General 9/11 Conspiracy Discussion

[beachnut]

Since the official government investigation on WTC 7 has not only been proven to be inadequate, but actual scientific fraud, every liar's attitude is now literally "oh well, talking about it on the internet is good enough". Nice one. How many thousands are we at from 9/11-related deaths?

Let us count the number of lies you found from 9/11 truth liars, a club named truth to fool the gullible fringe few, 9/11 truth followers.

1 LIE - WTC 7 investigation ... proven to be inadequate.

2 LIES - WTC 7 investigation scientific fraud.

Not a lie, thousands of people were killed by 19 terrorists on 9/11.

Only two lies. Is that up to 9/11 truth standards.

Whenever the NFPA 921 is brought up, liars resort to quote mining and BS "technicalities" to argue that the worst fire-related disaster in history doesn't deserve the best investigation.

Oops, another lie.

LIE - "doesn't deserve the best investigation" A lie due to massive logic failure, inability to connect the dots to a logical conclusion. A failed conclusion, a weak attack on others.

What is one big reason to investigate a fire. To find the cause. Do I need to get out NFPA 921 (do you own a copy) to figure out who and what caused the fires on 9/11? Nope, we can all see (if we try) it was terrorists in two planes at the WTC.

Are you saying not one of the NIST scientists, engineers, consultants, workers used guidelines/techniques/procedures when working on the WTC disaster?

Oh noes, fireballs, in a fire. Now that is special.

Just to be clear...

Ron DiFrancesco: "We heard this loud roar, and looked down to the right and saw this huge fireball coming at us and I just yelled at them to run. And I was trying to get out, and i was- the fireball hit me and knocked me down and I woke up three days later in Saint Vincent's."

Fire did it, not an explosive, not thermite. Now what?
An explosive would kill Ron. You lost this time trying to back in CD into a fire event. You should have studied NFPA 921, it might help you understand witness statements, characteristics of explosives, and more so your lack of knowledge and expertise in fire science is not fuel for wild speculation and the CD fantasy.

Ron says it was fire, a loud roar. Not a lion, not explosives, but Fire, F-I-R-E. I agree with Ron, fire does make a loud roar in some cases when there is a back draft. If you hear a loud roar in a fire, beware, run faster, escape as soon as possible. The loud roar is evidence for fire or a Lion, not explosives.

I thought you would have to work at spreading more BS.

"A good first step for any investigation would be to read" NFPA 921 instead of making up BS about it. Which part is the problem?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are you a bot? You didn't respond to the Ron DiFrancesco stuff at all. He was injured by a fiery explosion while escaping from the South Tower. He had the burns to prove it.

It should be obvious to anyone of more than meagre intelligence that burns alone are evidence only of heat, and that anyone close enough to an explosion to suffer burns would also suffer blast injuries.

On the sounds of explosions issue, it is a matter of historical fact that WTC 7 emitted a loud percussive noise which was louder than the rest of the collapse itself.

That statement shows an extraordinary level of obtuseness. One would expect a 47 storey building, while collapsing, to emit a series of loud percussive sounds, and almost inevitable that those sounds would have different volumes; one, therefore, must be louder than the rest. What has never been reported, though, is a series of sharp, relatively high-pitched explosions preceding the initiation of collapse. Percussive sounds during the collapse would need to violate causality in order to be the cause of collapse.

(It's also known that some versions of the collapse videos have had explosions edited into them by truthers. Just saying.)

Dave

 

[cantonear1968]

Well, there is certainly a lot of energy in a hurricane, but I'm not sure how they imagine it can be harnessed on command: Millions of portable wind turbines maybe?

Actually that's not bad!

 

[Axxman300]

Actually, they were told by an "engineer" at around 11:30 AM that WTC 7 would collapse "in five or six hours". I don't know for sure if there was creaking at that time, but a lot of things can cause creaking, and that can not be used to justify such bizarrely precise advanced knowledge.

No, there were hundreds of firefighters in the area around WTC7. As the day wore on they had to move back because it was clear the building was in trouble, and since two buildings had already collapsed from fire it was a safe bet 7 was doomed too.

WTC 7's final death took 20 minutes, hundreds of firefighters heard or saw the evidence of internal collapse.

Tell us about your extensive firefighting experience, does your ladder company work tall buildings? I only ask because you wrote:

I don't know for sure if there was creaking at that time, but a lot of things can cause creaking, and that can not be used to justify such bizarrely precise advanced knowledge

How many burning high-rise buildings have you been around? I'd love to know all the variables so I can better understand what a "Normal Fire" is.

Fact is you have no real world experience with this subject matter. Neither do I, which means when actual experts explain what happened I STFU about it, or ask specific questions about the parts I don't understand, and then listen to the answer.

WTC7 is a structural failure due to fire and unspecified damage from debris from WTC1. Nobody died in WTC7, and it collapsed as part of the attack of the WTC in which 2 commercial jetliners were used as missiles to strike the Twin Towers. There is not a lot to investigate. The NIST report did the best they could, and got most of it right. There are debates among structural engineers over the NIST report, and while I don't pretend to understand their arguments, it does seem mostly like quibbling over load-bearing joints, beams, and stuff I'm not qualified to assess. What I do know is that any WTC7 report is academic, and serves only as useful information for future structural engineers to draw upon to make their designs safer - and the NIST reports for WTC1,2, and 7 did that.

 

[MicahJava]

It should be obvious to anyone of more than meagre intelligence that burns alone are evidence only of heat, and that anyone close enough to an explosion to suffer burns would also suffer blast injuries.



That statement shows an extraordinary level of obtuseness. One would expect a 47 storey building, while collapsing, to emit a series of loud percussive sounds, and almost inevitable that those sounds would have different volumes; one, therefore, must be louder than the rest. What has never been reported, though, is a series of sharp, relatively high-pitched explosions preceding the initiation of collapse. Percussive sounds during the collapse would need to violate causality in order to be the cause of collapse.

...But that was before the East Penthouse dropped.

See here: https://isgp-studies.com/911-wtc-7-collapse-nist-failure-to-disprove-controlled-demolition-thermate#explosions-wtc7

(It's also known that some versions of the collapse videos have had explosions edited into them by truthers. Just saying.)

Dave

I only know of that one made by Edward Current.

 

[MicahJava]

Axxman300, you often say very dim things like "you can see the bullet entry on the Zapruder Film" so I will never take your posts seriously. But I ask, do you think the WTC 7 foreknowledge was based on pure coincidental luck or an educate guess?

 

[Dave Rogers]

https://www.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/6zcttx/of_course_wtc_7_fell_from_fires_the_firefighters/

I hardly know where to start with this exercise in throwing **** on a wall to see if some sticks. It doesn't actually say that an engineer said at 11:30 that WTC7 would collapse; it tries to extrapolate the earliest possible time for anyone to be concerned about collapse and marry it up to the greatest possible level of certainty that was expressed at any other time. It says that firefighters were concerned that early that WTC7 might collapse, because it was on fire and they had no water to fight the fires; so what? They'd just seen two bigger buildings collapse. And it claims that the firefighters couldn't have known WTC7 was on fire because there were no photos showing the fire before 12:10; how stupid do you have to be to believe that firemen could look at a building, see it was burning, but not realise it was burning because nobody had shown them any photos of it burning?

Really, if this is your idea of an authoritative source, I've got this bridge you may want to buy.

A good first step for any investigation would be to track down this person and ask plenty of questions.

A better first step would be for you to tell us all what form you would like the investigation to take. Scroll up; I can't be bothered repeating the full question a third time, as I know you're going to evade it.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

... so I will never take your posts seriously. But I ask, do you think the WTC 7 foreknowledge was based on pure coincidental luck or an educate guess?

WTC 7 was on fire, fires not fought. Firefighters might think it is possible for a building to fail in fire, it is fire science. It appears you failed to read NFPA 921, and learn before you speculate about the CD fantasy. There was no evidence for explosives, loud noises barely audible on a video are not evidence for explosives.

lol, JFK fantasy CTs, are not valid reason for not taking your posts seriously... The BS you post is evidence for not taking your posts seriously. The cool part, you can recycle your JFK CT evidence with 9/11 CTs, no evidence in the CT world, is a great start for an endless Gish Gallop of woo.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Axxman300, you often say very dim things like "you can see the bullet entry on the Zapruder Film" so I will never take your posts seriously.

Way to get an answer.

But I ask, do you think the WTC 7 foreknowledge was based on pure coincidental luck or an educate guess?

Let me ask you: Do you think that a group of firefighters who've just seen two skyscrapers collapse after being damaged, set on fire and allowed to burn, might think that a third skyscraper right next to them that's been damaged (they could see massive amounts of damage, as they all report), set on fire and left to burn (they didn't have water to fight it) was also going to collapse? Or do you think it's such a bizarrely stupid idea that they should never have considered the possibility, even though their lives quite literally depended on it?

Dave

 

[The Big Dog]

Axxman300, you often say very dim things like "you can see the bullet entry on the Zapruder Film" so I will never take your posts seriously. But I ask, do you think the WTC 7 foreknowledge was based on pure coincidental luck or an educate guess?

False dichotomy.

Surveyor's transit.

 

[Myriad]

A good first step for any investigation would be to track down this person and ask plenty of questions.

To pose Dave Rogers' important questions in a different way: WHO do you think should track down this person and ask questions?

If the investigators doing the tracking down cannot do so using publicly available records alone, should the investigation end at that point? If not, what private records or secure public records should be made available for their use? If the owners and guardians of those records say, "sorry, I don't feel like showing those records to you, go get stuffed," how should the investigators be prepared to respond?

If when asked questions after being tracked down the person replies, "sorry, I don't feel like answering your questions, go get stuffed," how should the questioner be prepared to respond?

 

[DGM]

Since the official government investigation on WTC 7 has not only been proven to be inadequate, but actual scientific fraud..............

You keep saying this but, I've not seen one credible source indicating this statement is true. Who exactly has this been proven to, you?

 

[HSienzant]

Since the official government investigation on WTC 7 has not only been proven to be inadequate, but actual scientific fraud, every liar's attitude is now literally "oh well, talking about it on the internet is good enough". Nice one. How many thousands are we at from 9/11-related deaths?

What, begging the question and strawman arguments on the JFK assassination thread isn't good enough, you have to utilize the same logical fallacies here?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Way to get an answer.



Let me ask you: Do you think that a group of firefighters who've just seen two skyscrapers collapse after being damaged, set on fire and allowed to burn, might think that a third skyscraper right next to them that's been damaged (they could see massive amounts of damage, as they all report), set on fire and left to burn (they didn't have water to fight it) was also going to collapse? Or do you think it's such a bizarrely stupid idea that they should never have considered the possibility, even though their lives quite literally depended on it?

Dave

Ah, I see that you have taken on the "traumatized firefighters" defense. So you think it was a purely lucky coincidence that the engineer knew that WTC 7 would collapse "in about five or six hours" after it had been damaged by the North Tower collapse for only ONE HOUR. The fires weren't that bad by then, if they even existed (the first photographic evidence for fires appears by 12:10 PM). So, if you were to ever revert to the "educated guess" hypothesis, you could be exposing the flaw in your thinking. You can't know if, how, and when a robust steel skyscraper would collapse if it had only been damaged for one hour.

 

[MicahJava]

False dichotomy.

Surveyor's transit.

did you read the reddit post I linked earlier? The surveyor's transit could have just picked up insignificant warping of the perimeter from the fires. Does not and can not explain the collapse that happened.

 

[bknight]

Since the official government investigation on WTC 7 has not only been proven to be inadequate, but actual scientific fraud, every liar's attitude is now literally "oh well, talking about it on the internet is good enough". Nice one. How many thousands are we at from 9/11-related deaths?

Other than citing a CT, who indicates that the investigation was inadequate? Or scientific fraud? Get some credible statements and or reports. WTC7 collapsed from burning unabated for seven hours on multiple floors. Plain and simple easy for even a layman as yourself to figure out cause and effect.

 

[BStrong]

That's not even half of the important stuff, and what that comment did address is only "refuted" with BS. For example, they imply that explosions that cause fire were not seen with the WTC. We know this is false. Want witnesses who saw fireballs DURING THE ACTUAL COLLAPSE shooting out of the ground floors? Look no further than Ron DeFranceso or reporter Carol Martin. DeFrancesco even had the burns to prove it!

The NFPA 921 does not have legal power, it's just a collection of the bare minimum of what you can do. And they didn't even follow that for the worst disaster ever!

Geez, what material other than high explosives and nano-banano-fofano therm*t was known to be at the scene?

If someone wants to play the exord in the building card in the 9/11 attacks, somebody with burns with blast injuries is weak stuff. Burn injuries from explosive detonation only come in at 4th place (out of 4) on the trauma medicine blast injury treatment checklist, and yes, that's in descending order..

I know Hollywood loves their fireballs and movie goers love 'em too, but that isn't what happens when explosives detonate - there is a very high temperature expansion of high velocity gas at the moment of detonation, but for the most part any fire at a detonation point comes from materials ignited by that expanding gas - watch this video -M18A1 Claymore AP mine:



1lb. C4 plastic explosive. Watch as many times as you like, small bright flash, no fireball.

Lets go bigger:



500 lb. Mk82 aerial bomb - iirc just under 200 lbs. TNT mix with filler.

More flash, still no Hollywood fireball. You can use the counter on the video to gwet a rough idea of how long the flash lasts at the moment of detonation.

Lets get bigger:



1000 lb. Mk 83 aerial bomb w/ JDAM package, 440 M/L Lbs of TNT mix as the MK 82. Watch that detonation and time that flash.

So in light of reality, what is the most reasonable explanation for a fireball reported by witnesses and what materials were proven to be at the scene of the 9/11?

 

[DGM]

So in light of reality, what is the most reasonable explanation for a fireball reported by witnesses and what materials were proven to be at the scene of the 9/11?

Just slap "military grade" on it and anything is possible. The capabilities are only restricted by the imagination...........

 

[The Big Dog]

did you read the reddit post I linked earlier? The surveyor's transit could have just picked up insignificant warping of the perimeter from the fires. Does not and can not explain the collapse that happened.

Sure did! It was easily the silliest god damn thing I have seen in days!

which was your favorite part? I loved this:

One does not have to discuss physics or fire dynamics to argue that WTC 7 was demolished intentionally.

Oh mercy!

But this is fantastic too:

Welcome to /r/911truth! The purpose of this subreddit is to present and discuss evidence showing that the US Government's version of the events of 9/11 cannot possibly be true. Submissions or comments supporting the official version, including links to sites purporting to "debunk" the 9/11 Truth Movement (depending on context), are considered off-topic here.

Although the surveyor's transit "could" blah blah blah bull **** was good too.

Great find, I love me some humor!

 

[skyeagle409]

Are you a bot? You didn't respond to the Ron DiFrancesco stuff at all. He was injured by a fiery explosion while escaping from the South Tower. He had the burns to prove it.

His injuries had nothing to do with explosives, which is why I have challenged you to provide timelines where explosions were heard as the buildings collapsed and you failed to provide those timelines as requested. I have challenged truthers over the years to provide such timelines and no one truther had been able to provide such timelines. In addition, I have called out truthers over the years who've posted doctored videos depicting explosions. In fact, I even warned truthers about certain doctored videos depicting explosions and amazingly, there were truthers who'd posted the same videos that I had warned were doctored with sounds of explosions. Simply amazing how they posted their ignorance for all to see unaware that I had posted such warnings beforehand about those doctored videos. Here's one video that was used by truthers against me and one of which I had warned truthers about.

Truther's WTC 7 CD Video Evidence

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


Now, let's take a look at the rest of the story.


They Fell For My Hoax 9/11 Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM

On the sounds of explosions issue, it is a matter of historical fact that WTC 7 emitted a loud percussive noise which was louder than the rest of the collapse itself. One witness described it as a "clap of thunder". It appears at the same time in the CBS video and the Ashley Banfield video.

Let's take another look at the WTC 7 video and please provide the timeline where such explosions are heard and failing to provide us with the timeline as requested will only serve to prove my point that truthers are not interested in doing homework.


WTC 7 Collapse Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

.