directly to controlled demolition.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

How do you watch that building 7 gif and conclude that's anything other than a controlled demolition?

How do you reach that conclusion?

That building was demoed.

What's the point of not coming right out and saying that?

Why are people arguing that that building wasn't demoed?

I can't wrap my head around that.

How can you watch that gif and think wasn't demoed?

Somebody explain their thought process.

---

No physical evidence of demolition
No recorded sounds of demolition
What demo contractor did the work? What demo contractor would agree to it ?
Who hired them?
Impossible to keep secrecy before and after demolition
Why demo it?

AggiEE said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

It's also probable that the piece was under tension from the collapse and was launched away from the building.

Rockets, fireworks, bullets, all need compression to work. Just slathering a beam down the side with something explosive is not going to launch it like a rocket and leave a contrail.

---

it changes acceleration while already in freefall

---

Any chance you can tell us the fantasy land story again about people being systematically removed from planes that were diverted without air traffic controllers noticing, being forced to make fake phone calls, then being magically removed from the world?

Because, of all of the ridiculous things you've posted on this thread, these take the case and are worth repeating.

Just want to make sure that the people debating "science" with you know what they're dealing with.

---

The plandemic caused countless millions of deaths, shut down people's livelihood, and mandated that the public be forced to take an experimental vaccine.

The war on terror caused over a decade long war campaign in the middle east, based on known lies (WMDs), countless deaths by both Americans and foreigners.

There are disclosed government documents of false flag terrorist attacked to be staged against Americans, signed off by military leaders.

Is it really any stretch to think that government policy isn't always completely benign?

Not to me. But I'm not swayed by emotional arguments about how atrocities like that aren't possible. Facts don't care about your feelings, and the facts point directly to controlled demolition.

---

Another long non-answer.

If a building collapses like bullding 7 did as a result of fire … how is that not a design defect?

A class A fire in part of the building causes the entire building to collapse.

Something happened with building 7 and we don't know what happened.

And we'll never know what happened,

Thats probably the way it is.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

If a building collapses like bullding 7 did as a result of fire … how is that not a design defect?

---

This and other questions were all answered in the Q&A portion of the NIST report

https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

New World Ag said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

How do you watch that building 7 gif and conclude that's anything other than a controlled demolition?

How do you reach that conclusion?

That building was demoed.

What's the point of not coming right out and saying that?

Why are people arguing that that building wasn't demoed?

I can't wrap my head around that.

How can you watch that gif and think wasn't demoed?

Somebody explain their thought process.

---

No physical evidence of demolition
No recorded sounds of demolition
What demo contractor did the work? What demo contractor would agree to it ?
Who hired them?
Impossible to keep secrecy before and after demolition
Why demo it?

---

There's physical evidence of demolition - nano thermate found in the dust, molten steel remains, sulfur coating the warped steel, squibs in the video footage

There are recorded sounds of demolition and explosions

You obviously haven't been watching any of the footage

the evidence is in the youtube videos!!!

believe!!!

The claims of physical evidence are all quite disputed, if not outright shown to be false.

Answer the other questions.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

the evidence is in the youtube videos!!!

believe!!!

---

They are in the studies, which are summarized by some of the videos I've posted. One study analyzed the WTC dust, the other study analyzed the collapse of WTC7 using the engineering data to form accurate models and look specifically at global collapse, not just a potential local collapse

I can't get anyone here to watch a YouTube video, let alone a study from reputable institutions and experts in this field

thats because you preaching outlandish false science

New World Ag said:

---

The claims of physical evidence are all quite disputed, if not outright shown to be false.

Answer the other questions.

---

How is molten steel disputed? There's photos of it in the rubble. There's eyewitness reports of it by first responders.

The sulfidation is not disputed either, it was even in the FEMA report and they were perplexed by its presence.

The WTC dust contains significant amounts of iron rich microspheres, a byproduct of thermate, should not be ANYWHERE in a natural collapse

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.2523/

The iron microspheres (as evidence for thermite) were debunked years ago

I'll admit that the progressive collapse described in the report is possible.

But I'm not sure it happened that way.

It's an unsettled issue.

Theres too many problems with the way all this went down.

All of it is unsettled.

How and why? Who knows. Anything is possible.

it might have been terrorists flying planes into it

Old Army Ghost said:

---

thats because you preaching outlandish false science

---

What outlandish false science do Dr Hulsey and Dr Jones profess? These are simply people trying to objectively analyze the physical evidence, something that was made shockingly difficult to do given the expediency to which the evidence was removed

The poster above mentioned WTC7's supposed natural collapse signifying a major design flaw if true - that's precisely what would have happened it fire had completely leveled a steel building high rise in any other city and on any other day - a proper analysis would have been conducted and evidence wouldn't have been so quickly destroyed.

The fact that such evidence was destroyed so quickly despite being such an anomalous event is 9/11's version of Jack Ruby killing Oswald. It's an absolute shame that the government conducted itself the way that they did.

Of course they didn't want an investigation. Within hours they had the entire plot and narrative already handed to the public on a spoon ready for them to digest.

9-11 had a lot in common with covid.

Not just the event itself, but also the response.

No bridge was too far to keep us safe from terrorists.

And no bridge was too far to keep us safe from covid.

And the media did its part, both times.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.2523/

The iron microspheres (as evidence for thermite) were debunked years ago

---

Absolute joke. As if the buildings are crammed full of steel wool in the quantities needed to represent the sampled in the WTC dust.

There's also the issue of nano thermate chips (unreacted) in plentiful amounts, not explained by any sort of paint or plastics.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/12/09/how-to-debunk-wtc-thermite/

https://www.machinedesign.com/home/article/21830429/another-blow-for-wtc-conspiracy-theorists

You're still not addressing my other questions


How do you find and hire a demo contractor to do this work...secretly?
How do you do the demo work....secretly?
How do you keep it a secret for 21 years?
Why demo 7? What was the purpose?

Old Army Ghost said:

---

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/12/09/how-to-debunk-wtc-thermite/

https://www.machinedesign.com/home/article/21830429/another-blow-for-wtc-conspiracy-theorists

---

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Republic-Magazine16_AE911Truth.pdf

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Republic-Magazine16_Nanothermite_Smoking_Gun.pdf

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

https://www1.ae911truth.org/documents/active_thermitic_material_at_wtc.pdf

https://www1.ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

New World Ag said:

---

You're still not addressing my other questions


How do you find and hire a demo contractor to do this work...secretly?
How do you do the demo work....secretly?
How do you keep it a secret for 21 years?
Why demo 7? What was the purpose?

---

How do you convince an entire nation to wear masks?

Take an experimental vaccine?

Go to war with Iraq?

Completely shut down?

I've answered all these questions of yours plenty of times before. The physical evidence is where you'll find all of your truth, the rest is speculative appeals for emotion in a governmental system you consider to never have the capacity to perform heinous acts of atrocity, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary throughout history.

This thread has been live for less than a month and AgiEE has posted over 200 times in this thread.

He's been a poster for 15 years and 5% of his posts are in the last 3 weeks in a 9/11 conspiracy thread. Wow.

Sometimes people just got something to say.

This is one of those times.

Dude probably wanted to get this **** off his chest for years.