The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[proudfootz]

Tons of explosives would be needed for a controlled demolition of a building which did not suffer fatal structural damage from the aircraft impacts and subsequent unchecked fires - the core claim of conspiracy theorists, who deny that the plane impacts and fires could have dropped the building.

Well, that is a bone of contention - was the damage 'fatal'? You claim it was. And that local collapses in the impact zones caused the 'global collapse'. Presumably only gravity was required after the local collapses.

A few columns cut, a few trusses fail. That's it.

You are being serially dishonest - as is your wont, as expressed in years of your trolling posts.

Why is it every time your lack of critical thinking is exposed you resort to wild accusations of trolling?

Plus some faux outrage. Oh, and reckless accusations of lying.

This seems to be your standard technique of trying to wriggle out of your self-contradictions honed by your many more years of trolling threads like these.

The plane impacts and the fires dropped the buildings. That and that alone.

Here you go again - tons of explosives not needed to drop the buildings...

Controlled demo WOULD require tons of explosives and ancillary equipment...

Followed immediately by the claim that tons of explosives would be required.

If you sincerely believe both of these mutually contradictory ideas, you are indeed clueless.

Keep going with your lying, circular reasoning - keep going with your claims that you're consistent - keep going with your bullshit trolling and with your pretending that I'm wrong. You do dishonor only to yourself.

You are an embarrassment.

[Weaver]

The plane impacts and the fires dropped the buildings. That and that alone.

Here you go again - tons of explosives not needed to drop the buildings...

Controlled demo WOULD require tons of explosives and ancillary equipment...

Followed immediately by the claim that tons of explosives would be required.

Amazing how you can change what I say by deliberately quote-mining me.

[Weaver]

Now, your quote-mining and misrepresentation aside, you seem to be saying that cutting a few columns and causing a few trusses to fail would be all that's necessary in addition to the impacts and fires to make the buildings collapse.

So, if that's your contention, riddle me this - how did they know ahead of time which columns to cut, which trusses to cause to fail? How did they know where the planes would hit? How did they protect the explosives and/or incendiaries, and all their associated ancillary equipment, from damage when the planes hit, and when the fires burned?

And, above all, what evidence do you have that this occurred?

[psikeyhackr]

Tons of explosives would be needed for a controlled demolition of a building which did not suffer fatal structural damage from the aircraft impacts and subsequent unchecked fires - the core claim of conspiracy theorists, who deny that the plane impacts and fires could have dropped the building.

So people who believe airliner impacts and fires could bring the buildings down do not have to prove it, but those who doubt the aircraft and fire story must PROVE some other cause.

Highly objective methodology! /* Sarcasm Alert! */

psik

[felltoearth]

What an utter misrepresentation. Weaver by no means whatsoever suggested or wrote that.

[Agi Hammerthief]

we don't have to believe the airliners brought the buildings down, we saw that happening.
And we have enough clue about construction, material properties etc. to understand why that was possible.

What aparently nobody saw was the buildings being rigged with explosives, that's where believe comes to play.

[Weaver]

Funny how the building collapses started at the site of aircraft impact damage.

If explosives were involved - 1) how did they know that the planes would hit there, to be able to initiate the explosives there, and 2) how did they protect the explosive charges and associated stuff from plane impacts and subsequent fires?

The entire argument that explosives were used is simply ludicrous.

[psikeyhackr]

What an utter misrepresentation. Weaver by no means whatsoever suggested or wrote that.

Ambiguous statements allow people to claim to mean or not mean anything while complaining about "quote mining".

psik

[psikeyhackr]

Funny how the building collapses started at the site of aircraft impact damage.

The entire argument that explosives were used is simply ludicrous.

Almost as funny as not having distribution of steel and concrete data after FIFTEEN YEARS when it is easy to show that mass distribution affects collapse time.

http://letsrollforums.com//showpost.php ... stcount=34

As insufficient as that program is we still can't get accurate data to simulate with.

Is trying to lead people by the nose to inadequate conclusions all you can do?

We can simulate the planet's climate for 100 years but can't do a good skyscraper collapse that took less than 30 seconds? What is the mass of a cubic kilometer of water compared to WTC1?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIiW6ugLHL4

He says it takes 30 minutes of computing to simulate one day.

psik

[Weaver]

What an utter misrepresentation. Weaver by no means whatsoever suggested or wrote that.

Ambiguous statements allow people to claim to mean or not mean anything while complaining about "quote mining".

psik

While entirely clear, unambiguous statements can be quote mined by eliminating the portions which are inconvenient to the misrepresenting member - which is precisely what proudfootz did. He deliberately cut off the portions of my sentences which made them entirely clear, to make it seem I was being inconsistent or unclear when in fact I wasn't.

[Newstein]

Tons of explosives would be needed for a controlled demolition of a building which did not suffer fatal structural damage from the aircraft impacts and subsequent unchecked fires - the core claim of conspiracy theorists, who deny that the plane impacts and fires could have dropped the building.

WTC7: only a few fires.
"One columns fails, TOTAL collapse. " (official version)
TONS of explosives needed?? The reality tells otherwise.

Hilarious comic character, that Weaver

[Newstein]

Here is some explosive EVIDENCE of a controlled demolition of WTC7:




It's called a V-cut:

[Newstein]

Here is other evidence of V-cuts. This rare movie is shot moments after the collapse, BEFORE clean up

Look at 0:54

[Newstein]

we don't have to believe the airliners brought the buildings down, we saw that happening.

My cat pissed on my plants in the beginning of Spring.
The next day, the flowers came out.
SO THE CAT'S PISS CAN MAKE FLOWERS, WOW!

[Newstein]

What an utter misrepresentation. Weaver by no means whatsoever suggested or wrote that.

Are you protecting Weaver, or is it his masonic brother that protects your masonic friend?

[Newstein]

Funny how the building collapses started at the site of aircraft impact damage.

If explosives were involved - 1) how did they know that the planes would hit there, to be able to initiate the explosives there, and 2) how did they protect the explosive charges and associated stuff from plane impacts and subsequent fires?

The entire argument that explosives were used is simply ludicrous.

1) A remote controlled plane (or maybe they found some idiot terrorist that wanted to play kamikase) can be flown into buildings quite precisely, let's say within 10 story error rate. They did not to know exactly where the planes would hit.
2) Those thermite charges could be radiocontrolled (only the military used them that time because they are very expensive)
Wherever the planes would hit, they only had to count the stories where the plane hit the building and set off those explosive under the impact zone. Piece of cake for those CD guys.

[felltoearth]

Here is other evidence of V-cuts. This rare movie is shot moments after the collapse, BEFORE clean up

Look at 0:54

That's building 7. We are discussing the main towers. Nice try though.

And the second picture could be of your mom for all its clarity.

[Newstein]

That's building 7. We are discussing the main towers. Nice try though.
And the second picture could be of your mom for all its clarity.

This is you:

[felltoearth]

Wow. Good one. Highly convncing.

[Agi Hammerthief]

we don't have to believe the airliners brought the buildings down, we saw that happening.

My cat pissed on my plants in the beginning of Spring.
The next day, the flowers came out.
SO THE CAT'S PISS CAN MAKE FLOWERS, WOW!

and more quote mining

eta:
but, yeah there are probbably gardens where the cat piss is the only source of water, which then lets flowers grow.