One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: "We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11" #2
This topic is locked to prevent further replies.
This discussion was started in a previous topic. You can find it here.
This discussion is continued in a new topic. You can find it here.
Page <<first <prev 38 of 99 next> last>>
 
This topic was split up because it has reached high page count.
You can find the follow-up topic here.
 
Sep 10, 2017 23:46:12   #
emarine
 
[quote=Steve700]Why don't you deniers stop being such idiots. Both Payne and I have presented you with both photos and videos showing the explosives going off in quick succession several floors below the ones collapsing, not to mention the signature demolition plumes of smoke being ejected out at evenly spaced intervals (9 of them) across/around the buildings. That alone should be enough to convince you, but you. Obstinate stuck on stupid fools pay no attention to the facts. Even then the matter of whether or not the building was preset with explosives [b]is only a tiny fraction of the mountain of questions to which there simply is no other answer, other than that it was obviously and inside job. Sorry, but you just can't make up your own reality and avoid and dismiss any uncomfortable questions that threatens your preset premise that it just didn't happen in our government would never do such a thing.[/quote]



hey Stevo...if he towers were a controlled demolition as you claim this would require tons of high explosives ... like over 400,000 tons for each tower... why can't you guys produce one ounce of evidence after 16 years?... you do know the steel was inspected before shipping for scrap & 100's tons are still in storage @ JFK airport... provide one piece of evidence or explosive residue ... if your 9 explosive demolition puffs were enough to convince you where were the other several thousand necessary to do the job?... all your high explosives had to do was break glass to see the puffs of smoke... or was it explosion proof glass?...

Reply
Sep 11, 2017 01:18:33   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Steve700 wrote:
Why don't you deniers stop being such idiots. Both Payne and I have presented you with both photos and videos showing the explosives going off in quick succession several floors below the ones collapsing, not to mention the signature demolition plumes of smoke being ejected out at evenly spaced intervals (9 of them) across/around the buildings. That alone should be enough to convince you, but you. Obstinate stuck on stupid fools pay no attention to the facts. Even then the matter of whether or not the building was preset with explosives is only a tiny fraction of the mountain of questions to which there simply is no other answer, other than that it was obviously and inside job. Sorry, but you just can't make up your own reality and avoid and dismiss any uncomfortable questions that threatens your preset premise that it just didn't happen in our government would never do such a thing.
Why don't you deniers stop being such idiots. Both... (show quote)
Lay off the booze, you inebriated sot. Sober up, for crying out loud.

Photos and videos by themselves are NOT PROOF of anything. Those "plumes of smoke" you see are nothing more than the putrid brain farts of conspiracy loons.

Reply
Sep 11, 2017 01:20:14   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
payne1000 wrote:
It takes way too much bullshit to defend lies.

You should know, you certainly pile it deep on this board.

Reply
 
 
Sep 11, 2017 01:51:05   #
G1ReconBravo Loc: Sonoran Desert
 
https://youtu.be/Msw0odRETPE

Reply
Sep 11, 2017 01:52:14   #
G1ReconBravo Loc: Sonoran Desert
 
G1ReconBravo wrote:
https://youtu.be/Msw0odRETPE


Not my words

Reply
Sep 11, 2017 02:34:40   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
G1ReconBravo wrote:
Not my words


Not your words? OK, but does this convoluted and poorly produced video voice your opinion? Whoever put this one together should be shot. And, where in the hell did they get that music? Truthers have a really bad habit of backing up their videos with bizarre music soundtracks, I guess because it makes their fictional drama more dramatic. Like a science fiction movie.

Reply
Sep 11, 2017 08:54:54   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
still don't get it putz... gravity causes collapses not explosives... explosives only start a collapse if the potential is there for something to fall... in a controlled demolition gravity does all the work... you morons claim the towers were totally destroyed by explosives floor by floor & can't provide conclusive proof of explosives... if you choose to sell your explosive theory's than it is you who has to provide conclusive proof... how come you can't?... fact is none of you 911 lunatics can after 16 years of blabbing bullshit... I'll continue to go with plane damage, heat & gravity until proven otherwise... I'm sure you tools will continue to blab bullshit with a bunch of racist bigotry to boot... putz
still don't get it putz... gravity causes collaps... (show quote)


You failed to address the point of my comment.
Please explain to readers how random damage can cause symmetrical collapse on three skyscrapers on the very same day.

Reply
 
 
Sep 11, 2017 09:10:12   #
payne1000
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
"Random damage"? "Random collapse"? Oh boy, now you've gone ever further into the weeds with this. The only thing random about the damage was where the buildings were hit, either by jetliners or falling debris. The only force that brought the towers down was GRAVITY.

Now, explain exactly what a "random collapse" would look like.

You might also consider the computer simulations some scientists ran that calculated what would have happened if Mohammed and Marwan had flown the planes into floors 40 or 50. One simulation centered the jet crash on the 40th floor and this caused an almost immediate collapse. IOW, due to the extent of aircraft impact damage and a much greater mass above the impact zone (288 million kgs), the support structure would have failed WITHOUT any heating from fires.

The scientific method requires that observation and scientific laws are applied to prove or disprove a hypothesis. If the observations and applications of scientific laws disprove the hypothesis, then the scientist will change or alter the hypothesis. The junk scientists of the 9/11 conspiracies (Gage, Chandler, Boldwyn, et al) turn this on its head. They alter or change the observations and reinvent or make up scientific laws to prove their hypothesis (They have no alternative hypothesis and will, like you, stick to the CD theory like stink on shit) . If these morons were somehow forced to follow the tried and true scientific methods and apply proven scientific laws to prove their hypothesis, the entire conspiracy theory would fold like a cheap suit.
"Random damage"? "Random collapse&q... (show quote)


Here's what random collapse looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGYrFxOL0vY
Random collapse happens randomly. It happens slowly over a period of hours. It takes many hours to heat steel enough to weaken it. Since none of the floors of either tower were completely covered by fire, much of the steel framework was not weakened at all. This unweakened steel would not allow the towers to fall straight down. The worst that could possibly happen is that the top sections would topple off, leaving the undamaged floors below still standing. I won't return your insults. Those of us who post the truth don't need that crutch.

Reply
Sep 11, 2017 09:22:44   #
whole2th
 
Netanyahu stated--shortly after 9-11 attacks--that Israel benefitted from the attacks.

Maintenance workers have never disputed this benefit to Israel.

Key suspects in a crime are those who benefit from the crime.



"Will the goyim notice?"
"Will the goyim notice?"...

Reply
Sep 11, 2017 09:49:09   #
S. Maturin
 
whole2th wrote:
Maintenance workers seem to have their work cut out--if they are to be loyal to the dark side.


More lies, innuendo, foolishness.

Reply
Sep 11, 2017 10:04:48   #
payne1000
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
The core columns and the perimeter columns were designed and constructed to SHARE THE LOAD EQUALLY. There were 47 core columns and 236 perimeter columns, a ratio of 6 perimeter columns to 1 core column. The equal sharing of the load was facilitated by the hat trusses. Therefore in terms of load bearing strength, the core support was no more "massive" than the perimeter.

Why you seem to think that the strength of the core is the key to supporting the cockamamie CD theory is baffling. Such an erroneous assumption only demonstrates that you don't really know anything about the design and construction of the twin towers.

The tube-frame design, earlier introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a new approach which allowed open floor plans rather than columns distributed throughout the interior to support building loads as had traditionally been done. The World Trade Center towers utilized high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns. The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop. Adjacent modules were bolted together with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.

The core of the towers housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls. The floors consisted of 4 inch (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants. The trusses supported a Template:Convert thick lightweight concrete floor slab with shear connections for composite action.
The core columns and the perimeter columns were d... (show quote)


If there was a design flaw in the twin towers, why did Silverstein use the same basic floor space surrounding center core design for the new One World Trade Center? You do remember claiming the "tube in tube" design caused the towers to collapse, don't you?





Reply
 
 
Sep 11, 2017 10:35:29   #
payne1000
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
There was a time when this idiocy inspired laughter. Now that it has been repeated ad infinitum, it is just an idiotic cliche.


A 2016 poll indicates you 9/11 liars are now in the minority:
https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2016/10/11/what-arent-they-telling-us/



Reply
Sep 11, 2017 11:18:28   #
payne1000
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Lay off the booze, you inebriated sot. Sober up, for crying out loud.

Photos and videos by themselves are NOT PROOF of anything. Those "plumes of smoke" you see are nothing more than the putrid brain farts of conspiracy loons.


Please note from the poll posted above that the "conspiracy loons" now outnumber "conspiracy liars" such as yourself.

Reply
Sep 11, 2017 12:16:48   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
payne1000 wrote:
You failed to address the point of my comment.
Please explain to readers how random damage can cause symmetrical collapse on three skyscrapers on the very same day.
Please explain to readers what "random damage" actually is.

Reply
Sep 11, 2017 13:05:31   #
payne1000
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Please explain to readers what "random damage" actually is.


Random damage occurs when airliners damage one side of the North Tower and the corner of the South Tower.
Random damage is when fires burn unevenly on floors, never covering any floor entirely and never damaging the floors below where the airliners impacted.
Random damage is where WTC7 was allegedly damaged by the fall of the North Tower. Damage to one side of WTC7 could not possibly cause rapid symmetrical collapse.
Neither could the small fires burning on a few floors in WTC7.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 38 of 99 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.