9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
er, can we get back on the columns? There's an infinite things we could disagree about - let's try to actually agree on something, or at least agree on exactly what we disagree about.

How much of the plane do you think would need "shredding" before the exterior columns would break? How much mass would remain to enter the building through the hole? How fast would it be going?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
er, can we get back on the columns? There's an infinite things we could disagree about - let's try to actually agree on something, or at least agree on exactly what we disagree about.

How much of the plane do you think would need "shredding" before the exterior columns would break? How much mass would remain to enter the building through the hole? How fast would it be going?
There's no way to tell 'how much plane' etc. But you have stated before, while discussing this, that the plane was reduced to small parts on impact with the building. You even cited this when talking about the Purdue lie/simulation, after passing through the facade, 'a split second later the aircraft is reduced to mangled lines', something like that. Mangled lines don't destroy core columns - an engine might destroy one, or two at a push. The rest is nonsense. Like the good Dr Lt Col said - the collapse of the wtc buildings defies both probability and the laws of physics. And that is what is known, quite simply, as right.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There's no way to tell 'how much plane' etc.
If there's no way of knowing, then why is what happened in any way inconsistent with expectations?

You know that the columns would break after "shredding" a certain amount of plane. So why not 10% of the plane. You admit you have no way of knowing how much, so you must then concede that 90% of the plane could have entered the building intact. Which is also what the videos and simulations seem to show.

Sooooo...... what's the problem again? Where do we disagee?
 

Spongebob

Active Member
If there's no way of knowing, then why is what happened in any way inconsistent with expectations?

You know that the columns would break after "shredding" a certain amount of plane. So why not 10% of the plane. You admit you have no way of knowing how much, so you must then concede that 90% of the plane could have entered the building intact. Which is also what the videos and simulations seem to show.

Sooooo...... what's the problem again? Where do we disagee?

Gone quiet? I think your reason and logic has left poor lee feeling a little frustrated?

I get the impression that lee favours the "dustified steel" (DEW) theory?
Most of the DEW theorists also support the no-plane theory.

It would be honest and helpful if his/this position were confirmed or denied...
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Lets look at the size of the impact hole in the North tower:

nistwtc1hole2.jpg

What could possibly have made this shaped hole? The dimensions match those of a 767.
The gaps (you can see the broken columns) appear large enough to allow what size of 'shredded' plane debris to enter wtc1?
 

Attachments

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
If there's no way of knowing, then why is what happened in any way inconsistent with expectations?

You know that the columns would break after "shredding" a certain amount of plane. So why not 10% of the plane. You admit you have no way of knowing how much, so you must then concede that 90% of the plane could have entered the building intact. Which is also what the videos and simulations seem to show.

Sooooo...... what's the problem again? Where do we disagee?
Why not 17.34%, or 19.2, or 37.9....

So I must then concede....must I? This is a strange way to argue.

Sooooo...... what's the problem again? Where do we disagee?

Well, it's like this: The fact is: I am not required to have a theory. There is already a theory in place. A theory which has been accepted as the official narrative. You think it is reasonable. I do not. Your theory is the theory, the definitive theory. The theory stands there to be either proven or falsified. If I defend an innocent defendant, I am neither required to come up with an explanation of events, nor produce the guilty party in order to defend the defendant. It's very simple. It is for you to prove the case for the prosecution. The burden of proof is for you and your theory.


And: In this case it requires the evidence to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that 'al-qaeda' with Osama bin Laden as their leader, executed the entire 9/11 attack alone. This is also pertinent to the title of this thread.

That you 'don't want to talk about that', speaks volumes.

I think we've spent quite enough time discussing the aircraft striking the building. Positions are well advanced and there is no agreement.

Why not tell us what these five 'independent' reports are, then we can see if any of them provide the proof you claim. The proof required is that 'Al Qaeda' with Osama bin laden as their commander, carried out the 9/11 attacks alone.
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Staying with the North tower there is a more unexplainable problem for anyone proposing a no-plane theory.
The diagram and the image below show the last 8 columns (where the wing hit) are all intact.

568873100745.jpg

472982c57520.jpg

How could this clearly visible impact damage have occurred any other way than by a plane wing?
The steel columns are not cut by the wings (exactly as you would expect to see) the wing tip (red dot) also shows only impact damage. How were these impact marks produced?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Lets look at the size of the impact hole in the North tower:



What could possibly have made this shaped hole? The dimensions match those of a 767.
The gaps (you can see the broken columns) appear large enough to allow what size of 'shredded' plane debris to enter wtc1?
Perhaps this might interest you, it's from a previous post - Mick said this:

lee, you spent many pages basically pushing the "no-plane" theory, and ignoring all the evidence, refusing to discuss the actual science of kinetic energy, and then as a last resort casting dispersions on some scientists.

And I replied: Is that right? I think you will find that this is what is known, scientifically, as a lie. Here is a quote from the thread 9/11: An Inside Job?


Originally Posted by Mick


If not, is there a web page that states something close to whet you actually believe happened?



Reply by lee h oswald: We're back to that 'belief' thing again. I'm telling you what I think about what we do know about what appeared to happen - the bits that aren't overly contentious; eg. that three very large buildings collapsed; two were hit by commercial airliners; the official explanation is a document for reference, as are the 'physical' photographic and eyewitness testimonial based references. I am not as sure as you appear to be about the reality of what happened. The answer to 'what do you believe happened?' for me, is: I don't know. You certainly appear to have a strong alignment with official and mainstream sources I don't share. Maybe the matter is as much personal political and psychological as it is scientific...what do you reckon? END QUOTE//

Now it is clear for anyone to see what I really did say. Page 3, post no. 82 to be precise. If anyone can find, in the entire thread of 14 pages, a contradiction of this position, please indicate where.

It's not that difficult to understand, is it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Spongebob

Active Member
Lee - I made it clear I am done with you.

My (open) question was about what could have caused the impact damage (which is visible in the above images) if it were not caused by a plane wing...


Until you stop the obfuscation and answer Micks questions, your constant side stepping is only weakening your position further.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Lee - I made it clear I am done with you.

My (open) question was about what could have caused the impact damage (which is visible in the above images) if it were not caused by a plane wing...


Until you stop the obfuscation and answer Micks questions, your constant side stepping is only weakening your position further.
Lee - I made it clear I am done with you. Good.

Until you stop the obfuscation and answer Micks questions, your constant side stepping is only weakening your position further. And I thought you'd 'done' with me. Have you actually read any amount of this thread? It appears that you can't have. Mick is only insisting on going over and over the same ground because he doesn't want to answer the more important question of Burden of proof.

Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report, and do you think it is an accurate reflection of what happened that day?
That you are a faith-based believer in the official story is favourite, but you probably haven't even read the document. I'm just guessing, but it's an educated guess. What of it?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Here's some questions need answering:

• Why did more than 100 FDNY first responders describe, in great detail, the sounds of explosions and flashes of light that they saw and heard at the onset, and during, the collapse? Why did we not know about these 10,000 pages of FDNY "oral history" evidence until August, 2005 – and only then after a court order for their release? FDNY's own Chief of Safety, Albert Turi, and FDNY's nationally recognized Chief, Ray Downey, the "premiere collapse expert in the country" according to a fellow chief, both spoke of the presence of explosives in the Towers prior to their failures. More than 100 testimonies referring to multiple, violent explosions were ignored by the 9/11 Commission, NIST and FEMA.
• What was the energy source, and through what mechanism was it applied, that pulverized 400,000 cubic yards of concrete into a fine powder that blanketed Manhattan? Calculations show that the energy requirement for this was greater than the available gravitational potential energy of the structures. Is this the same energy source that is responsible for the complete obliteration of more than 1,100 human bodies that were never found?
• How were massive structural steel members hurled from the Twin Towers at 70 mph – some of them landing 600 feet away?
• Why were most windows within 400 feet of each tower blown out?
• Why were virtually no floors found at the base of either Twin Tower? There were originally 110 floors – each of them one acre in size. What explains the disappearance of 220 acres of four-inch thick concrete and steel decking?
• Why were there explosive ejections of dust & gases (squibs) 20, 40 and 60 stories below the rapidly descending "collapse" in each tower? These can be seen in many publicly available videos and show rapidly ejecting pulverized building materials – over 200 feet a second.
• How did the elevated building mass destroy 80,000 tons of structural steel at near free-fall speed , and with such radial symmetry? Given the asymmetrical structural and fire damage and the tendency of any disorder to grow over time (as described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the falling building sections should have "rolled off" of the intact sections below, resulting in only partial collapses.
• Given that open-air jet fuel fires and normal office fires both burn at a maximum of around 1,500° F., and the melting point of steel is around 2,700° F., what thermal energy source produced the tons of molten metal observed flowing out of the South Tower shortly before its collapse – and also seen for weeks after 9/11/01 in the basements of the Twin Towers and Building 7 by numerous witnesses, including the WTC structural engineer, Leslie Robertson.
• What explains the chemical evidence of thermite , an incendiary material found on the ends of steel beams? In Appendix C of its BPAT Report, FEMA documented that "evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure." This is clearly not a feature of gravitational collapse, or jet fuel or office fires.
• What is the source of the billions of microspheres consisting of previously molten iron in all the pulverized concrete of the World Trade Center? The United States Geological Survey, in its "Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust Report," and RJ Lee Group, Inc., in its December 2003 WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology, both document these once-molten drops of metal without explanation. These microspheres also contain the chemical signature of thermite, an incendiary material used to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.
• Why did Building 7 start its sudden and uniform collapse at an acceleration rate nearly that of a body in free fall? Video analysis shows the upper portion of the structure accelerating at the maximum rate gravity allows. This can only mean that the structure below offered no resistance. What mechanism can account for the simultaneous failure of the critical number and distribution of columns required to produce this rate of acceleration? NIST now attributes the catastrophic collapse of Building 7 to "normal office fires," with little to no contribution from falling debris or diesel fuel. At this suggestion by NIST, are we to suddenly accept that our understanding of fire science, materials and structural behavior has been deeply flawed? The American Institute of Architects has steadfastly resisted changes to the building codes after 9/11!

And once more: So, where does the burden of proof lie in this case?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Gone quiet? I think your reason and logic has left poor lee feeling a little frustrated?

I get the impression that lee favours the "dustified steel" (DEW) theory?
Most of the DEW theorists also support the no-plane theory.

It would be honest and helpful if his/this position were confirmed or denied...

Is that right?

So, is it ok with you that evidence for the 9/11 Commission report was garnered through torture? It would be honest and helpful to confirm your position on this. Are you even aware that this is the case? you can research it if you want - here's a clue: Khalid Sheik Mohammed, waterboarding, 183 times. Does that work for you?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned


Here's a picture of the North Tower going down.





Now, would you say that this looks like a 'progressive collapse'?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think we are done here lee. When we finally narrow something down that we can actually look at scientifically (how much of the plane went through the hole), you then start saying we now somehow have the burden of proving the entire 9/11 commission report, and cutting-and-pasting large lists of truther mythology which you then demand we answer.

Every card you have is an ace. So as soon as we get close to showing one is a joker, you just wave a bunch more in our faces.

I don't think you are are interested in science. You are convinced of your position, and nothing can make you budge one iota. This thread has gone on long enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top