Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
When I get around to making my list of the dumbest things I've ever heard before I die, "the government used nuclear weapons on 9/11" will probably have to be near the very top.
 
IT WAS RAMMED BY A F:eye-poppiKING PASSENGER JET AT FULL SPEED!
Can you show me any skyscraper which has ever survived being hit by a commercial airliner at top speed?
Just one.
The Empire State Building was hit by a military plane, but it was not going at full speed, was not a jet and was smaller than the planes that hit the WTC. Plus the structure of the ESB is different than the WTC.
 
1975 fire lasted 3 hours, hence reaching to the temprature to a maximum of 700 degrees c

South tower fire lasted 45 mins before collapsing.

Do the math

I've said it before, although in this post you didn't use the word intense you have previously, 700 deg C does NOT sound like an intense building fire to me. 700 C is the sort of temperature that might be seen in a building fire as it passes from developing to flashover. A fully flashed over fire is going to be at temperatures in excess of 800 deg C (ie the compartment is full of flames).

Dave
 
When I get around to making my list of the dumbest things I've ever heard before I die, "the government used nuclear weapons on 9/11" will probably have to be near the very top.
No, its even better,
a private citizen used nuclear weapons on 9/11, because it was too expensive to pay for asbestos removal!
I'm mean thats not just paranoid idiocy, it's paranoid idiocy squared!
 
They wouldn't be that large of an explosion. If buried 6 levels down, the blast and flash could be contained, and fallout would be minimal to non-existent (it wouldn't throw it up far enough or fast enough).

Thanks for the info.

I'm still pretty sure, however, that a 1000 ton TNT equivalent would be heard.
 
Secondly, NIST reported that 11 columns core were severely damaged in the south tower while only 6 columns core were severed in the north tower. That is impossible because the plane flew right directly toward the center of the north tower.

How does that garantee anything ? As far as I know, a direct, central hit might actually do LESS damage than one hitting the corner.

From my point of view, sept 11 was staged as PSYOP to maximize shock and to juice up the adrenaline/emotional meter to a full scale. I thought the attack in NYC itself was very hollywood style, except for the fact it was real.

Again: those conspirators are idiots if they made it THAT obvious.

The building implosion was also to maximize Silverstein's profit. But that is only from my point of view as i believe the buildings were deliberately imploded.

Indeed. Round and round we go.
 
No, its even better,
a private citizen used nuclear weapons on 9/11, because it was too expensive to pay for asbestos removal!
I'm mean thats not just paranoid idiocy, it's paranoid idiocy squared!

geggy is going to tell us that both theories are true. Both the gov and Silverstein connived this plan. Two idiot conspiracies are better than one. geggy prefers two levels of idiocy over one simple and very probable theory, the official story.
 
The Empire State Building was hit by a military plane, but it was not going at full speed, was not a jet and was smaller than the planes that hit the WTC. Plus the structure of the ESB is different than the WTC.
exactly, no tall building has ever survived being hit by a commercial airliner at top speed, it seems a perfectly good explanation for the collapse to me, as well as every expert who has ever look into the matter.
I guess I just don't have the intellectual skills of geggy, a fact for which I am very thankful.
 
geggy is going to tell us that both theories are true. Both the gov and Silverstein connived this plan. Two idiot conspiracies are better than one. geggy prefers two levels of idiocy over one simple and very probable theory, the official story.
paranoid idiocy cubed? ;)
 
Secondly, at one point one has to consider motive: if they were going to use explosives to bring down the towers, then why did they crash airplanes into it ? Doesn't that complexify their efforts, considerably ? And if they only used explosives, why would they place demolition charges ? Wouldn't a single bomb do the trick ? They could detonate the bomb and blame a terrorist attack similar to the previous one.

I'd like you to answer that last one.

Still haven't answered this one, Geggy.
 
Yep, the CTers love that because it doesn't show the plane hitting. They ignore the 100+ eyewitnesses who saw a 757 hit. Supposedly at the Moussaoui trial other videos were played that do show the whole thing. Maybe they'll be released some day.

I'd like to ask the CTers if they believe that the Revolutionary War happened. There are no videos or photos from 1776-1782, so where's the proof?

So, what is the best way to show them corroborating evidence to the eyewitness accounts, so they do not just turn around and say that the eyewitness accounts are only anecdotal? That is to say, what is the best/easiest piece of hard evidence to present to them to support the eye witness accounts?

Also, anyone have any good examples showing similar behavior to the security cam (where due to slow film speed important objects are not visible)?
 
lol

Let's call it Geggy's Razor.

Would anyone care to accurately formulate Geggy's Razor for me?
"entities should be multiplied far, far beyond necessity, rationality and possibility, all entities should be blamed on Bush."
 
1975 fire lasted 3 hours, hence reaching to the temprature to a maximum of 700 degrees c

South tower fire lasted 45 mins before collapsing.

Do the math

No, I don't think so. If I do math like you do, I would come to the conclusion that longer = hotter.

I, however, know that more than one variable exists in this equation. You don't seem to be able to grasp that concept.
 
Do you all realize this thread is getting an average of just over 41 posts a day since it was started on March 3rd? How do you do it, I mean keep up with this and still keep your sanity? :boggled:

Honestly, it seems like no matter what page I click on I see the same argument over and over. The buildings fell too fast. Look, look did you see that squib? Where’s the full scale recreation to evaluate whether or not planes could do this without the special concrete made from RDX, TNT, thermite, and cement that was used?

It certainly leaves little doubt about the persistence of the inane.
 
How do you do it, I mean keep up with this and still keep your sanity? :boggled:

I keep responding to geggy because I know alot of people are buying into this CT nonsense, especially in Montréal. I decided that I won't stand for it.

BTW, like my new signature aggle-rithm?;)
 
Last edited:
geggy is going to tell us that both theories are true. Both the gov and Silverstein connived this plan. Two idiot conspiracies are better than one. geggy prefers two levels of idiocy over one simple and very probable theory, the official story.
This should be called Geggy's G.U.T.

JPK
 
Like I've mentioned before...the towers' absestos was extremely high and the owner was forced to either remove the abestos or condemn the towers...

Interestly that some of you would bring up the exposure of radiation in the air during the nookular fallout...

Read this...

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2003/wtc/epapr20011003.htm

And yet...

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/PR_2002/WTC_health.html

Buuuut...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181925,00.html


Interesting how? Your first link:

Our data show that contaminant levels are low or nonexistent, and are generally confined to the Trade Center site. There is no need for concern among the general public, but residents and business owners should follow recommended procedures for cleaning up homes and businesses if dust has entered.

Your second link:


And your third link:


Nothing about radiation.

So, again, what explosive causes pools of molten steel days after the explosion?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom