"24 hard facts about 9/11 that cannot be debunked"

Hey Sonofgloin,
Do yourself a favor, get a dictionary and look up the word explosion.

Then watch your truther YouTube videos and you might understand what the fire fighters are saying.
 
sonofgloin said:
Forget about you "paper assertions" tiger in 1996 the British Building Research Establishment and British Steel performed a series of six experiments to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected.
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C in three of the tests no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.
Click to expand...
Did they fly a large jumbo jet loaded with aviation fuel into the model? You few remaining twoofers are past masters at clutching at straws to support your debunked 'theories'. What's it like being a member of a moribund movement?
 
sonofgloin said:
I have a navman in my car, I don’t know how big you place of abode is....but if I type the address in the navman will take me to your door. Same in the air, type in the co ordinates and go.

With some understanding I can tell you that if they are burning the nests you take flight. The secret service see all such events as a direct physical threat to the president....two planes into “monuments to modern America” and the service let him sit there for 30 minutes....rubbish....the whole lot was staged.
Click to expand...

Woah. Let me just absorb the majesty of this argument for a moment.

So the whole thing must have been staged because the Secret Service did not do exactly what you would expect them to have done. It seems to me that argument is just a tiny bit self-defeating. A presidential protection outfit which behaves exactly as you can predict they will would be pretty useless security.

The threat scenario you present is one where the bad guys learned where the president was going to visit on a particular day, looked it up on Google Maps - oh, no, wait: it's 2001 - looked it up on actual paper maps and decided to crash a hijacked plane on his head. So they work out the flying time to get there, take their best guess about what time he's going to arrive and how long he'll be there and hijack a bunch of planes. Next they fire up their 2001-era satnav and type in the street address of where they want to crash (that's how it works, right?). Presumably they pick the model that gives you a Hollywood-style heads up display with a flashing image of the particular nondescript building to aim at as you dive towards a city at 500 mph. To maintain the element of surprise, they attack this mobile target first - oh, no, wait - they attack a series of fixed targets to give his bodyguard plenty of time to decide what to do. Very sporting of them.

It seems that because you don't know what the Secret Service did between the first alert and the president leaving the school, you just assume they did nothing.
 
sonofgloin said:
Forget about you "paper assertions" tiger in 1996 the British Building Research Establishment and British Steel performed a series of six experiments to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected.
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C in three of the tests no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.
Click to expand...
<edit> Never mind. Your text is lifted verbatim from the link in Sunstealer's post above. Maybe you should just read the rest.
 
Last edited:
sonofgloin said:
Travis>>Incorrect. Steel loses integrity at lower temperatures than that. And office fires are quite capable of this. Read into the fire at the Library tower in LA for a good example of why steel skyscrapers need copious fire insulation.<<

Travis my china plate....did the building you allude to fall to it’s basement....probably not seeing WTC 7 was the first and last....so far....but who knows what the administration has in mind.
Click to expand...

No the building I mentioned (the Library or US Bank Tower) did not collapse. But post fire analysis showed the only reason it didn't collapse was because the contractor applied way more fire insulation to the steel structure than was required by code. If the contractor had only applied the required amount then the tallest building in LA would have collapsed from a fire years before WTC7.

sonofgloin said:
Robrob>> Not actually. The Pentagon and WTC were gigantic targets, easily visible from the air at 500 mph.<<

Rob I have a navman in my car, I don’t know how big you place of abode is....but if I type the address in the navman will take me to your door. Same in the air, type in the co ordinates and go.
Click to expand...

Try to rationalize it how you want but they still almost missed the Pentagon.

sonofgloin said:
Robrob>> They soften and sag at a much lower temp, especially under load and not to mention all the jet fuel.<<

Rob, it is simple sport, your utterances have no factual precedent. Look up skyscraper fires.....so many have burnt for longer and on vastly more floors and some in South America burned for days and none fell..and certainly none to the basement....in their own footprint to boot. About “jet fuels”....it is Kerosene Rob with additives....not bloody phosphorus.
Click to expand...

You are just absolutely wrong on this. Many buildings have caught fire. But only four steel skyscrapers have ever had large fires that were unfought. The one in the US Bank (or Library) tower in LA and the WTC towers. And I've already mentioned why the first one didn't collapse. The extra fire proofing allowed it to stay erect long enough for a firefighting effort to be brought together.

sonofgloin said:
Robrob>> As mentioned, the rule book would seek to avoid being channelized into an unsecure route and possible ambush.<<

Don’t be ridiculous Rob. With some understanding I can tell you that if they are burning the nests you take flight. The secret service see all such events as a direct physical threat to the president....two planes into “monuments to modern America” and the service let him sit there for 30 minutes....rubbish....the whole lot was staged.
Click to expand...

Planes flying into the WTC and Pentagon does not mean the President is in danger. And, as we know, he wasn't. And the Secret Service, not being idiots, would have known this too.
 
SoG:

The rule book Dafffyd....it is in the book of common sense. The secret service advises Bush of the first strike at 9.02, they advise him of the second five minutes later....then left him at the school for a further half an hour...don’t be obtuse Daffyd.
J
ack>> Regarding Secret Service behaviour which "ain't in the rule book", am I wrong to imagine the US Secret Service are not so foolish as actually to publish their "rulebook" for protecting the president and that this is no more than an expression of personal incredulity?<<

Jack there is an unwritten obligation to act if you are employed in a vocation that has a “duty of care” caveat in the job specification. Just as a parentinitiates their “duty of care” to remove a child from harm’s way, so does the secret service....but they didn’t ....join Daffyd in the obtuse corner.

I can tell you this.

The Principles of Personal Protection is the operational principle that the SS and other similar (DSS) protective details operate within.

Here's a link to a paper the Justice department distributed to local agencies back in the day (1998):

http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/PI_Guide.pdf

Here's a link to an Army FM on the same subject:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/19-10/Ch19.htm

If you have the money for tuition, and can pass a full BGC and provide references, you too can be trained to perform the job:

http://www.pss.cc/

BTW - your assessment of the SS w/ Bush on 9/11 is completely faulty.

They knew the area they were located in had been secured.

They had control of the immediate area and an eye on airspace/etc.

They moved POTUS out with a minimum of apparent drama.

They immediately got him into an area that was not subject to close-in threat and gave them the ability for immediate evac. if needed, then got him into the air.

All sop, all well done.

If you expected to see ninjas w/ MG's pop out of the ceiling (isn't Hollywood **** cool?) and start the POTUS running down the hall with all the tac-coms(Tactical Commands) Go! Go! Right! Clear! - ********, I'm sorry you were disappointed, but all the grown-ups on scene did exactly what they were trained to do.
 
dafydd said:
Did they fly a large jumbo jet loaded with aviation fuel into the model? You few remaining twoofers are past masters at clutching at straws to support your debunked 'theories'. What's it like being a member of a moribund movement?
Click to expand...

Of course they did not. In other respects the tests were on a structure consisting of regularly spaced post and beam construction which bears little in common with the construction of WTC 1, 2, or 7 but does more closely resemble WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Woah. Let me just absorb the majesty of this argument for a moment.

So the whole thing must have been staged because the Secret Service did not do exactly what you would expect them to have done. It seems to me that argument is just a tiny bit self-defeating. A presidential protection outfit which behaves exactly as you can predict they will would be pretty useless security.

The threat scenario you present is one where the bad guys learned where the president was going to visit on a particular day, looked it up on Google Maps - oh, no, wait: it's 2001 - looked it up on actual paper mapis and decided to crash a hijacked plane on his head. So they work out the flying time to get there, take their best guess about what time he's going to arrive and how long he'll be there and hijack a bunch of planes. Next they fire up their 2001-era satnav and type in the street address of where they want to crash (that's how it works, right?). Presumably they pick the model that gives you a Hollywood-style heads up display with a flashing image of the particular nondescript building to aim at as you dive towards a city at 500 mph. To maintain the element of surprise, they attack this mobile target first - oh, no, wait - they attack a series of fixed targets to give his bodyguard plenty of time to decide what to do. Very sporting of them.

It seems that because you don't know what the Secret Service did between the first alert and the president leaving the school, you just assume they did nothing.
Click to expand...

Well SoG believes that the Secret Service already knew that GWB was in no danger so did not move him.

Potus has little or no say in where or when the Service moves him in the event of a threat. When Regan was attacked he was bodily shoved into the car which then sped away. This was before anyone knew that a bullet had hit him. Regan was given no choice, not consulted on what to do next, it was all the pervue of his protective squad.
So if SoG is correct then every Secret Service agent on the squad was in-on-it. All of these men and women still carry that knowledge with them then. They know with certainty and clarity that 911 was pre-planned by the administration. That by doing what they did they are complicit in a cover up of the murder of thousands and treasonous acts.

Furthermore, the protective squad, when informed that they were to not follow SOP ( as SoG would have us believe) no one suggested that in order to better continue the illusion that these were unexpected attacks, that it might be better if they followed SOP and rushed GWB off to AF1.

In fact if the supposed perpetrators and planners had simply kept the Secret Service out of the loop then there would be a dozen ,or more, fewer people who would know the 'truth'.

Instead, SoG would have us believe, the planners decided, for some inexplicable reason , to alter the response by Bush's protective squad thus exposing their plan to discovery on several fronts.

In short, either the planners of this vast and complicated conspiracy are utter idiots,, or people believing as SoG does, are idiots.

I know where I stand on that choice.
 
Last edited:
Robrob said:
Give them time and steel won't "melt" until it reaches 15,000,000,000 degrees kelvin.

Of course it gets quite soft by 800° C.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_524584f14cf76aae76.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Great illustration of column creep. SoG however says that steel is unaffected by heat under 1000 degrees. Either the photo lies, or SoG is incorrect.

I know where I stand on that choice.

BTW, would you mind posting that pic to the 'Tony Szamboti writes a paper' thread.
 
sonofgloin said:
So you consider yourself a wordsmith BN, what is "totaled by fire?" If it it structurally fall down to basement level in its own footprint then we have a comparison....if not we have a singular exception given Bld 7 is the only fire ravaged steel framed high rise to do it. ...
Click to expand...
The "in its own footprint" is classic failure. It means you have no facts to support your fantasy.

A building totaled by fire, and the fires were fought? Steel fails in fire. WTC 7 fires were not fought, it was totaled by fire. Does not matter if it falls, or not, it was totaled by fire, the same with WTC 5 and 6. Fire destroyed them. You can't do fire science so you make up lies about 911. Why? There were zero explosives used on 911 - 19 terrorists in aircraft did all the damage.

UBL promised to kill us, he made it come true; told us so in the 90s, but you missed it. History, you have to read real news and filter to find the facts.

sonofgloin said:
Absolutely not ...
Click to expand...
You can't fly? Too bad. Thus you make up stuff about flying.

sonofgloin said:
I have never heard any of the Bin Laden’s throw their hands up to 911....you do some reading. BN, regardless of the form of the threat the ss had the president at an unsecure location for 30 minutes after two strikes against America. For all the ss knew a helicopter with a charge on board could be minutes away from the publicized school photo op. Tiger your assertions are ridiculous...safe at the school indeed.... ...
Click to expand...
UBL promised to kill us in the 90s, he was behind 911 and other world wide terrorist attacks. You have to read for comprehension to figure that one out, not repeat failed lies from 911 truth.

sonofgloin said:
Forget about you "paper assertions" tiger in 1996 the British Building Research Establishment and British Steel performed a series of six experiments to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected.
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C in three of the tests no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments. I said in my initial posts, the number of "firsts" that had materialize to allow 911 to unfold as it did is is astounding, unbelievable in fact. ...
Click to expand...
Got the original source for this? Did you read the studies? No, you googled up 911 truth quote-mining, and cherry-picking BS.
What does it mean? It means you can't discuss this and relate it to 911 in a rational form. You will gish gallop, never correcting your mistakes, or explaining what did 911 in your fantasy.

You bring up experiments for steel frame buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 were not like the experiment, they were real events, not tests. The experiments you present by google knowledge, do not say WTC 1, 2, and 7 can't collapse, and you can't use the report to make up lies about 911. You googled up the experiments used by 911 truth to fool the gullible. If you had something you would do a paper to prove your point. Yet, you never looked up the real reports, or did you?




sonofgloin said:
Deny this sport.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH1Xdcssw4A ...
Click to expand...
Wow, you show proof of no explosives. I they had experience an explosion from an explosive, they would be dead. Brains would be mush; you have never been attacked by bombs. No explosives, and you proved it with your video. Failure is the only product of 911 truth. An idiotic video which fools the gullible, the fake skeptics. You have no idea what explosives do, and how they do it. Better luck with Bigfoot, you can recycle the same claims, hearsay, lies and delusions.

sonofgloin said:
I'm sceptical.... .
Click to expand...
You repeat failed claims googled up, and adopt them out of ignorance, like saying, "in its own footprint". What does it mean? You can't figure out 911 after 12 years, so you repeat failed junk.

You post false information about steel, and don't correct yourself. You have no idea a totaled building is as bad as a collapsed building. You can't grasp the difference between fought fires, and fires not fought. You ignore the facts to defend ideas made up for you by people who spent less time researching 911 than you did.

sonofgloin said:
Ape old bean, what is that pathetic attempt at wit....practice with stationery targets first, then move on.
Click to expand...
You can't defend any of the 24 hard facts with evidence? Why not?

The " in its own footprint" is a red flag of woo. Means 911 truth has no evidence, only failed slogans of 911 truth. 12 years of the movement of fantasy, idiotic lies, and nonsense. 911 truth = failure. You will need evidence to change that fact. Where are you hiding it?
 
Last edited:
So, only 2 planes were headed for Manhattan, but 3 buildings were rigged for demolition.
Who screwed up the math there?
 
sonofgloin said:
Forget about you "paper assertions" tiger in 1996 the British Building Research Establishment and British Steel performed a series of six experiments to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected.
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C in three of the tests no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments. I said in my initial posts, the number of "firsts" that had materialize to allow 911 to unfold as it did is is astounding, unbelievable in fact.
Click to expand...
You do realize there were ~30 floors above the WTC impact site?

And that your "simulated" eight-story building had not been hit by a jet airliner?
 
jaydeehess said:
or people believing as SoG does, are idiots.
I know where I stand on that choice.
Click to expand...

Is that a nature or nurtured idiot?

My fellow posters you are a myopic lot, whereas I am bifocal.

You are more than willing to forward individual data that relates to cause and effect, data that presents valid figures pertaining to the issue but within the parameters of it being a component of the whole, theoretical data not practical data. Practical data comes from outcomes and there are so many first time events regarding the structural failure of three steel reinforced buildings that there is no precedent data.

You are less than willing to accept or even comment on the video I forwarded.
A video composite of blood soaked victims, FDNY officials and crews, live news links, NYPD spokesmen etc etc......all saying that there were ongoing explosions in real time throughout the period from the first strike to the collapse. The explosions were a constant theme throughout the live broadcasts.....but then the media airbrushed the explosions out of the plebs minds and obviously out of your “free thinker” minds as well.

As Jed Clampett used to say.....”pitiful”......brainwashed almost....like climate change zombies not accepting the obvious and defending with numbers.

I was not at 911, nor were the vast majority of you, but we have same day, same minute, at the scene ongoing reports of explosions and you reject it all....pitiful.

I agree with Gord Snarf....too much logic.
 
Last edited:
Robrob said:
You do realize there were ~30 floors above the WTC impact site?

And that your "simulated" eight-story building had not been hit by a jet airliner?
Click to expand...

Bob, it does not matter if they test on an 8 storey frame or an 80. The stess factor on all floors is equal, eqilateral weight transferance. You use "hit by jet" as a validation to the fragile nature of the sub frame. It is a validation....a validation of the integrity of the frame given no floors collapsed at the time of impact, or closely after.
 
sonofgloin said:
...
I was not at 911, nor were the vast majority of you, but we have same day, same minute, at the scene ongoing reports of explosions and you reject it all....pitiful. ...
Click to expand...
There were no explosives used on 911 to bring down the WTC complex.

Some witnesses heard "explosions" that were bodies hitting the ground and building parts. Other people heard cans in fire "exploding", like soup can closed on the kitchen burner.

There was no evidence of explosives used on 911. No body was killed by explosives, no steel was damaged by explosives, no sounds of explosives used to destroy the WTC.

What is your point? The video has people who heard loud noises, but not explosives that destroyed the WTC. What is your point?

sonofgloin said:
Bob, it does not matter if they test on an 8 storey frame or an 80. The stess factor on all floors is equal, eqilateral weight transferance. You use "hit by jet" as a validation to the fragile nature of the sub frame. It is a validation....a validation of the integrity of the frame given no floors collapsed at the time of impact, or closely after.
Click to expand...
What a bunch of silly BS; did you make this up or copy and paste?
Total nonsense. You have not shown anything, only standard gullibility, as failed claims are repeated from people who made it all up.

911 truth, Debunked 6 years ago, and all we get is some quibbling and BS, with repeated failed lies, and false claims googled.

peteweaver said:
The website:

http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html

Tries to use fire tests carried out on behalf of British steel to try and make a case against the collapse of the WTC.

They misrepresent the data of the cardington fire tests by omitting practically all data from them, and concentrating on the one fact that the cardington test rig did not collapse as a result of fire.

Several facts they omit are as follows:
Trusses buckled and failed due to the heat.
Intact Composite floor slabs added their own tensile strength and compensated for the failed floor trusses preventing collapse.

All the data from the cardington fire tests can be found here:

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default1.htm

The page on corus's website
http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/design_and_innovation/structural_design/fire/cardington_fire_test/cardington_fire_test/

Shows photographs from a test office fire that clearly show that the test office fire had been hot enough to cause structural warping.
Click to expand...
911 truth makes up claims based on ignorance. By quote-mining FEMA, 911 truth takes reports which support a global collapse study, and don't support the delusional claim of CD, or the big inside job junk.

Go ahead, take the experiments and explain why they support your claim of? What is your claim? Is it small building don't collapse as easy as big buildings? Buildings with over 130 tons of TNT in energy due to E=mgh, might collapse globally due to all that mass, the m part of mgh? What is your point, you don't understand building collapsing because you did not take physics, or engineering?
 
beachnut said:
There were no explosives used on 911 to bring down the WTC complex.

Some witnesses heard "explosions" that were bodies hitting the ground and building parts. Other people heard cans in fire "exploding", like soup can closed on the kitchen burner.

What is your point, you don't understand building collapsing because you did not take physics, or engineering?
Click to expand...

Bodies hitting the ground sounds like charges.....rediculous BN.
I watched the 911 doco released by the two French brothers while riding with a FDNY crew. They were recording as the poor souls were jumping....they were thuds....

Re the physics and engineering I bet you have contributed to discussions that you are not mastered in.....I commented on structural weight dispersment, a concept that I grasp if you do not sport.

You know that Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center towers to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 airplane.....and they did....so it is still back to fire collapsing three steel framed buildings in one place for the first time in history.

For someone with no precedent data, you are welded onto the concept of fire being the agent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom