• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

Ventilation to keep the worker comfortable (and healthy). Torches and cutting equipment can make the air quite unbearable. The building was being dismantled.

Why didn't you just call the construction company or the FDNY. They could have told you. No mystery here.

While you're at it, ask them why NYC requires they spray all sites with water and wash truck tires before driving on the city streets.
 
Last edited:
Read the article. Fumes were collecting in the building all those years later. What was causing the fumes?
 
Read the article. Fumes were collecting in the building all those years later.

Where does it say that?

It says it was damaged in the 9/11 attacks. It then says in 2007 it was subject to a fire in which two firefighters died. Following this they began dismantling the building, which includes gas torches, concrete grinding equipment, a lot of equipment producing a lot of dust, fumes and smoke. This is a no brainer Dusty..
 
I'm a chemist. Yes, I'm a biochemist, but that's still a chemist.

You might not know what biomedical science is, but it is primarily chemistry.

The fact that you've come up with the idea that no planes hit the buildings is prima facie evidence that you just don't know what you're talking about.
 
Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.


Yes we see your cry for attention, even though you asked this exact question on September 27, 2008, It was answered on January 3, 2009.

"Yesterday, smoke escaped from the former Deutsche Bank building on Liberty Street—the Daily News reports, "It turned out the smoke was from a battery-powered forklift that overheated about 4 a.m. Firefighters simply unplugged it." And while firefighters were on the scene, they found that a switch for an air-filtration system (you know, to keep toxic air—the building is full of debris from the 9/11 attacks— from escaping the building) wasn't working, so work was halted. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, which is overseeing the demolition of the building, believes the building will be decontaminated by July and ready for demolition in January. In 2007, a seven-alarm fire, started by a worker's cigarette, killed two firefighters and, in 2006, it was hoped the building would be gone by...2007."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You bring up physics. New physics is needed to understand the WTC attacks.

Again you play the fool.

I bring up physics because basic laws of physics are the rules of planet Earth. Gravity: That's real. Step on a scale Tracy, see how much you weigh. Gravity holds you down. However much mass your body has, gravity determines how much weight that equals. Earth rules Tracy:Laws of physics are Earth rules; You can't avoid them.There are no new physics, just a greater understanding of them.

You can't just use the intellectual toolbox you already had on 9/11 and figure out what happened.

I've gained a greater understanding of physics since 9/11, but you fail to offer anything that explains your hypothesis. No testing (Earth law of physics) to make your case. You avoid any questions or answers to your knowledge of physics or any use of their application. Earth's law of physics rule Tracy, you can't avoid them. So why are ignoring them?

Did you buy the airplane story from the beginning? There's your problem.

Here's your problem; It's been ten years and you still believe there were no planes, even though the evidence has proven that these planes existed and the location of their final destination.
 
Last edited:
8+ years later, the Deutsche Bank was still putting off fumes.

Didn't read that whole story Tracy, did ya? Deconstruction work caused the fire's "fumes". Debunked..see how that works?

Why do you carry on like you think you're smarter than anyone here? Being a legend in your own mind doesn't carry any further than your own mind.
 
Last edited:
Read the article. Fumes were collecting in the building all those years later. What was causing the fumes?

If you read the article, you wouldn't have to ask this question. At least you're consistent at failing constantly.
You must be proud of that.
 
Thank you for this response. I have not, in fact, attributed any names to the individuals depicted. The reason is because I still have no idea who might have attacked us on 9/11. A significant failure of mine, but failures can be overcome and I intend to. I'm not giving up on 9/11 until the perpetrators are known, captured, and tried for their crimes. An oversight on my part might be an explanation of why I haven't named anyone. I'm satisfied provisionally by putting the people's identities in a black box and continuing with my research until more is known and the perpetrators can be identified.

My cartoon might be lacking in some aspects of versimilitude, and they are obviously amateurish. I don't know why you focus on the doorknobs, and I don't know for certain that you even understand the point I was trying to make with the cartoon.

I don't mind re-explaining myself, so I'll do it again. My opinion is that my cartoon is ground-breaking. I've never heard anyone describes the attacks of 9/11 in this way, in terms of the physical actions that human beings took on the day of 9/11.

Most would say that the perpetrators drove to the airport and boarded planes. I say those physical acts weren't the ones that did the deed. That the physical acts were simple, not obvious, and performed at a computer terminal or controller. Pressing buttons is the physical act that destroyed the WTC.

Yeah, it's a little black-boxy, but it describes how 9/11 was accomplished in a unique way. Nobody else in the field is talking about it from this perspective. Nobody else is saying the perps were inside an office somewhere.

The real perps are already dead or have been captured. Your fantasy perps don't exist. If you continue doing this until they are caught, you will have wasted your life.
 
Even if I am 100% wrong about the hijackings, I'm not wrong about the properties of steel.

Steel is amazingly strong. Crashing a dozen semi-truck tankers full of hydrocarbon fuel into the side of the WTC would have resulted in a dented building and a bright orange, short lived fire. At the end of a few hours of fire fighting, you'd have an almost entirely intact steel cage with burn damage to the interior.

You are wrong about the properties of steel.

Long before steel melts it begins to lose that amazing strength from temperatures as low as those that are the product of a typical fire in an office. This is knowledge so well-known it might qualify as "ancient wisdom". It is the reason why there is such emphasis on sprinkler systems for quick and automatic fire suppression in steel framed buildings in general, and additionally insulating structural steel in these buildings in particular.

But wait, there's more.

Structurally speaking, the twin towers were not steel cages, but rather more like multi-leveled tents, with the central core serving as a "tent pole" and the individual floors suspended between the core and the peripheral columns. The type of trusses used to both support the floors and maintain structural integrity were also well-known to be vulnerable to heat, something which the FDNY repeatedly brought up during the original hearings on the construction permit approval.
 
My cartoons are a representation of how I believe the terrorist acts of 9/11 were physically carried out. Specifically, I believe that individuals were controlling advanced weaponry from computer terminals. I do not believe that anybody hijacked any airplanes.

Nobody in the field of 9/11 truth is saying this except me. I drew the cartoon because most people learn better with cartoons, including myself.

Entire dossiers on dozens of individuals does not change the physics of steel buildings. You catch my drift? Even if I am 100% wrong about the hijackings, I'm not wrong about the properties of steel.

Steel is amazingly strong. Crashing a dozen semi-truck tankers full of hydrocarbon fuel into the side of the WTC would have resulted in a dented building and a bright orange, short lived fire. At the end of a few hours of fire fighting, you'd have an almost entirely intact steel cage with burn damage to the interior. If you filled up the entire WTC to the brim with hydrocarbon fuel, and set it alight, you'd end up with a steel cage. It might be warped and droopy in places where it got extra hot and stayed extra hot for a few hours, but it wouldn't be gray and dusty, and it wouldn't have exploded all over lower Manhattan.

Your faith in steel is touching.
 
You bring up physics. New physics is needed to understand the WTC attacks.

You can't just use the intellectual toolbox you already had on 9/11 and figure out what happened.
Did you buy the airplane story from the beginning? There's your problem.

I'm a chemist. Yes, I'm a biochemist, but that's still a chemist.

You might not know what biomedical science is, but it is primarily chemistry.

The first statement hilited cancels out the other.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom