Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why some people think 9/11 was an inside job

Options
11416181920

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    How they rigged building seven exactly is unknowable.It is important to note that the following question is silly because it requires me to be physically present during the operation and demonstrate the procedure. Ignoring the obvious clues of controlled demolition undermines the credibility of the argument you are making anyhow.

    One column didn't bring down the building, but building seven faced a peculiar circumstance where 8 floors cascaded and pancaked as a result of controlled demolition. Then the rest of the building was brought through the space at freefall. 

    What caused the melting at the Twin Towers? Wasnt from the fire, so what else could it be?

    If you want speculation on suspects? Isreal, want that?



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,659 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    You dont have any theories. You've only presented waffle for others to laugh at.

    How they rigged building 7 and the towers isn't unknowable. Its impossible.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You argued there were explosions.

    Now it's melting.

    Which is it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Psychological differences are not relevant to the question of whether there is material and forensic evidence for claims of controlled demolition.

    Post 430, not impossible unless you have an alternative explanation. Go ahead explain it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Dohnjoe Explained This Numerous Times to You the Method of Controlled Demolition Was Different at the Twin Towers, Involving a Chemical explosive.

    Building seven was straight-up conventional demolition.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,659 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Both isnt it? Melting, explosions and simultaneously a totally different group (who didnt know each other) just happened to fly planes into the buildings at the same time.

    Its great stuff.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Your understanding of what you think is possible is irrelevent to the fact that iron melted is present in the dust. The presence of iron melted in the dust provides physical evidence that something else occurred.Notice you don't seem to engage in a substantive debate since post 430, but rather continue your rambling.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    And the groups comprised of the Saudis, and Mossad, and the president, and Silverstein, and Biden, and the FBI, and the CIA, and Nazis, and terrorists

    It's the equivalent of asking someone which 9/11 conspiracy they believe and their answer is "yes".



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I wouldn't call it a debate, it's one person (you) engaging in creative writing and denial about an event that happened. Okay, but it's not very convincing, quite the opposite.

    You keep latching onto bizarre and misunderstood technical "gotcha's" to divert from the fact that you can't detail your alternative history with any proper evidence. Which isn't helping your case either.

    As demonstrated you did the diversion again, were the columns melted or did they explode, which was was it?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,659 ✭✭✭✭The Nal




  • Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    And Rumsfeld, Cheney, US generals, not to mention others..

    At this stage it seems easier to count who wasn't in on it



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    "Okay men, we need you to to rig those iconic skyscrapers over there to blow them up with people in them"

    -"Uh why?"

    "So that when the terrorist planes hit them, we kill even more of our countrymen"

    -"Why!?"

    "For effect! Now go and rig them! Oh and you only have a few weeks, so hurry up!"

    -"What if someone discovers us rigging hundreds of stories of skyscrapers? What if one of the planes misses? What about all the evidence left behind for investigators? What if they get caught before they get on the plane? What if .."

    "Stop asking questions! This complex highly risky convoluted plan will work absolutely flawlessly! Anyway the only individuals who would have IQ high enough to spot it will be Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura, so get to it!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Dohnjoe is writing five lines of nothing over and over again, and here I am. That you do not understand the reasons why NIST is incorrect is not my fault, but rather a lack of awareness on your part

    What you see in NIST computer model is exactly the same in the photograph of building 7.



    What seems to be lacking in your understanding is that the process of freefall initiated the moment the windows on the right side of the building cracked. This was after the collapse of eight floors at the bottom, resulting in a phenomenon known as "pancaking." Moreover, all the remaining floors and columns have been completely eradicated by then.

    freefall behavior is the removal of critical support structure columns and floors.

    Debunkers like yourself completely ignore the NIST model comparisons yet it shows that the building couldn't have been in freefall at all.

    The left side of the building has collapsed, but the right side has not yet even when the windows broke. This occurrence is incompatible with the concept of freefall. Freefall refers to a situation where an object falls freely under the influence of gravity, without any external forces acting on it. Steel in the way that is not a freefall collapse.

    In the video, you will witness compelling evidence supporting the controlled demolition theory. 

    The audio recording of the incident in question clearly captures a loud bang that can be heard between 0 and 1 seconds. The NIST's claim that there is no audio captured on video during any of the collapses is in direct contradiction to the audio evidence presented.


    This clear evidence of melting inside the South Tower. the melted material found a hole to escape through in one of the gaps.




  • Registered Users Posts: 12,659 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Oh Jesus he posted it again



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,998 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    Television footage, with its visual content, has the potential to significantly influence our beliefs. When individuals view television footage of planes hitting buildings and causing flames and fire, it triggers a series of cognitive processes in the brain. The visual information is processed, interpreted, and stored in memory. On that fateful day, news channels broadcast extensive coverage of the events, providing viewers with real-time updates and analysis. It is understandable that individuals may have formed their perspectives on what happened based on the information they witnessed through these channels.

    What is this supposed to mean? Are you saying i didnt see the planes fly into the building, or didnt see the smoke? We all saw it unfold live in front of our eyes. We all saw the smoke. Stretching out across Manhattan. My brother was living in NYC at the time and was evacuated because his office was beside the empire state building and they were concerned that was next. He sat in his apartment that day in Manhattan and watched the smoke as we watched it on the news.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You've changed your theory again.

    Previously you were insisting that building seven could only be destroyed using the super magical silent nano thermite.

    Now you are claiming that it was a conventional demolition.


    Also your mask is slipping again since you are accusing Israel of being behind the plot. (Another shift in your theory.)



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,072 ✭✭✭riddles


    how is it steel melting could be anything melting surely - did a bit of fireproofing there in 1994 any of the buildings we did that had some it was asbestos and we did jobs stripping that out and spraying on fire proofing but a lot of the steel had no fire proofing at at.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    I believe that the events you mentioned, including the planes hitting the Twin Towers and the subsequent collapse, story about your brother happened. I saw it too. However, my focus is on the cause of the collapse itself and the reasons. People have their own viewpoints on here, and I have mine. I am off to watch the Grusch interview.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    "Also be sure to rig building 7 which no one will have heard about until conspiracy theorists start fixating on it."

    "Umm why?"

    "Obviously because of the CIA office there! We have papers in that building that we need to destroy and the only way to do it is by rigging the whole building to explode for no reason."



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    But your viewpoint doesn't make any sense, doesn't have any evidence to support it and you have to keep lying and engaging in dishonest tactics to keep arguing it.


    Also you keep telling us that you aren't able to explain the cause of the collapse and how the buildings were actually rigged. You've just changed your entire theory to claim that WTC7 was destroyed by a conventional demolition, not thermite.


    People have different viewpoints. That doesn't mean that those viewpoints are all equal.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,998 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    And you don't believe the impact of a plane hitting each building could in any way have caused the buildings to collapse?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    The kinetic energy of the initial hit caused significant external and interior damage, resulting in shattered windows, burned materials within the interior, the displacement of aluminum sheeting covering the box columns, and broken glass.

    The building stood for 54 minutes, which serves as clear evidence that its steel structure was not falling apart. The fire was doing significant damage, as expected, but the fire itself did not cause the collapse of the building.

    To melt down ASTM 36 grade steel, a significant amount of energy is required. This steel is known for its excellent heat resistance. This could only have been accomplished through a very high-energy event, such as the rapid oxidation of the steel due to extreme temperatures.

     Instead of addressing the evidence, debunkers prefer to hide behind a wall of mockery and derision. They resort to insults and personal attacks, hoping to silence those who hold differing opinions. This approach is intellectually dishonest and does nothing to advance the conversation.

     I cited the scientific evidence presented by R J Lee, a renowned expert in the field. Yet, the debunkers simply make mockery posts, without offering any credible counter-arguments or acknowledging the weight of Lee's findings. This dismissive and unscientific approach is indicative of their unwillingness to engage with the actual evidence.

    In conclusion, the debunkers' complete disregard of post 430 is telling. It reflects their unwillingness to engage in a productive debate and highlights their commitment to maintaining their own perspectives without considering alternative viewpoints. 



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    I am having trouble comprehending the point you are trying to make. It would be helpful if you could rewrite and expand upon your message, and I will reply accordingly.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


     but the fire itself did not cause the collapse of the building.

    That should read

    "But, in my opinion, the fire itself did not cause the collapse of the building"

    It's a red flag to confuse opinion with fact.

    Even more so when it concerns a personal theory you have that is entirely unique and created by you (secret Nazi's, etc)

    Instead of addressing the evidence, debunkers prefer to hide behind a wall of mockery and derision. They resort to insults and personal attacks, hoping to silence those who hold differing opinions. This approach is intellectually dishonest and does nothing to advance the conversation.

    There's no credible evidence to address. Likewise, denying or acting incredulous at the facts is not evidence of a conspiracy or alternative history.

    You yourself have ridiculed and insulted other "conspiracy theorists", labeled them stupid (remember your clash with Markus), so it's a little hypocritical to play the victim/persecution card.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sorry cheerful, this post is simply full of lies.

    Your points have been addressed again and again. They have been addressed in detail. You simply won't acknowledge any of this.


    For example I have gone over the RJ Lee paper with you several times and keep pointing out many issues with it. Like for example how it shows that your theory about thermite is impossible.

    It is a lie to say that one one has addressed the study.

    It is extremely intellectually dishonest to directly lie about the points people have made. You do this often.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Your recent posts have been repetitive and lack substance. You have repeatedly made statements claiming that RJ Lee's group found no evidence of nanothermite, despite the absence of any evidence to suggest that they were looking for it in the first place. Instead of providing a meaningful explanation for the Iron microspheres and steel/iron melting, you continue to repeat the same line without offering any new insights.

    According to you giving detailed explanatory information though. Simply repeating the same line without offering any additional context or information does not contribute to the overall understanding of the issue.

    Got an actual different view go ahead. I going to bed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Again, gonna have to assume "you" here means me, cause you still refuse to quote the post you're replying to for some reason.

    And yes, I haven't had to adjust my posts very much because the point I was making wasn't being addressed. Like you were falsely accusing others off, you were ignoring and dodging the points.

    The RJ Lee study provided a chemical analysis of the dust from 9/11 and showed that the by products from a thermite reaction were not present. It doesn't matter if they were "looking for thermite." If the by products of the reaction were there, they would have been obvious, they would have been plentiful and RJ Lee, being an actual expert would realise that they are evidence for your ridiculous nanothermite theory.

    But RJ Lee doesn't agree with you.

    You've been provided with explanations about the microspheres again and again. So that's a lie on your part also.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,998 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    The fire was doing significant damage, as expected, but the fire itself did not cause the collapse of the building.

    Yes, the fires did do significant damage. I don't think it wad fire =collapse though. And to be fair I haven't read the inquest but from what I've read in the years since, but it was the catalogue of events that combined together that lead to their collapse. It was the floors that sagged and dragged everything down, that's widely known.

    That video you show of the 'melting' - that's the video of just after the plane hit. You can see the streams of debris flying from the tower. I don't know that melting is the significant factor in all of this, but if it was I wouldn't be relying on that Video, surely it could be fuel or anything?

    I don't think it's right to class people who don't believe it as debunkers. I'm not obliged to accept the theory.

    If what you're saying was true, someone put explosives in the top floors of the building and the planes had to aim for those floors? It was the Twin Towers and wtc7 only that were buildings set with explosives? We've all seen the repeated videos etc you've posted so set them aside for the moment, I'm just interested in your thinking?



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,998 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    @King Mob as per the charter if you feel you're not going to get your answers leave it there. Stop with the side swipes. This is the forum to discuss conspiracy theories, it can't work if you're choking a thread with repeated questions.

    @Cheerful S equally stop taking swipes at posters. The forum is for discussion of conspiracy theories. It cant work if you dont want to discuss with people what you posted or if you just keep reposting the same information rather than discussing it.

    Any questions you can PM me don't reply on thread.

    HS



Advertisement