Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

it's hilarious, comparing this to the existence Lincoln

you deniers have clearly lost it, so again I asked about the hard evidence, and all I get is "reported" testimonies written in an article, without any further proof

and you dare make fun of 911 theorists with their "thin" evidence ? you guys are clearly suffering from denial

so in short, you are believers in fairy tales, exactly like the fools who believed in Powel at the UNSC when he presented his "evidence" of WMD in Iraq with a nice PowerPoint Slideshow

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

As a result, he denies the existence of testimony reported many times

I don't deny anything, I ask for their existence. Where are they ? surely you are not naive enough to think that writing a script in a news article is the same as hard evidence.

If there was a news article describing a video of Trump fucking goats, would you believe it verbatim or ask to watch the tapes, no matter how much you would like to believe the video to be true.

Harry, you come across as someone who believe easily in fairy tales as long as they are nicely presented by someone in Authority. A bit like the Thais. Harry, are you Thai by any chance ?

The first thing they should have taught you in school is critical thinking and skepticism.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

As a result, he denies the existence of testimony reported many times

I don't deny anything, I ask for their existence. Where are they ? surely you are not naive enough to think that writing a script in a news article is the same as hard evidence.

You're a liar.

You are denying that those attributed testimonies are real.

You're a fucking idiot and a whackjob, queer boy, quite the combination.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

So all 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns on the first 8 floors collapsed 'pulling away', leaving the exterior framing intact- and then suddenly the whole building collapses in free fall.
Has any other steel building on fire ever behaved like this?
And nearly all the steel is removed immediately so no checks can be made .
The Nist report was an autopsy without a body.
As for the fires that were supposed to have brought it down.-
The WTC 7 fires were few, small, and scattered. On floor 12, the
location of the fires that NIST claims to have caused the initiation of collapse due to
thermal expansion are shown to be burned out more than one hour prior to the building's fall. Thus they could not have been responsible for WTC 7's destruction, as the expanding beams would have cooled and contracted by then.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You are denying that those attributed testimonies are real.

well, can we prove that they are real ? where are the tapes ? or is it just transcripts sent by the Press Corp at the White House ?

until then, those written testimonies are as real as Saddam Chemical Labs Trucks in Iraq

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

And nearly all the steel is removed immediately so no checks can be made .

true another suspicious smoking gun, but the ordinary gullible authoritarian here (harry, ant etc...) mental block all those small details that could derail their "naive" and "rigid" projection of the world

Look at the little whackjobs desperately trying to keep this shit thread alive.

Seriously mods, chuck it in the shitter with the MH370 thread, there is never going to be enough ongoing news to keep it alive.

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

On floor 12, the location of the fires that NIST claims to have caused the initiation of collapse due to thermal expansion are shown to be burned out more than one hour prior to the building's fall. Thus they could not have been responsible for WTC 7's destruction, as the expanding beams would have cooled and contracted by then.

Poor analysis and critical thinking skills.

Fail.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

On floor 12, the location of the fires that NIST claims to have caused the initiation of collapse due to thermal expansion are shown to be burned out more than one hour prior to the building's fall. Thus they could not have been responsible for WTC 7's destruction, as the expanding beams would have cooled and contracted by then.

Poor analysis and critical thinking skills.

Fail.

You could have saved yourself a bit of typing with:

"Whackjob bollocks innit".

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

On floor 12, the location of the fires that NIST claims to have caused the initiation of collapse due to thermal expansion are shown to be burned out more than one hour prior to the building's fall. Thus they could not have been responsible for WTC 7's destruction, as the expanding beams would have cooled and contracted by then.

Poor analysis and critical thinking skills.

Fail.

You could have saved yourself a bit of typing with:

"Whackjob bollocks innit".

You could save yourself a bit of typing Harry too by not replying, but like a moth to the flame you just can't resist. You remind me of the dog next door to my daughter's house. Every time someone passes by it barks.
Anyway the thread's not going away Harry. It'll rest a few days now and again but like a bad penny it's always going to come rolling back.

Damn straight it's not going anywhere!

There's still the issue of the planes that simultaneously were and weren't and did and didn't hit the WTC!

Have you solved that one yet?

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by Crestofawave

On floor 12, the location of the fires that NIST claims to have caused the initiation of collapse due to thermal expansion are shown to be burned out more than one hour prior to the building's fall. Thus they could not have been responsible for WTC 7's destruction, as the expanding beams would have cooled and contracted by then.

Poor analysis and critical thinking skills.

Fail.

Fail,

Harry and Friends: -1

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Have you solved that one yet

well we already established that the Pentagon was hit by a missile,

Planes did hit the WTC, but was it a controlled demolition ? overwhelming evidence point to it,

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Planes did hit the WTC, but was it a controlled demolition ? overwhelming evidence point to it,

But others like bENT have claimed that there was a conspiracy and no planes hit the WTC and they've got just as many websites and YouTube vdos etc. to prove this.

You can't both be right, so why the massive discrepancy in what is surely the key point of the whole conspiracy.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

But others like bENT have claimed that there was a conspiracy and no planes hit the WTC and they've got just as many websites and YouTube vdos etc. to prove this.

he is perfectly free, like you are, to his own opinions and unfounded theories

Those youtube vids were probably put online by the Pentagon as honey pots for all the nutters out there

for everyone else, the Pentagon used CNN and the mainstream media

Ah I see... so his version of the conspiracy theory is nuts but yours is perfectly sane and rational.

Of course I'm sure he'd say the same about you. At least you have one thing in common I suppose. Well, two things actually.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

You can't both be right, so why the massive discrepancy in what is surely the key point of the whole conspiracy.

the massive discrepancy is also present in the "official" US government theory, doesn't stop some people to believe them

we will never how it really happened, and I am not sure it's that interesting to know how they did it (controlled demolition or not)

the real crucial question is why they did it, and why they choose certain lies rather than other lies or even the truth. That's what I really want to know. Why lie ???

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Have you solved that one yet

well we already established that the Pentagon was hit by a missile,

Planes did hit the WTC, but was it a controlled demolition ? overwhelming evidence point to it,

We've already established that you're a whackjob who is not very bright.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Ah I see... so his version of the conspiracy theory is nuts but yours is perfectly sane and rational.

Of course I'm sure he'd say the same about you. At least you have one thing in common I suppose. Well, two things actually.

indeed, and you have more in common with him than you know. You both believe in something that has huge discrepancies and inconsistent in the execution, yet you still believe it

plenty of evidence that there is a controlled demolition and a missile hit the Pentagon,

if you prefer to believe in fairy tales by CNN or BBC or youtube vids, it's your choice of conspiracy theory

That just doesn't work Butters.

You and bENT sort out your discrepancy and then let me know when you have a consistent and coherent conspiracy theory.

Here is a summary of the enclosed video-




Nist couldn’t make up its mind for years as to the cause of collapse of Building 7 but
finally in 2008 it announced via a computer model, ie no physical testing
that the critical column 79 had failed first, claiming fires on the N.E corner of floor 12 had heated the ceiling that included the floor beams for floor 13, so causing thermal expansion of the beams and thus causing the girder at column 79 to fall off its seat.
Nist concludes column 79 buckled due to loss of support from that girder and then the whole building collapsed in seconds.
Nist claimed in 2004 that the beams in Building 7 were made composite with shears but in its final report in 2008 it backtracked and said there were no shear studs on any of the girders- this was refuted by John Salvarinas, the project manager for building 7 who confirmed there were shear studs on all the girders- in fact there were 30 shear studs on the critical girder at column 79
Nist claims differential thermal expansion caused the breakage of over 100 high strength bolts.[B] This was caused, Nist claimed, by expansion of the beam being much more than the concrete above it-[/B But it would not break as the concrete floor slab would heat and expand too, a factor not considered in the Nist computer model!
Knowing the measurements, the girder would have had to move 5.5 inches due to the expanding floor beams to fall off its seat- but what temperature did the beams reach?
This was Tricky for Nist for if the temperature is over 600 C, steel loses its strength and so is not able to extend into the girder , but if the temperature is too low, it's not enough to allow for expansion of the floor beams. So Nist settled on the beam temperature reaching 400C on the NE corner of floor 12. Under the Nits model all the bolts and steel connections then broke in 2 seconds! But at 400 C maximum expansion is only 3.3 inches- not enough to make the girder fall off its seat.
In addition, Nist claims the fires were 7 hours long but early photos don’t show fires on floors 11-13 where Nist say the first failures occurred , happening until after 2.00 pm and the building then fell less than 3.5 hours later.
Plus, requirements for fire resistance were that the steel components must be able to withstand 2-3 hours of intense fire
Finally the fire load in Building 7 only supported approx 20 mins of fire in any given area, the Nist claims of several hours of fire is misleading , the fires were not in one particular location for 7 hours!

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

You and bENT sort out your discrepancy and then let me know when you have a consistent and coherent conspiracy theory.

well you first, sort out your official theory and let me know when it's consistent and coherent

bet you can't do it though, which makes you a silly believer like bENT

Employing logical fallacies like that and twisting everything back onto others is another thing you share with bENT.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Employing logical fallacies like that and twisting everything back onto others is another thing you share with bENT.

but that's the thing, you are asking for a level of evidence for our theories, but on your end you fail to reach that same level for your own "official" theory

in short, you don't ask for any evidence for the government version, but yet you ask for them with all other alternative theories

do you see the flaw in your thinking process ? which is typical of all ordinary authoritarian

if you are going to be skeptical with 911 theories, and you should as a matter of principles, then you should also have the same level of skepticism for the "official" stories

comprende, honorable counselor