• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
Uh, you do know that the Towers were built in a "bathtub" 70 feet deep don't you that was filled with debris after the collapse?
Click to expand...

Do you think that would explain why there was so little visible rubble and steel on the ground ?
 
bill smith said:
So you are accepting that there is a missing volume of tubble ? You no longer think you are looking at 500,000 tons of rubble round each footprint ?
Click to expand...

Wow. I don't think I have ever come across somebody with such poor reading comprehension.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/slagheap/132105494/sizes/l/
Click to expand...


Your link's broke Grizz.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/slagheap/132105494 fixed. (Perhaps)




Bill Smith said:
I've never seen that photo before. Do you have more ? Ideally with more backgound/context.
Click to expand...

There is an archive with dozens of images like these. It's on a 9/11 memorial site (I think) taken by rescue workers. I don't have the url ATM. Someone will post it I'm sure. In the meantime this one is similar to the one I think Grizzly was aiming at:-



8748484cfeab94fae.jpg




BV
 
bonavada said:
Your link's broke Grizz.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/slagheap/132105494 fixed. (Perhaps)
Click to expand...

Yup that'd be the one... for a collapsing structure to plow through the entire floor system of another building for the entire height takes substantial debris impact. Damage like that doesn't happen often in the way it happened on that day, then again, there aren't many 100+ story skyscrapers either.
 
bonavada said:
Your link's broke Grizz.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/slagheap/132105494 fixed. (Perhaps)






There is an archive with dozens of images like these. It's on a 9/11 memorial site (I think) taken by rescue workers. I don't have the url ATM. Someone will post it I'm sure. In the meantime this one is similar to the one I think Grizzly was aiming at:-



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748484cfeab94fae.jpg[/qimg]



BV
Click to expand...
It's a good photo but it is of building 6, building 7 and the verizon buiding. It only shows part of the perimeter wall of the North tTower in the foreground. The rubble out of shot in front of that is very thin on the ground and that is the rubble from the North Tower..
 
bill smith said:
So you are accepting that there is a missing volume of tubble ? You no longer think you are looking at 500,000 tons of rubble round each footprint ?
Click to expand...
There is no ruble missing except in your own mind.

You accept delusions as your evidence. The whole building is there, you don’t understand what 95 percent air means.

All the building is in the ruble pile. Your inability to understand reality and your gullibility is letting you spew the lies of other 911Truth misinformation experts in delusions. They fooled you; why do you fall for lies?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
There is no ruble missing except in your own mind.

No you accept delusions as your evidence. The whole building is there, you don’t understand what 95 percent air means.

All the building is in the ruble pile. Your inability to understand reality and your gullibility is letting you spew the lies of other 911Truth misinformation experts in delusions. They fooled you; why do you fall for lies?
Click to expand...
I just can't get my head around where all that air is gone. I mean 500,000 tons of rubble per building is one thing- but all that air is quite another.lol
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I just can't get my heaad around where all that air is gone. I mean 500,000 tons of rubble per building is one thing- but all that air is quite another.lol
Click to expand...
You present junk science and failed opinions. Do you have some facts to support your failed opinions on the ruble missing? Where did your ruble go in your fantasy?

I am skeptical, how can you blindly repeat stupid ideas from 911Truth without checking them out with your own research?

You make fun of the answer to where the volume went. The air was 95 percent of the volume and you continue to fail in presenting proper support for your own delusion on this subject. You keep quibbling and proposing silly questions and misunderstanding what has been posted to your delusional ideas on 911.

You failed to do the math and figure out all the concrete floors stacked up are only 36.7 feet high. Why not try presenting some numbers and analysis with your woo?
 
Last edited:
Richard Gage is actually from Berkeley not San Francisco

Am i the only one who is not shocked to hear this? People in Berkeley are nuts.
 
bill smith said:
Do you think that would explain why there was so little visible rubble and steel on the ground ?
Click to expand...

Well if I thought here was was "little visible rubble and steel on the ground" which I don't, I would think back to first grade when I heard that most of an iceberg was not visible, and then to 4th grade when I learned that surface area is measured in square meters while volume is measured in cubic meters. So that is like way more, huh champ?
 
Macgyver1968 said:
I'm confused, Bill...what does missing rubble indicate?
Click to expand...

That it's not there I suppose. Like the 5,000 massive floorpans that the floor concrete was poured into, like the 100,000 tons of structural steel, like the 110 acres of 4" concrete floor, like the 110 acres of rebar reinforcing....that kind of stuff....
 
Dave Rogers said:
Bill, I have a prediction: you will never, as long as you live, formulate even the vague beginnings of a self-consistent hypothesis about what happened on 9/11, because your starting points are lies, misinterpretations and misunderstandings. And you will never achieve anything by presenting these arguments other than the respect of those with no judgement, and the amusement of those who understand the subjects you think you're talking about.

Dave
Click to expand...

Worded perfectly.
 
16.5 said:
Well if I thought here was was "little visible rubble and steel on the ground" which I don't, I would think back to first grade when I heard that most of an iceberg was not visible, and then to 4th grade when I learned that surface area is measured in square meters while volume is measured in cubic meters. So that is like way more, huh champ?
Click to expand...

So are you suggesting that, like an iceberg , 90% of the rubble was underground ? If not,what percentage do you think WAS underground ? (work from an original 500,000 tons if you like)
 
bill smith said:
That it's not there I suppose. Like the 5,000 massive floorpans that the floor concrete was poured into, like the 100,000 tons of structural steel, like the 110 acres of 4" concrete floor, like the 110 acres of rebar reinforcing....that kind of stuff....
Click to expand...

You are spreading a lie; all the WTC is there and spread over NYC. Your failure to see them is a personal problem.

You ignore math, your 110 floors of concrete are only 36.7 feet high. So your massive building was filled with air and you fail to do the math and comprehend the results when done for you. Why do you choose the ignorance of 911Truth to repeat like a zombie chant?

Fact: a gravity collapse of the WTC would look like it did on 911. You have chosen 911Truth-failed ideas to repeat instead of gaining knowledge to figure out 911.
 
Bill, technically most of the debris was underground. WHen they build the WTC they had to dig down several stories and build a "reverse bathtub" to keep all the water out. So most of the debris ended up in this whole. 9/11 could have been a whole lot worse if the walls of that tub had ruptured. Think about it. If you were going to order a "false flag" attack on New York. Then wouldn't you have also breached the walls of that "tub" to flood lower manhattan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom