Jump to content
KenDyerJr

911 Was An Inside Job

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

 

As ive said - I understand how the physics works - how steel can lose integrity - how overloading can result in structural failure - how a building could collapse due to damage and fire etc.

 

As regards the towers themselves - I dont know enough about the materials - forces and stresses involved to work out myself if that's what happened or whether as you say its implausible.

 

I will be honest its not so much that I accept the official explanation so much as I cannot get the alternatives to work - they make less sense to me -

 

I will refer to my classic argument - how do you position explosives and where the aircraft hits - yet not have them simply destroyed by fire and impact. How can you be sure the aircraft hits where you want - It all involves to much chance for my taste.

 

And yes I know what you are going to say - despite my arguments about what's scientifically possible - my opinion on the tower collapse really comes down to little more than which explanation do I feel makes most sense.

 

 

Have you heard of a guided missile and how accurate they can be? why not a larger plane?

 

A building cannot fall due to fire, no have in the past or will in the future, you will never see this happening again.

 

The thing is you don't know what I am going to say next.

 

All the data is in plain sight but its not the official covered up story.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, The Apprentice said:

 

Have you heard of a guided missile and how accurate they can be? why not a larger plane?

 

A building cannot fall due to fire, no have in the past or will in the future, you will never see this happening again.

 

The thing is you don't know what I am going to say next.

 

All the data is in plain sight but its not the official covered up story.

 

 

Accuracy is meters for something like cruise - In this context a few meters is a floor or 2 - even that small margin of error could be to much

 

Laser guided obviously much more accurate - i will  have to think about if that's technically feasible  and practicable -

1) people would have noticed an aircraft designating the target  which means self designating or someone on the ground - these have there own problems.

2) Smoke obscuring 2nd aircraft  - Lasers are crap in clouds and smoke.

3) Aircraft agility

 

IR guidance again another - but again the smoke and fire could screw up the 2nd aircraft

 

1 hour ago, The Apprentice said:

A building cannot fall due to fire, no have in the past or will in the future, you will never see this happening again.

 

I beg to differ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf27GGZYT2s

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sfiUUHKikA - This one I thought was from a film - until I realised it was real news.

 

So yes - buildings can and do collapse due to fire - At the same time Grenfel and others havent.  I can only conclude how its built is of more significance.

So Back to my ESB point - it surviving doesn't prove the towers should and neither of the above examples collapsing prove its right the towers collapsed

 

1 hour ago, The Apprentice said:

The thing is you don't know what I am going to say next.

 

True - but ive never claimed otherwise -to the contrary its the fact you dont just repeat the usual tired tropes I find interesting.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Eldnah said:

Accuracy is meters for something like cruise - In this context a few meters is a floor or 2 - even that small margin of error could be to much

 

Laser guided obviously much more accurate - i will  have to think about if that's technically feasible  and practicable -

1) people would have noticed an aircraft designating the target  which means self designating or someone on the ground - these have there own problems.

2) Smoke obscuring 2nd aircraft  - Lasers are crap in clouds and smoke.

3) Aircraft agility

 

IR guidance again another - but again the smoke and fire could screw up the 2nd aircraft

 

 

I beg to differ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf27GGZYT2s

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sfiUUHKikA - This one I thought was from a film - until I realised it was real news.

 

So yes - buildings can and do collapse due to fire - At the same time Grenfel and others havent.  I can only conclude how its built is of more significance.

So Back to my ESB point - it surviving doesn't prove the towers should and neither of the above examples collapsing prove its right the towers collapsed

 

 

True - but ive never claimed otherwise -to the contrary its the fact you dont just repeat the usual tired tropes I find interesting.  

 

 

Typo, No steel structural tower has ever fallen due to fire before,

 

The video and the building in Tehran you added is not of the same type of construction thus cannot be used as an example.

 

Here is a steel framed tower that never fell and what the WTC would have looked like if no explosives were used, the lower larger beam sizes would easily support the upper levels.

 

 

Here is one that engulfed many floors and burned all night and never fell

 

 

You mentioned lasers, for guidance, no,

 

I would say a honing becon, same kind of tech we use today in our sat nat devices.

Edited by The Apprentice
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, The Apprentice said:

 

This was a multi take down, bottom first then top.

 

The huge footing pillars and sub levels had to be taken away first, otherwise the lighter steel sections from above would simply pile up on top of them and leave a much larger pile at the end, this did not happen, so where did all that tonnage go to,below ground level that's where, packed in nice and tight like a tin of sardines.

 

If you watch how the building comes apart you can see that it is not pancaking, it is peeling outwards, the outer fascade was used as a guide, a giant funnel to channel the debris down the middle, without its core columns, this it does until the outer fascade begins to fill to capacity and then open up like a giant banana being peeled open.

 

This is why very few squibs were seen, the demolition devices were at the very centre of the take down, like liquid steel flowing down and into a giant funnel.

 

I know who it is, he has already lost the debate, because he is not of a practical nature and adds lots of conjecture to try to make me think he knows what he is talking about, where mechanical engineering is concerned I have many T shirts and can back up what I say in an instant, I do not need to google for the answer.

 

Stick around, bite your tongue and watch me dismantle him piece by piece.

 

 

 

  :classic_laugh:

 

"Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"  -  Mark Twain

 

Take for instance, someone who will "debate" until the cows come home despite the overwhelming evidence in this thread that is contrary to the official verdict, and at least casts a legal "reasonable doubt" to nearly every aspect of it.

 

Buildings are made of steel and concrete so they won't collapse in fire.  There was not nearly enough heat to melt or weaken the steel at the blast site, let alone many floors below..  This is evidenced by the living people standing near the blast site.   This very rare video still available on YouTube appears to have escaped the algorithm monster, and it's enough in less than three minutes to lock and close the debate about three buildings and how they came down.

 

 

(But I think I'll sit back and continue to watch the "master" at work.  Great job.  Feeding only encourages.  Ego is a bitch eh? :classic_laugh:)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ronisron said:

 

  :classic_laugh:

 

"Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"  -  Mark Twain

 

Take for instance, someone who will "debate" until the cows come home despite the overwhelming evidence in this thread that is contrary to the official verdict, and at least casts a legal "reasonable doubt" to nearly every aspect of it.

 

Buildings are made of steel and concrete so they won't collapse in fire.  There was not nearly enough heat to melt or weaken the steel at the blast site, let alone many floors below..  This is evidenced by the living people standing near the blast site.   This very rare video still available on YouTube appears to have escaped the algorithm monster, and it's enough in less than three minutes to lock and close the debate about three buildings and how they came down.

 

 

(But I think I'll sit back and continue to watch the "master" at work.  Great job.  Feeding only encourages.  Ego is a bitch eh? :classic_laugh:)

 

Thanks for the video, it was the one I was looking for,

 

In it they actually show how it was done, and how my thesis explains, that it was not your standard demolition, but a double take down, bottom up and top down all inside the outer fascade and funnel.

 

If you look at the snapshot I have saved you will see the core tugging on the outer walls, this is what I think happened, the core was removed first leaving the outer walls intact to act as a giant funnel or tube, and just before and during the sub level concrete floors as in the bombing in 93 were cleared to contain the stronger lower columns now beginning to fill that void.

 

Then as the central space filled with debris the outer fascade controlled the bulk of the building long enough to stop it spreading outwards nearer the top, then by the half way point it begins peeling outwards like a giant banana as the debris could not be contained and further, this is the only sure way to mask what was going on inside and at the core.

 

 

core removal jpg 911.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a film about the Marriot Hotel, and how 14 people survived both towers destroying it, there are also some pictures of the bombing in 93 that is said to have taken place under the hotel and not the tower, a picture taken by one of the hotel guests of the second plane.

 

 

 

93 wtc.jpg

wtc plane.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Apprentice said:

The video and the building in Tehran you added is not of the same type of construction thus cannot be used as an example.

 

 

May I refer you to this  - Paying particular attention to the bold

 

19 hours ago, Eldnah said:

So yes - buildings can and do collapse due to fire - At the same time Grenfel and others havent.  I can only conclude how its built is of more significance.

So Back to my ESB point - it surviving doesn't prove the towers should and neither of the above examples collapsing prove its right the towers collapsed

 

In other words I had already agreed that point.

 

But since we agree that towers of different structure collapsing is not relevant to the tower collapse - we must equally conclude that where buildings of different structure have not collapsed (ESB) this is not relevant to the tower collapse either.

Edited by Eldnah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

 

May I refer you to this  - Paying particular attention to the bold

 

 

In other words I had already agreed that point.

 

But since we agree that towers of different structure collapsing is not relevant to the tower collapse - we must equally conclude that where buildings of different structure have not collapsed (ESB) this is not relevant to the tower collapse either.

 

If you can show me another steel framed building that has completely collapsed beyond its ground level and below, I will be very grateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Apprentice said:

 

If you can show me another steel framed building that has completely collapsed beyond its ground level and below, I will be very grateful.

 

Im not nor ever had claiming there is one - edit - I think ive made it clear I wouldn't know one if I was sat in it - (a steel framed building - not a collapsed one obviously )-

Lets be clear you said tower blocks collapsing due to fire - which is what I responded to -  citing  examples of some which collapsed and some which didn't

In all cases I stated because of different constructions involved none could necessarily** be used to prove the Towers collapse was fire related or not -

 

However - I made only 2 claims structure related

1) Buildings of different construction surviving or not proves nothing regarding whether the towers  should have done either they are apples and oranges. So ESB surviving is irrelevant - as is Tehran building collapsing -( I havent looked myself but im happy to accept your word its different construction.)

2)Steel loses integrity before it melts.

 

Despite going round in circles - because the general points above got lost in Tower specific chaff - were in agreement on those points.

 

The rest of the chaff is simply my justification for accepting the report - and your justification for rejecting it - were not going to agree on that -  I dont dispute the science of your theory - I dont say it could not be bought down like that. -

But until I get a compelling argument as to why they would do something that massively increased risk for comparatively little gain - I just cannot see it being done it fails my WHY Bother test.

 

Why would the carry out a false flag / allow an attack to go ahead - passes the test

 

 

**and that caveat is there only because I do not know the construction involved -

Edited by Eldnah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

But until I get a compelling argument as to why they would do something that massively increased risk for comparatively little gain - I just cannot see it being done it fails my WHY Bother test.

 

"comparatively little gain " .... jesus fucking christ!

 

Really?

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

 

Im not nor ever had claiming there is one - edit - I think ive made it clear I wouldn't know one if I was sat in it - (a steel framed building - not a collapsed one obviously )-

Lets be clear you said tower blocks collapsing due to fire - which is what I responded to -  citing  examples of some which collapsed and some which didn't

In all cases I stated because of different constructions involved none could necessarily** be used to prove the Towers collapse was fire related or not -

 

However - I made only 2 claims structure related

 

1) Buildings of different construction surviving or not proves nothing regarding whether the towers  should have done either they are apples and oranges. So ESB surviving is irrelevant - as is Tehran building collapsing -( I havent looked myself but im happy to accept your word its different construction.)

2)Steel loses integrity before it melts.

 

Despite going round in circles - because the general points above got lost in Tower specific chaff - were in agreement on those points.

 

The rest of the chaff is simply my justification for accepting the report - and your justification for rejecting it - were not going to agree on that -  I dont dispute the science of your theory - I dont say it could not be bought down like that. -

But until I get a compelling argument as to why they would do something that massively increased risk for comparatively little gain - I just cannot see it being done it fails my WHY Bother test.

 

Why would the carry out a false flag / allow an attack to go ahead - passes the test

 

 

**and that caveat is there only because I do not know the construction involved -

 

I am not saying you said there has been a building made of a solid steel frame that has completely collapsed into its own footprint,

 

I am asking if you can find such a report.

 

Your going around in circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ink said:

 

"comparatively little gain " .... jesus fucking christ!

 

Really?

 

Indeed

Most of the deaths were either before they collapsed - or would have been killed anyway by fire

There was already the massive shock value in aircraft being hijacked and used as missiles

The Towers falling or not doesn't change who got the blame - nor would it have affected the outrage and anger felt by many and the using of that to justify subsequent actions. (The War on Terror)

 

So yes because the aims would be achieved even if the towers survived - It seems a wasted effort with significantly increased risk - to then conduct a controlled demolition -

Nothing anyone has ever written has challenged that - If only because nobody ever tries to put forward a reasoned argument - the just disparage anyone not on message.

 

Apprentice has put forward a reasonable argument for using unmanned aircraft - I remain unconvinced of the feasibility - but the logic of his position is sound

Ive repeatedly asked why do it - never been answered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

Indeed

Most of the deaths were either before they collapsed - or would have been killed anyway by fire.

 

There was already the massive shock value in aircraft being hijacked and used as missiles.

 

The Towers falling or not doesn't change who got the blame - nor would it have affected the outrage and anger felt by many and the using of that to justify subsequent actions.

 

(The War on Terror)

 

So yes because the aims would be achieved even if the towers survived - It seems a wasted effort with significantly increased risk - to then conduct a controlled demolition -

Nothing anyone has ever written has challenged that - If only because nobody ever tries to put forward a reasoned argument - the just disparage anyone not on message.

 

Apprentice has put forward a reasonable argument for using unmanned aircraft - I remain unconvinced of the feasibility - but the logic of his position is sound

Ive repeatedly asked why do it - never been answered

 

Why do it, because it was a test for using the same technology later.

 

My logic is open to anything, this is how we learn.

 

But the owner would not get his 7 billion reward if they stood, only an even bigger clean up bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

Indeed

 

So 2.3 Trillion dollars and the 'implied' right to go to war on other nations people (killing 100's of thousands if not millions) and making a massive profit from arms.... increasing surveillance of domestic populations and expanding the central banking system .... is nothing but 'indeed'!

 

sad as fuck :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, The Apprentice said:

 

I am not saying you said there has been a building made of a solid steel frame that has completely collapsed into its own footprint,

 

I am asking if you can find such a report.

 

Your going around in circles.

 

I think you will find its you taking it round in circles

 

Ive never claimed a building constructed like the towers has done so - Ive clearly stated I havent looked at other buildings constructions

 

You keep asking for evidence of something that may not have happened - and you now seem to be doing this to avoid agreeing that dissimilar buildings not collapsing is irrelevant to the towers despite the fact you've dismissed non similar buildings collapsing as irrelevant.

 

2 Days and that's the about the only point ive been trying to make and you've gone all round the houses rather than actually say you agree with what you knows true (because you've stated repeatedly dissimilar construction = irrelevant in one sense s logically it has to be the case in the other)

 

 

How about it = I will raise the 2 points again see if you can simply say you  agree with them

1) dissimilar structures surviving (or collapsing )proves nothing

2) Steel will weaken before it melts -  This does not mean that you agree this happened in the towers -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ink said:

 

So 2.3 Trillion dollars and the 'implied' right to go to war on other nations people (killing 100's of thousands if not millions) and making a massive profit from arms.... increasing surveillance of domestic populations and expanding the central banking system .... is nothing but 'indeed'!

 

sad as fuck :(

 

Again - that would be achieved even if the towers remained standing - but feel free to continue in your manner of dismissing posts you clearly didn't bother reading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eldnah said:

Again - that would be achieved even if the towers remained standing

 

Again .... No It Wouldn't!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Apprentice said:

But the owner would not get his 7 billion reward if they stood, only an even bigger clean up bill.

 

Not so sure about that ( the 2nd part )

 

1) I seem to recall it was the case he only got half the value because the insurance only covered the value of one building collapsing.

2) The Insurance company picks up the repair bills - not the owner so arguably he is no worse off either way - unless of course the insurance would only pay for the repairs to one building at a time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ink said:

 

Again .... No It Wouldn't!

 

Why wouldn't it

 

You see all you are doing is saying im wrong - youre not providing an argument as to why im wrong.

 

Worse youre dismissing in a very ignorant manner -  See my post where I said enough was done to justify the war on terror without bringing them down - you branding that opinion as sick because id ignored the war on terror as justification. Despite it being the whole point of my post.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Apprentice said:

Here is a film about the Marriot Hotel, and how 14 people survived both towers destroying it, there are also some pictures of the bombing in 93 that is said to have taken place under the hotel and not the tower, a picture taken by one of the hotel guests of the second plane.

 

 

 

93 wtc.jpg

wtc plane.jpg

 

Further research has shown that the 93 bombing did indeed take place under one of the towers, not below the Marriot hotel as the film I added earlier says it did.

 

 

 

World Trade Center bombing of 1993

Police officers and firefighters reviewing the damage after a truck bomb exploded in the parking garage under the World Trade Center complex in New York City, February 1993.

 

 

 

 

 

firefighters-Police-officers-damage-parking-garage-truck-February-1993.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eldnah said:

youre not providing an argument as to why im wrong. 

 

 

"So 2.3 Trillion dollars and the 'implied' right to go to war on other nations people (killing 100's of thousands if not millions) and making a massive profit from arms.... increasing surveillance of domestic populations and expanding the central banking system .... is nothing but 'indeed'! "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

 

Not so sure about that ( the 2nd part )

 

1) I seem to recall it was the case he only got half the value because the insurance only covered the value of one building collapsing.

 

 

 

 

7 billion dollars.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ink said:

 

 

"So 2.3 Trillion dollars and the 'implied' right to go to war on other nations people (killing 100's of thousands if not millions) and making a massive profit from arms.... increasing surveillance of domestic populations and expanding the central banking system .... is nothing but 'indeed'! "

 

That's not an argument as to why im wrong -  citing what I say would be achieved without dropping the towers does not demonstrate the towers had to drop.

 

Weve agreed what it was used to justify - Ive said the towers didn't need to drop - you say they did, Ive asked why - you havent provided an answer as to why it wouldn't be achieved if they stayed standing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eldnah said:

 

That's not an argument as to why im wrong -  citing what I say would be achieved without dropping the towers does not demonstrate the towers had to drop.

 

Weve agreed what it was used to justify - Ive said the towers didn't need to drop - you say they did, Ive asked why - you havent provided an answer as to why it wouldn't be achieved if they stayed standing.

 

 

 

 

7 billion dollars.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Apprentice said:

 

 

7 billion dollars.jpg

 

Wifes watching something so I cant play it at moment - will watch later

 

To satisfy immediate curiosity

Was I correct in that he only got a half payout? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×