Archangel M
Senior Master
"Massive Fire" as in hundreds/thousands of gallons of jet fuel poured/ignited within the space of a few floors were unlikely to have peen planned for either.
9/11--Was it an inside job?
- Thread starter Sensei Payne
- Start date
Archangel M
Senior Master
Thanks for the link, Angel - too tired to delve into it now but I've saved it for later.
As an aside, it should be noted that all tall structures designated to be at risk from aircraft impact are generally designed to deal with the anticipated fires that would result (again note that this depends on the country).
I am not saying that the fires weren't a fundamental part of the collapse, what I am saying is that the WTC was jerry-built, as are most large structures. The graft in construction has to be seen to be believed.
As an aside, it should be noted that all tall structures designated to be at risk from aircraft impact are generally designed to deal with the anticipated fires that would result (again note that this depends on the country).
I am not saying that the fires weren't a fundamental part of the collapse, what I am saying is that the WTC was jerry-built, as are most large structures. The graft in construction has to be seen to be believed.
Archangel M
Senior Master
Addressing the "they were designed to take an aircraft impact":
http://www.science-writing.org/id29.html
Which they did...the impact didn't knock them over, they just didn't survive the intense fires afterwards.
http://www.science-writing.org/id29.html
Which they did...the impact didn't knock them over, they just didn't survive the intense fires afterwards.
Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say, "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." I noticed that wasn't in the documentary.
There's a lot we just don't know. If the fires were so pervasive and extensive, how is this possible? Imagine having the actual evidence to show the extent of the flames and the actual real effects...we don't have that. It's gone. How can you still claim that you know the fires brought the buildings down?
Archangel M
Senior Master
Because they fell, engineers and professionals investigating said the heat caused structural failure...and controlled demo is impossible.
You guys (truthers) take this quote out of context a lot.
Really pisses me off.:angry:
Recorded audio of the actual event..
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio9.html
The plane impacted on the 80th floor. The unpopulated and unfurnished 78th floor, where Batallion Chief Orio Palmer was, was only impacted by one wingtip-and the fires he saw likely came from above.
No, there's a great deal we know. THe fires were pervasive and extensive, and you guys are only paying attention to what you want to, instead of what evidence there is.
I can claim that I know the fires brought the buildings down because I can deal with all the facts without stubbornly clinging to my created reality-unlike you and your ilk, who'd rather spit on the memory of those who died that day, like Battallion Chief Palmer.
Please stop.
This little tantrum is often repeated all over the internet and IRL and is merely a tool to shut people up. Sorry to inform you, but the Building What? Campaign was put together by a group of the victim's family members. Stop pretending like you and other people who agree with you are sole torchbearers for the families' honor.
Noting this, how can you continue to say that you have no intrinsic motivations causing some kind of cognitive dissonance over this issue? I'd wager that if you didn't you might acknowledge the victim's families who would really like to know what happened.
What about the large group of structural engineers and professionals that say it is possible? How could you possibly differentiate between those claims without over 99% evidence?
Well, no sir, what I'm doing is asking you to please stop lying, which is what you're doing by taking quotes out of context, twisting the science so that it fits your agenda by omitting or dismissing salient facts, and all the other tactics of the truther movement.
Truth may be malleable, but facts are incontravertible-just as they are in this instance.
Well, since you're wrong about everything else, including what you've noted, I can continue to say that I have no cognitive dissonance over this particular issue-you do. I mean, every bit of non-evidence you've brought up has been soundly debunked, or shown to be an arch manipulation, like your out of context quote, yet you stubbornly-obtusely-hang on to the "where's the evidence?" of your own, congintively dissonant Roswell-wannabe version of reality. As for the families "who'd really like to know what happened" they've been bamboozled......led astray.....flimflammed.
Run amok.
Last edited:
Archangel M
Senior Master
Because structural engineers know bupkiss about what it means to pull off an actual clandestine operation. While I may not be "black bag" trained, I know a thing or two about operational planning. If you believe that a 3 building simultaneous demolition in co-ordination with aircraft strikes in occupied buildings is something that can be pulled off with nobody noticing outside of hollywood fantasy you need to have your prescription checked. Let alone the ability of the jets to strike EXACTLY where the demo was set to start the collapse PLUS the crash didn't disrupt the supposed demo set-up??
Please.
But of course believing in convoluted, over-complicated, impossible in the "real world" scenarios is what you conspiracy buffs are all about.
Please.
But of course believing in convoluted, over-complicated, impossible in the "real world" scenarios is what you conspiracy buffs are all about.
Last edited:
Archangel M
Senior Master
AE911Truth doesn't impress me. Most of them are "professional" artists, theologians, cold-fusion (moon landing conspiracy believing) loony professors, architects and assorted other wing-nut truthers. Plus I believe that George Bush and a number of other "Professionals" were entered into their rolls by various and sundry. I'd bet there are a few NASA physicists who are moon landing nuts as well...theres some in every crowd.
Im unimpressed.
Again:
http://martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1408537&postcount=255
You're missing the point..
While it's entirely possible to plot to wire the buildings for controlled demoilition, using the phone lines or other means, it would have had to have started before the 1993 bombing in order to work. The 1993 bombing, BTW, while a different group, is demonstrative of the capabilities and planning of the elements we are dealing with. Osama bin Laden's initial denial of al Qaeda's responsibility for 9/11 is also indicative of their operational planning and capability: it was planned and carried out by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and bin Laden did not know. To coordinate the flights with the detonation of bombs would have been superfluous: the math tells me that the planes were enough. It doesn't have to be convoluted, complex or anything but what it seems to be on the face of it, with the evidence of the senses that all are capable of seeing: the planes flew into those buildings-impact and fire set up conditions for structural failure; the buildings fell, with debris falling onto WTC 7; WTC 7 burned for hours with no firefighting, and collapsed from fire and stuctural damage.
You really don't need a forensic examination of the debris to reach this conclusion, though it would have been nice;the math should be enough for anyone-especially a science teacher, John. Who's being conginitively dissonant? :lfao:
A forensic examination probably wouldn't be enough to keep conspiranuts from coming up with some alternate scenario, anyway, and I'm surprised we're not talking about missiles, or holograms, or something equally ludicrous.
Archangel M
Senior Master
"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."
-Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
-Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Before you type something, you should look in the mirror and ask maybe if you are doing the same? Perhaps, what you see is merely projection of what you are doing. If you care to think about what Palmer's testimony means, you might understand why rational people would have questions.
If you don't think you have cognitive dissonance about an emotionally charged issue, you have cognitive dissonance.
Wrong about everything! LOL! I thought I was the King of Hyperbole!
If there were crazy people who supported the official story, would that discount it?
Archangel M
Senior Master
No. You are definitely wrong about Pamers statement. Taking a specific transmission about what one man saw in one specific spot and extrapolating that into "evidence" of some sort of conspiracy is what you truthers do.
If you create a computer model with the conclusion already decided upon, have you actually tested anything? Or have you merely confirmed your own bias?
Similar threads
