Conspiracy Theory 9/11 and the Europhysics News - Controlled Demolition

[Procrastinator35]

 

[BustedWing]

Im not going to get any sort of intelligent discussion from you am I...

oh well.

 

[darthbards]

So what convinced you? What was your "ah hah" moment?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yo seem polite enough for a shrill (Haha,just kidding with the name calling) so I'll answer.
The controlled demolition was probably the give away for me. Even when I look at it in slow motion it seems you can even see the detonation going off below the rubble and lots of eye witness accounts to explosions being heard and accounts from people on the ground floors of hearing and feeling explosions just before the planes struck on top of that.
My ah hah moment is probably different to others and not related. I had a pretty open mind or was apathetic until MH370 disappeared. After that my eyes were opened and while I didn't think all conspiracies were true I knew some had more weight than they were being given. After that I was less willing to brush aside so easily some pretty good evidence just because I though,no the government wouldn't do that.

 

[BustedWing]

Yo seem polite enough for a shrill (Haha,just kidding with the name calling) so I'll answer.
The controlled demolition was probably the give away for me. Even when I look at it in slow motion it seems you can even see the detonation going off below the rubble and lots of eye witness accounts to explosions being heard and accounts from people on the ground floors of hearing and feeling explosions just before the planes struck on top of that.
My ah hah moment is probably different to others and not related. I had a pretty open mind or was apathetic until MH370 disappeared. After that my eyes were opened and while I didn't think all conspiracies were true I knew some had more weight than they were being given. After that I was less willing to brush aside so easily some pretty good evidence just because I though,no the government wouldn't do that.

happy to respond to this!

Its late where I am (Overseas) so I'll reply in the morning. Give a few hours beauty sleep, and I'll get back to you with some things challenging your above controlled demolition theory.

Keen to hear your thoughts on what I present!

 

[darthbards]

happy to respond to this!

Its late where I am (Overseas) so I'll reply in the morning. Give a few hours beauty sleep, and I'll get back to you with some things challenging your above controlled demolition theory.

Keen to hear your thoughts on what I present!

But I don't really want to get into a long debate. I only answered to be polite and you asked so nicely.
Ill be interested in you sharing your thoughts though.

 

[Lebbo73]

What did you find most compelling?

Happy to challenge your point of view if you like...


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Don't even try, Shill. You have got nothing to counteract the obvious.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Im not going to get any sort of intelligent discussion from you am I...

oh well.

Why would I bother when your agenda is so patently self-evident.

It's clear you haven't watched the videos, as you haven't addressed them once....Enough said.

 

[Procrastinator35]

 

[BustedWing]

Why would I bother when your agenda is so patently self-evident.

You never actually started with a sensible post. You began by calling me a fool or a shill (or both).

 

[BustedWing]

Don't even try, Shill. You have got nothing to counteract the obvious.

Honest question Lebbo73...what do you get out of this?? why do you bother posting at all?

 

[BustedWing]

Yo seem polite enough for a shrill (Haha,just kidding with the name calling) so I'll answer.
The controlled demolition was probably the give away for me. Even when I look at it in slow motion it seems you can even see the detonation going off below the rubble and lots of eye witness accounts to explosions being heard and accounts from people on the ground floors of hearing and feeling explosions just before the planes struck on top of that.
My ah hah moment is probably different to others and not related. I had a pretty open mind or was apathetic until MH370 disappeared. After that my eyes were opened and while I didn't think all conspiracies were true I knew some had more weight than they were being given. After that I was less willing to brush aside so easily some pretty good evidence just because I though,no the government wouldn't do that.

Ok...here are my responses...

To start with, we need to establish a logical position for you. Either you

(a) are of the opinion that the official story is a physical and scientific impossibility, ie, it LITERALLY could not possibly have happened the way they say it did, or.

(b) You believe that it COULD have happened that way, its not physically impossible, but it was MORE likely to have been something else. Controlled demolition as an example.

Which camp you are in will determine how the conversation flows. If you believe in (a), then this should be simple. You just need to point out where the working is incorrect. Where they "forgot to carry the three" in their maths, as it were. 1+1 can only ever = 2, and if NIST, 9/11 commission report etc say it in fact = 3, then you should be able to point this out.

If you believe in (b) then you need to explain WHY you beleive CD to be the more plausible explanation for the events we see.

The controlled demolition was probably the give away for me.

I dont think it has any hallmarks of a controlled demolition. The collapse initiated from the point of impact, not from the base, the speed of collapse was much much slower than free fall (9 seconds = free fall, whereas the towers fell at 16-22 seconds respectively), No evidence of conventional explosives were found (yes, we can talk about thermite/nanothermite if you think thats a plausible theory).

Even when I look at it in slow motion it seems you can even see the detonation going off below the rubble

You're talking about these I assume, and think they are "squibs"?



These puffs of dust are the result of air inside the building being compressed as the building above collapsed. Remember, the buildings were all open plan office space (lots of air in them), and that air needs to have somewhere to go. it goes where the path of least resistance is, and it is in these seeminly indiscriminate exit points that the air found just that.

One has to ask, you only see these "squibs" AFTER the collapse has begun, not BEFOREHAND, which is when you would need explosives to go off, right? To INITIATE collapse. Sure we can agree that once the collapse got underway, nothing was going to stop that process. So why would these comparatively small charges even need to be there at all? There is no use at all for them, as they do not contribute to the overall collapse of the buildings at all.

lots of eye witness accounts to explosions

Actually there were no EYE witness accounts of explosions. Lots of people heard explosions, absolutely, but no one said "I SAW a bomb go off" or "I SAW an un-detonated bomb". Instead, people said they "heard explosions". Some even said words to the effect "it was like a bomb went off". Do we take that statement literally, or was that a way for someone to describe what they heard that day?

Given the chaos and destruction of the day, lots of things could have caused those noises. Debris was raining down from the impact zones, people were falling onto the footpath below, inside the buildings, things were on fire, generators could have blown, fuel tanks could have blown, elevators could have snapped, and fallen to the bottom of the shafts and so on and so on and so on. All of those things make really loud, sudden and, dare I say it, explosive noises.

So what am I saying here? I'm saying that someone hearing an explosion does not mean it was a bomb.

on the ground floors of hearing and feeling explosions just before the planes struck on top of that.

Its been documented that more than likely these people are mixed up in their timelines, and the noises they heard are of tower 1 collapsing when they were in the basement of tower two. Then there is the testimony of William Rodrigues. He says that a bomb went off in the basement just as the plane hit. In fact, best guess is that it was an elevator falling to the bottom of the shaft.

Again, the question needs to be asked. WHY have bombs going off AN HOUR BEFORE collapse? What purpose did they even serve, when collapse began at the TOP of the towers, right where the planes hit?

Surely the most logical explanation here is that it wasnt bombs afterall, and what these people heard were other things....

So in summary,

We have planes hitting a building.
Collapse initiated at this point.
No evidence found of bombs.
No evidence found of Thermite (and no, I dont beleive that scientific paper doing the rounds. If you like, I'll be happy to explain why).
The logical fallacy of beleiving Thermite was used AND people heard bombs (thermite would be used as its a "quiet" incendiary, so if thats the case, then why are people "hearing bombs"?)
No explosion sounds caught on tape at the moment of collapse, right when bombs would need to detonate, despite thousands of cameras trained at the towers at that time.
The towers falling a much slower speeds than free fall, a considered "hallmark" of controlled demolition.
The implausability of being able to rig a 110 story building secretly with explosives that are either super quiet, or go off early, depending on your position.
The implausability of rigging said explosions right at the point the planes hit the towers, have them survide the impact, and then detotate right at the appropriate moment, some 90 odd minutes later.

Which is more likely here?

Surely its the official story....

 

[Procrastinator35]

 

[Procrastinator35]

 

[Procrastinator35]

 

[Procrastinator35]

 

[Procrastinator35]

 

[Procrastinator35]

 

[Procrastinator35]

 

[BustedWing]

You could've put all those videos in the one post mate...

 

[Zidane98]

Ok...here are my responses...

To start with, we need to establish a logical position for you. Either you

(a) are of the opinion that the official story is a physical and scientific impossibility, ie, it LITERALLY could not possibly have happened the way they say it did, or.

(b) You believe that it COULD have happened that way, its not physically impossible, but it was MORE likely to have been something else. Controlled demolition as an example.

Which camp you are in will determine how the conversation flows. If you believe in (a), then this should be simple. You just need to point out where the working is incorrect. Where they "forgot to carry the three" in their maths, as it were. 1+1 can only ever = 2, and if NIST, 9/11 commission report etc say it in fact = 3, then you should be able to point this out.

If you believe in (b) then you need to explain WHY you beleive CD to be the more plausible explanation for the events we see.


I dont think it has any hallmarks of a controlled demolition. The collapse initiated from the point of impact, not from the base, the speed of collapse was much much slower than free fall (9 seconds = free fall, whereas the towers fell at 16-22 seconds respectively), No evidence of conventional explosives were found (yes, we can talk about thermite/nanothermite if you think thats a plausible theory).



You're talking about these I assume, and think they are "squibs"?

View attachment 318949

These puffs of dust are the result of air inside the building being compressed as the building above collapsed. Remember, the buildings were all open plan office space (lots of air in them), and that air needs to have somewhere to go. it goes where the path of least resistance is, and it is in these seeminly indiscriminate exit points that the air found just that.

One has to ask, you only see these "squibs" AFTER the collapse has begun, not BEFOREHAND, which is when you would need explosives to go off, right? To INITIATE collapse. Sure we can agree that once the collapse got underway, nothing was going to stop that process. So why would these comparatively small charges even need to be there at all? There is no use at all for them, as they do not contribute to the overall collapse of the buildings at all.



Actually there were no EYE witness accounts of explosions. Lots of people heard explosions, absolutely, but no one said "I SAW a bomb go off" or "I SAW an un-detonated bomb". Instead, people said they "heard explosions". Some even said words to the effect "it was like a bomb went off". Do we take that statement literally, or was that a way for someone to describe what they heard that day?

Given the chaos and destruction of the day, lots of things could have caused those noises. Debris was raining down from the impact zones, people were falling onto the footpath below, inside the buildings, things were on fire, generators could have blown, fuel tanks could have blown, elevators could have snapped, and fallen to the bottom of the shafts and so on and so on and so on. All of those things make really loud, sudden and, dare I say it, explosive noises.

So what am I saying here? I'm saying that someone hearing an explosion does not mean it was a bomb.


Its been documented that more than likely these people are mixed up in their timelines, and the noises they heard are of tower 1 collapsing when they were in the basement of tower two. Then there is the testimony of William Rodrigues. He says that a bomb went off in the basement just as the plane hit. In fact, best guess is that it was an elevator falling to the bottom of the shaft.

Again, the question needs to be asked. WHY have bombs going off AN HOUR BEFORE collapse? What purpose did they even serve, when collapse began at the TOP of the towers, right where the planes hit?

Surely the most logical explanation here is that it wasnt bombs afterall, and what these people heard were other things....

So in summary,

We have planes hitting a building.
Collapse initiated at this point.
No evidence found of bombs.
No evidence found of Thermite (and no, I dont beleive that scientific paper doing the rounds. If you like, I'll be happy to explain why).
The logical fallacy of beleiving Thermite was used AND people heard bombs (thermite would be used as its a "quiet" incendiary, so if thats the case, then why are people "hearing bombs"?)
No explosion sounds caught on tape at the moment of collapse, right when bombs would need to detonate, despite thousands of cameras trained at the towers at that time.
The towers falling a much slower speeds than free fall, a considered "hallmark" of controlled demolition.
The implausability of being able to rig a 110 story building secretly with explosives that are either super quiet, or go off early, depending on your position.
The implausability of rigging said explosions right at the point the planes hit the towers, have them survide the impact, and then detotate right at the appropriate moment, some 90 odd minutes later.

Which is more likely here?

Surely its the official story....

Logic is overrated in these parts. Nothing will convince the truthers, no matter how many times their theories are debunked.

 

[BustedWing]

Logic is overrated in these parts. Nothing will convince the truthers, no matter how many times their theories are debunked.

Sometimes I like to believe that there are people out there who are just naive, and need to be exposed to a viewpoint that is not www.conspiracy.com.

Perhaps that's wishful thinking around here.

There are some people who i have conversed with on here that after I have shown them the silliness of their position, they dissapear. I like to believe that they have in fact, seen reason and reality, and are just too embarrassed to admit it. That would be a great outcome in my book.

Perhaps I am the one being naive on this point!

 

[Procrastinator35]

Logic is overrated in these parts. Nothing will convince the truthers, no matter how many times their theories are debunked.

Here we have a classic case of the blind leading the blind folks.

 

[BustedWing]

Here we have a classic case of the blind leading the blind folks.

Any danger of putting your money where your mouth is? Where am I wrong? Dissect my post, show the world my incompetence.

 

[Zidane98]

Here we have a classic case of the blind leading the blind folks.

Go on, show us a logical explanation that hasn't been debunked demonstrating the building was brought down by explosives. I'm all ears.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Go on, show us a logical explanation that hasn't been debunked demonstrating the building was brought down by explosives. I'm all ears.

Watch the videos....World class Architects & Structural Engineers with Phd's all agree to a man....These buildings could not have collapsed due to the aeroplanes alone.

But I guess we'll just have to take your word for it, that you know better amigo.

In fact, almost every detail in the commissioned 9/11 report, has been proven false....Open your eyes sweetheart.