Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#2086    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 May 2013 - 10:36 PM

View PostStundie, on 16 May 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

Clearly you believe these items are relevant, maybe I did miss the boat, but to be honest, it doesn't look seaworthy and it's a bit crabby.

I am still waiting for you to post evidence to the contrary of the official story.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2087    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 May 2013 - 10:37 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 16 May 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

There is a valid reason why.
Why don't you tell us in your own words.

Although to be honest, I couldn't careless why you think there is a valid reason, because I'm guessing it will be some point that the conspiracy theorist devil residing on your load bearing shoulders telling you that toofers believe some point that no one has made or even argued....lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2088    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 May 2013 - 10:42 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 16 May 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

I am still waiting for you to post evidence to the contrary of the official story.
Prepare for a long wait....lol

While you ignore what is in front of you, you'll be waiting for ever. But you clearly and obviously are not satisfied with your belief in the OCT, hence you project it regardless of the stupid claims, contradictory evidence to the point you will embarrass yourself to ensure that there is not a single piece of evidence supporting anything other than the official story. lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2089    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 May 2013 - 10:48 PM

View PostStundie, on 16 May 2013 - 10:37 PM, said:

Why don't you tell us in your own words.

Because 911 Truthers have been claiming that explosives were required to demolish a tall building in the manner observed in regards to the WTC buildings, but the Verinage demolition method has proven them wrong. Additionally, attaching thermite to the steel columns will do nothing to facilitate the collapse of the WTC buildings especially when construction techniques and load-bearing properties of the WTC buildings are taken into consideration, which are just two valid reasons why I have stated for the record that thermite alone was incapable of bringing down the WTC buildings. Furthermore, planted thermite would not have withstood the impacts of the B-767s nor was it possible to transport and plant hundreds tons of thermite and explosives and not draw attention.


Another point to ponder: At what locations were the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 initiated?

View PostStundie, on 16 May 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

Prepare for a long wait...

I knew that the wait would last until eternity because you had no evidence to begin with?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2090    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 May 2013 - 11:08 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 16 May 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

Because 911 Truthers have been claiming that explosives were required to demolish a tall building in the manner observed in regards to the WTC buildings, but the Verinage demolition method has proven them wrong.[
Did I or anyone else suggest that explosive were required?? lol I think you will find again a lack of your p*** poor reading comprehension skills that I have not argued they were required, I have argued that the demolition theory is possible.

So tell me what 9/11 truther, or in other words NOT ME, got to do with me? Do you often debunk your own strawman? lol

And maybe it is me and my critical thinking, but showing that buildings can come down without explosives, doesn't disprove the theory that the WTC was demolished either. Making  a double whammy of both pointless and worthless.

View Postskyeagle409, on 16 May 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

Additionally, attaching thermite to the steel columns will do nothing to facilitate the collapse of the WTC buildings especially when construction techniques and load-bearing properties of the WTC buildings are taken into consideration, which are just two valid reasons why I have stated for the record that thermite alone was incapable of bringing down the WTC buildings.
Who gives a crap about what you have stated for the record when no one knows who you are or gives a flying toss about your opinion when it flies directly in the face or should we say facts of evidence, like thermite being used to cut steel and has been used to take down high rise steel structures.   lol

The only other person you have fooled is your cheer leader..lol...Where is she tonight?? lol
l
If fire can weaken a bunch of steel and cause failure, then thermite cutting those same columns which cause the failure would also cause the building to collapse.

View Postskyeagle409, on 16 May 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

Furthermore, planted thermite would not have withstood the impacts of the B-767s nor was it possible to transport and plant hundreds tons of thermite and explosives and not draw attention.
110 floors of a building and the only place you can think that someone would plant thermite and explosives is at the impact zone. Is this also a reflection of the narrow minded view of world in general that Skyeagle thinks that thermite can't be used because they would have planted it at the impact zone and it wouldn't have withstood the impacts anyway. lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 16 May 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

Another point to ponder: At what locations were the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 initiated?
We now where they initiated, but that doesn't mean explosives wasn't used...lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 16 May 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

I knew that the wait would last until eternity because you had no evidence to begin with?
Of course you did!! lol

So why do you keep asking?

If you know you are going to be waiting an eternity, then why have you have spent 24 hours a day for 17 days of your life posting spam, while not here to change no one..lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2091    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 17 May 2013 - 12:27 AM

View PostQ24, on 16 May 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

Hi LG.  Why would I quote, “the part of Newton's third law that states that equal damage will occur when two objects impact each other”, when I did not state anything of the sort to begin with and we both know that no such rule exists?  Now what... hand axes... orientated... damage... equal... oh come on, we both know that’s not the case, stop with the games and save us both some time.

Hi Q.  Great, so then we agree that Newton's third law does not in any way necessarily require equal damage to both impacting objects.

Quote

The fact is that the official theory near exclusively applies impact forces and subsequent breakages in the structure to the lower block.  Whereas, given a roughly similar construction between the blocks, albeit accounting that it is the upper block that is tilted off-centre (i.e. disorientated from its load bearing design case) and consisting of lesser and lighter columns than the correctly orientated and greater load bearing lower block, the breakages should, and I believe did, looking at video evidence, occur approximately equally within the upper block as the lower.

I just viewed compliations of both collapses yet again, and I see nothing in them that would give you the data you need to assess the damage to the upper block.

Quote

What the official theory cannot account for are breakages within and impalement of the upper block, which we know did occur judging by numerous observations in video footage 1) of the visible deterioration of the upper block at collapse initiation, 2) of the severe antenna displacement indicating progression of damage to the roofline, and 3) of the WTC core column ‘spire’ still standing tall which must have penetrated the deteriorated mass of the upper block right through.  The official theory cannot account for this because it cannot tolerate or cope with the reality that the upper block deteriorated – such an occurrence invalidates the official theory which relies always upon a rigid/solid, nigh indestructible [unrealistic, I might add] ‘piledriver’ to continue the collapse.

At best, what the official theory cannot account for is your expectations of what should happen to the upper block upon its taking damage.  A non-demolition collapse does not require a 100% rigid/solid upper block, the block just needs to be solid enough, and the mass just doesn't evaporate upon being impaled.

Quote

Let me make a general statement and then you see if you can logically disprove it in this case.  Ok, here goes:  given two objects of approximately equal construction and orientation, and applying Newton’s law of equal and opposite forces, the damage in a collision should likewise be approximately equal and opposite.  That sounds fair.  And I think it fair to say that the upper and lower blocks were of approximatelyequal construction and orientation, at least for sure, not favouring the upper block.  So what makes you think this is not generally the case and damage should occur near exclusively in one object and not the other?  The only way we could get that to work is to theorise dissimilar impacting objects and/or vastly unbalanced orientations in favour of one object.

I don't think the upper and lower blocks were of equal orientation in either case.  Both collapses to me look extremely chaotic, so 'approximately' isn't really good enough; with approximately the same temperature and barometric pressure and cloud front and endless other meteorological measurements I would not expect the same amount of precipitation.  You are the one saying what cannot happen, I've never said it cannot be a demolition, so it is your case to demonstrate, and unfortunately what is unknown works against you.  And what is unknown puts lie to the nonsense about violating Newton based on your expectations of undefined 'damage'.  You can argue all you'd like your general point about your expectations of 'damage', but as far as violating Newton I think it just sounds silly since that question should really involve some calculations from actual data to demonstrate it's truth.  You are winging it here.

What it looks like to me from the videos in my admitted non-expert opinion, a status we both share, is that especially in the South Tower, this 'pile driver' looks more like a wedge because of tilting, which channels the weight and force of the upper block to a narrower head that would impact part of the lower floor which obviously cannot withstand it.  Whole multifloor chunks of the outside perimeter appear to be peeled off in both collapses, which means those outer connections were lost which would seem to partly weaken the ability of the floors themselves to withstand the collapse.  The lower block is being bombarded with enormous forces and mass and as the collapse continues, it is actually contributing to as parts of it are brought down by gravity.  I know you don't agree.  You seem to think the force front seems to hover roughly in the middle of the debris layer, even though the whole debris layer is being accelerated by gravity.  If I'm understanding you right, it makes no sense to me.

Quote

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but just to be clear about the case I envisage I’ll repeat it.  The official theory assumes the collapse/crush front is a neat, compacted horizontal line where again, impact forces and breakages manifest near exclusively in the lower block.  The way I see it, and the way the chaotic collapse appears in video footage, and knowing that certain columns actually spanned some six floors of the towers, and given the three other video observations mentioned above, is not as a neat, compacted horizontal line but rather a larger zone of collapse within which is contained a zigzag line of forces representing failures within the upper block, failures within the lower block, driving of the upper block into the lower block and impalement of the upper block on the lower block.  Is that not a far more accurate representation of damage distribution?
See swan's response concerning your definition of 'the official theory'.  The upper block was impaled on parts of the lower block, so what?  Those parts aren't going to stop it, it causes some unknown amount of damage.  While yet more mass from the breaking lower block accumulates and accelerates downward.

Quote

And all that evidence for demolition, which does provide the requirement for collapse completion, stands by in the background.  Just take it and all makes perfect sense – demolition; the one answer that explains all evidence.  It happened.

Hahaha, 'all that evidence for demolition', that's a good one.  All that evidence that doesn't include 90% of the things you'd find at an actual demolition, oh yeah, it's covert in exactly the perfect way that matches to what we see.  Again Q, aliens are a much better fit.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#2092    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,404 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 17 May 2013 - 01:52 AM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 15 May 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

and proceeded to collapse.  Damaged, burning floors ripped apart by a Plane crunching and forcing their way through 90 or so solid, undamaged floors.  A small, weakened portion of a building driving it's way through 6 times it's own mass.



Saw it on the day.  Even interrupted my game of Tekken 2 if I remember correctly.

Here's the ironic thing.  I didn't believe in any of the demolition theories, until joining this forum, and seeing you and Skyeagle's terrible, TERRIBLE arguments.



2004 CNN survey said 90% believed a cover-up happened.
Skyeagle's own pie chart (I *think* it's from 2008) says 54% of people don't believe the official story

So yeah, you're right.  MOST of us do know what happened, and it's not the official story.
So very Sad you Believe THe CNN 90% cover up ,From a Make believe report ! But You allowed to be wrong,Some day you will learn how to understand the Facts ! The Facts are THe Facts !

This is a Work in Progress!

#2093    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 May 2013 - 02:49 AM

View PostStundie, on 16 May 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

Did I or anyone else suggest that explosive were required??

Why are explosives used in conjunction with structural pre-weakening and RDX, which is much more effective than thermite?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2094    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 May 2013 - 08:11 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 17 May 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Why are explosives used in conjunction with structural pre-weakening and RDX, which is much more effective than thermite?
ZZZZ....You keep repeating yourself..lol

We know why, stating the obvious doesn't debunk anything. Your point being, because demolition teams don't use it, therefore thermite can't do it. We know that is not the case seeing as there is documented and video evidence that shows steel columns can be cut horizontally.

While ignoring the obvious flaw, that you think fire can replace the job of explosives and pre-weaking, which is much more effective apparently. lol

Plain delusional faith based crap that you can't support, that's why you dodge and ignore..lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2095    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 May 2013 - 08:15 AM

View PostStundie, on 17 May 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

ZZZZ....You keep repeating yourself..

But, are you getting the message?!

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2096    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 May 2013 - 08:28 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 17 May 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

But, are you getting the message?!
Nope because the rantings of a deluded man who clearly cannot think for himself and can't explain himself doesn't make much sense.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2097    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 5,816 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 17 May 2013 - 11:42 AM

To take control of two countries in which a guy wasn't hiding?

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#2098    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 17 May 2013 - 01:20 PM

View Postlightly, on 17 May 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

To take control of two countries in which a guy wasn't hiding?

Because that guy, all along, was hiding in his house...  Where everyone knew he was?

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#2099    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 17 May 2013 - 01:32 PM

View PostChrlzs, on 16 May 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

And that, I'm sorry, is a terribly simplistic (and completely wrong) analogy.  There's these things called force, energy, momentum...  A static load is VERY different to a moving one, and when you add an airplane hitting the building at high speed and essentially demolishing a large area, and then the weakening of that area by the subsequent fires...  Once a few floors worth of 'stuff' are collapsing/falling, that will (and did) become absolutely unstoppable.

But, luckily.  unstoppable in a very tight, controled downward direction, through the path of most resistance and counter to the opinion of many, many experts who question the collapse.  Experts who, indeed, trump my knowledge on this subject.

Cue Skyeagle claiming that 'most experts believe the official story' wih link to tenous figures compiled by people who included several thousand extra unquestoned participants to bias their own numbers...

3...2...1...  Here it comes.

Edit: Spellcheck

Edited by Spinebreaker, 17 May 2013 - 01:34 PM.

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#2100    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,102 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 17 May 2013 - 02:03 PM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 17 May 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

But, luckily..
I would have thought that very little about this was 'lucky'...

Quote

unstoppable in a very tight, controled downward direction
Which way does gravity work?  And if the building's main structural strength is in the outermost walls and pillars, then it most certainly did not go..

Quote

..through the path of most resistance
Let's concentrate on the two big issues..
1. Gravity is a downward force
2. The main structural strength of the WTC was near/at the outer walls.

Which of those do you dispute, and please give cites.

If you accept 1 and 2, then the collapse as seen is absolutely consistent with not only science/architecture/engineering, it is basic common sense.

Quote

and counter to the opinion of many, many experts who question the collapse
Strange wording.  All experts, good and bad, questioned the collapse - how else could they work through all the factors involved and analyse it properly...
The real experts came to the correct conclusions..

Quote

Experts who, indeed, trump my knowledge on this subject.
If you don't have the requisite knowledge, by which process did you choose the 'experts' you now believe in?  Please think about your answer very carefully and answer honestly - how did you find them?

Anyway, let's test it out - please pick out your chosen best two experts, and provide links to their analyses.  

Quote

Cue Skyeagle claiming that 'most experts believe the official story' wih link to tenous figures compiled by people who included several thousand extra unquestoned participants to bias their own numbers...
Rather than just handwave, could you cite the 'tenuous' figures', the 'several thousand extra unquestoned{sic} participants' and the actual numbers that were biased?  

Otherwise you seem to be guilty of exactly what you are criticising others for...

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users