[Aemilius]

In a society of lies telling the truth is an act of treason.

It is an act of patriotism when you're defending your country for honor.

And we mustn't forget academic silence, the most despicable form of betrayal and intellectual cowardice imaginable. I would rather shoot myself than trade shoes with any of the people mentioned below.

Interesting RD (hope you're doing well)....

No matter how absurd the theory, as long as it's wrapped in conspiracy, the paranoid will accept it , as their brain is constantly in conspiracy-theory-mode ^[7], a manifestation of which is the phenomenon colloquially-known as crank magnetism.   

Surely there's a more suitable forum for tkadm30, e.g. Above Top Secret , you'll find kindred-spirits there , but not much logic.

 

....but it doesn't work. My simple easy to understand graphical analysis of WTC7 that definitively concludes intentionally placed energetic materials brought down the building has been sitting there empirically unassailed in any way shape or form (with over 50,000 views) for about a year and a half and to date none of you (Dr. Calverd, Bored chemist, Dr. Smith, Don_1, PmbPhy, CliffordK, JP, evan_au or any other members here) can seem to manage to even address it let alone break it or show any aspect or feature of it to be incorrect by simply copying and pasting even one of the many simple animations (formatting guided by Dr. Calverd) along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text that says anything like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario (target system) being compared to the control (source system) would not play out as depicted/described and here's why...." followed by any kind of simple cogently elucidated explanation of some perceived error or needed correction, nor have any of you provided any other more plausible empirically verifiable explanation for the buildings videographically documented destruction that supercedes it.... yet here you are, continuing (at least it appears to me) to personally attack people, make derisive remarks and post insulting links that include references to people being cranks, mental instability, paranoia, nutty conspiracy theorists etc.
 
The analysis (of WTC7) is either correct or it's not, it's just as simple as that. If no one can break it or show some aspect of it to be incorrect in the above described manner.... then it is in fact proponents of the official narrative like you that are actually exhibiting all the mental defects you are attributing to others here.... it is proponents of the official narrative who continue to irrationally argue against Isaac Newtons immutable Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body.... it is proponents of the official narrative who flatly refuse to recognize the veracity of a simple high school level graphical empirical analysis.... it is proponents of the official narrative who are in complete denial as to what really happened and who delusionally continue to refuse to accept reality.... and it is proponents of the official narrative who revoltingly continue to maliciously attack people with cowardly name calling and invented stigmatizing labels like "mentally unstable conspiracy theorist nut case" amidst the endless repetition of the same suspiciously formulaic unscientific nonsense mixed with insults over and over again without ever providing any empirically verifiable support for their point of view or any rationally structured objection to the empirically verifiable data cited by others in support of their views either.

That's the definition of mental instability my friend, and unless or until you or someone else meets me over there and clearly refutes some aspect of that analysis, it remains correct.... and as long as it remains correct, it is in fact proponents of the official narrative that are the nutty mentally unstable tin foil hat science denier cranks....

WTC7 - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A complete Prima Facie Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion arrived at by Process of Elimination

....so come on and bring it. I challenge any and all of you, come on and prove me to be an idiot.

[Jolly]

In a society of lies telling the truth is an act of treason.

It is an act of patriotism when you're defending your country for honor.

It's all a matter of position, If it is ever proven as a fact that the CIA did carry out 9/11 I am sure they would argue, that carrying out the attacks and supressing people that tried to reveal them was a Patriotic act, as they did so for American power to be preserved and increased in the world and compared to some of the other rather horrific things the CIA has engaged in over the last 60 years; thats been the patriot way for a while. 

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.

And yet you live in a society of deception, that's got soo bad now that only 6% of Americans actually trust the Media. If it's un-patriotic to lie, how many patroits actually sit in positions of power in America today?

[Jolly]

In a society of lies telling the truth is an act of treason.

It is an act of patriotism when you're defending your country for honor.

And we mustn't forget academic silence, the most despicable form of betrayal and intellectual cowardice imaginable....

Well even Noam Chomsky is rather terrible in this regard I quote him "Even if it's true,(that 9/11 was an inside Job) Who cares, it's a distraction from the other issues happening in the world" No joke he said that. Who cares.

[tkadm30]

Well even Noam Chomsky is rather terrible in this regard I quote him "Even if it's true,(that 9/11 was an inside Job) Who cares, it's a distraction from the other issues happening in the world" No joke he said that. Who cares.

History cares. How 9/11 will be teached to your kids will make a difference. How 9/11 or the emergence of artificial terrorism affects our life and our ways of thinking is critical to common knowledge. The suppression of truth by popular propaganda is an evidence that the media industry is a proponent of the official narrative. 

[Jolly]

Well even Noam Chomsky is rather terrible in this regard I quote him "Even if it's true,(that 9/11 was an inside Job) Who cares, it's a distraction from the other issues happening in the world" No joke he said that. Who cares.

History cares. How 9/11 will be teached to your kids will make a difference. How 9/11 or the emergence of artificial terrorism affects our life and our ways of thinking is critical to common knowledge. The suppression of truth by popular propaganda is an evidence that the media industry is a proponent of the official narrative. 

Does history care? History is a subject it doesnt really have feelings or emotions. Besides it's generally written by the winners, hence much of "history" isnt true. Even today in schools across America kids are taught that columbus found America, that isnt actually true the vicking were there long before, that the American civil war was about slavery again not true, hence the offical narrative about 9/11 will be taught to children also as things stand, and 9/11 truth will be a conspriacy theory out in the wings. 

While Chomsky says "Who cares, it's a distraction from other issues" one thing we can say is that; if 9/11 was carried out by the American security services, it was done, with an agenda, and that agenda(where not achieved) can only continue, while the false narrative does, and many of the current issues could relate to that agenda. If the truth about 9/11 shows it was an inside job, possibly the tackits steming from it would halt with it or change atleast. But the agenda would still be present. leaves the bigger question of what is that agenda? and why would those behind 9/11 if it was an inside job go to such extremes? If they have as a result of the attacks already achieved what they wanted, then it matters less if the truth comes out, save for the issues of trust and prestiege and ofcourse all the costs from citizens taking them to court and other legal issues that would come about: loss of international respect, but thats for America directly and any other nation involved, closer to home many in the security services, politics and other areas might find themselves out of work :*( or even worse actually in Prison(Imagine that).

The media has always been a proponent of the official narrative, that's the medias main function.

[Jolly]

Artificial terrorism: FBI behind terrorist attacks www.youtube.com /watch?v=jCMvmhWTivs

[Jolly]

"15 Years Later, Physics Journal Concludes: All 3 WTC Towers Collapsed Due to Controlled Demolition"
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/physics-study-911-controlled-demolition/#eD5z0sA5RIYqmMRU.99

[Bored chemist]

  What the hell is wrong with you? Don't you know how to think clearly? All of those assertions have more than one interpretations. Claims made by others are always made with the impression that there is no other possible way to see it and that's how conspiracy theories stay alive. And there's never been one of you who'd even consider that it might just be possible. Also there's not one of you who would consider that the other person on the opposite argument isn't as intelligent as you are or can't put the pieces together as well as you have.

It's poor thinking skills that results in these conspiracy theories. I've seen it too many times to count. 

Let's hear you address reply #2.

OK
Reply 2 said "If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit.  Why don't you show us why it's wrong?"
You have not put forward a theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[Jolly]

Happy Valentines

[Bored chemist]

Very cute- but remember- it doesn't have to melt- just go a bit weak at the knees.

Also, burning jet fuel has an adiabatic flame temperature of about 2100C
The melting point of steel is somewhere around 1500C
It's simply a lie to say that a jet fuel fire can't melt steel.
Given that it simply isn't true, why are people still going on about it.
Could it be that they don't have any real basis for their claims?

[Jolly]

Very cute- but remember- it doesn't have to melt- just go a bit weak at the knees.

Also, burning jet fuel has an adiabatic flame temperature of about 2100C

Which could only be achieved if there is NO heat loss to the surroundings.

The melting point of steel is somewhere around 1500C
It's simply a lie to say that a jet fuel fire can't melt steel.

Ok but the Plane hit imbetween 92nd to 98th floors on WTC1 So is a Fire above the 92nd Floor(heat rises) able to Melt the steal in the foundations and all the other 90 floors imbetween? In your professional oppinion?

Building 7 was not hit by a plane- had no Jet fuel- explination?

Given that it simply isn't true, why are people still going on about it.

Maybe because in certain controlled cercumstances you can get Fuel to exteremly high tempertures, but that does not account for what happened.

Could it be that they don't have any real basis for their claims?

Do you? Although it´s true they are not your claims- You are just following the Conspiracy the Bush administarion put out.

The 911 comminsion found no evidence of Explosives during their investigation, But what also interesting is that they did not look for explosives during thier investigation.

[Bored chemist]

Very cute- but remember- it doesn't have to melt- just go a bit weak at the knees.

Also, burning jet fuel has an adiabatic flame temperature of about 2100C

Which could only be achieved if there is NO heat loss to the surroundings.

The melting point of steel is somewhere around 1500C
It's simply a lie to say that a jet fuel fire can't melt steel.

Ok but the Plane hit imbetween 92nd to 98th floors on WTC1 So is a Fire above the 92nd Floor(heat rises) able to Melt the steal in the foundations and all the other 90 floors imbetween? In your professional oppinion?

Building 7 was not hit by a plane- had no Jet fuel- explination?

Given that it simply isn't true, why are people still going on about it.

Maybe because in certain controlled cercumstances you can get Fuel to exteremly high tempertures, but that does not account for what happened.

Could it be that they don't have any real basis for their claims?

Do you? Although it´s true they are not your claims- You are just following the Conspiracy the Bush administarion put out.

The 911 comminsion found no evidence of Explosives during their investigation, But what also interesting is that they did not look for explosives during thier investigation.

"Which could only be achieved if there is NO heat loss to the surroundings. "
That's pretty much the state of affairs in the middle of a big fire.
the only thing round it is a fire- and that's very nearly as hot as it is, so it can't lose heat to it.

And there's still the rather big difference between 2100C and 1500 C to account for.

In the real world you can melt steel with  burning jet fuel.

Why keep banging on about it?

"Ok but the Plane hit imbetween 92nd to 98th floors on WTC1 So is a Fire above the 92nd Floor(heat rises) able to Melt the steal in the foundations and all the other 90 floors imbetween? In your professional oppinion? "

Did you notice that the building fell down?
The fire ended up in the basement with everything else.
Not  all the steel got melted anyway so you are asking for an explanation of an event that only happened in your imagination.

[Jolly]

Very cute- but remember- it doesn't have to melt- just go a bit weak at the knees.

Also, burning jet fuel has an adiabatic flame temperature of about 2100C

Which could only be achieved if there is NO heat loss to the surroundings.

The melting point of steel is somewhere around 1500C
It's simply a lie to say that a jet fuel fire can't melt steel.

Ok but the Plane hit imbetween 92nd to 98th floors on WTC1 So is a Fire above the 92nd Floor(heat rises) able to Melt the steal in the foundations and all the other 90 floors imbetween? In your professional oppinion?

Building 7 was not hit by a plane- had no Jet fuel- explination?

Given that it simply isn't true, why are people still going on about it.

Maybe because in certain controlled cercumstances you can get Fuel to exteremly high tempertures, but that does not account for what happened.

Could it be that they don't have any real basis for their claims?

Do you? Although it´s true they are not your claims- You are just following the Conspiracy the Bush administarion put out.

The 911 comminsion found no evidence of Explosives during their investigation, But what also interesting is that they did not look for explosives during thier investigation.

"Which could only be achieved if there is NO heat loss to the surroundings. "
That's pretty much the state of affairs in the middle of a big fire.
the only thing round it is a fire- and that's very nearly as hot as it is, so it can't lose heat to it.

Well if you bother to look at the Video fottage you´ll notice you do not really see fire, most of the Jet fuel was probably lost in the initial explosion after the Plane hit.

And there's still the rather big difference between 2100C and 1500 C to account for.

In the real world you can melt steel with  burning jet fuel.



"Ok but the Plane hit imbetween 92nd to 98th floors on WTC1 So is a Fire above the 92nd Floor(heat rises) able to Melt the steal in the foundations and all the other 90 floors imbetween? In your professional oppinion? "

Did you notice that the building fell down?

Yes the Arguement is that the FIre above the 90th floors wa able to melt the Steal structure causing a colapse.  What part are you having trouble with?
 

The fire ended up in the basement with everything else.

And your point?

Not  all the steel got melted anyway so you are asking for an explanation of an event that only happened in your imagination.

No one suggested all the steal melted away. The question which you did not bother to answer- Was is a fire on the 92 floor and above able to melt or distablize all of the steal on the 90 something floors below? Enought to cause a free fall.

Why keep banging on about it?

Why keep on about this topic?

Probably because there is enough evidence to call for an international invetigation into what actually happened. Maybe you missed that a Group of Architechs and engineers have just published a paper stating a conculsion that all three building were brough down as a controlled demolition.

If true, that means demolition teams had to go into these building before 9-11 and rig the buildings to blow up!

Now what kind of sick people would think this kind of event up and actually have the nerve to carry it out?

There are seriuos issues here and if it was a controlled demolition and the people responsible are allowed to get away with it, what are the next feats of Horror they are prepared to engage in?

If there is any chance that this was a flase flag terrorist event, those responsible must be brought to justice and I care not how powerful or important they are or consider themselves to be!

If this was a manufactured event, those who defend the lies surrounding it, are also defending the monsters that carried it out, thought it up and who will do it again!

Whats next? Droping Nukes and pretending Iran did it?     

How does it go ´All evil needs to rule is for good people to sit back and do nothing´

[Bored chemist]

"No one suggested all the steal melted away. The question which you did not bother to answer- Was is a fire on the 92 floor and above able to melt or distablize all of the steal on the 90 something floors below? Enought to cause a free fall."
It didn't need to: someone dropped a building on them.

"Why keep on about this topic? "
You raised it- that cartoon- remember?
I kept trying to shut it down because it's based on the lie that jet fuel fires can't melt steel.
It was you who brought up the lie again.
Then, when I called you out for telling that tired old lie again you "doubled down" and you tried to pretend that it would matter that a fire will never quite reach the adiabatic temperature. In the real world, the fire gets close enough.

So, why not simply admit that you are prepared to say things that you know are misleading or dishonest in order to support this daft conspiracy?

[Jolly]

"No one suggested all the steal melted away. The question which you did not bother to answer- Was is a fire on the 92 floor and above able to melt or distablize all of the steal on the 90 something floors below? Enought to cause a free fall."
It didn't need to: someone dropped a building on them.

"Why keep on about this topic? "
You raised it- that cartoon- remember?
I kept trying to shut it down because it's based on the lie that jet fuel fires can't melt steel.
It was you who brought up the lie again.
Then, when I called you out for telling that tired old lie again you "doubled down" and you tried to pretend that it would matter that a fire will never quite reach the adiabatic temperature. In the real world, the fire gets close enough.

Bored you do not know, I do not know. You are arguing about it being "possible", "Getting close enough´implies you accept that it probably didnt reach an adiabatic temperature, but close enought. Considering that neither of us actually know how much of the fuel was lost in the explosion from initial impact, it´s all a speculation.     

And again you avoid the actual question. 90 floors of high quality constuction steal, you now claim were squashed by the upper floors- squashed at free fall speed- really?

So, why not simply admit that you are prepared to say things that you know are misleading or dishonest in order to support this daft conspiracy?

I would acuse you of the same thing by stating adiabatic temperature- you know as a chemist there would be heat loss- esspecially if it´s melting and heating  the steal of over a 100 floors. 

The idea that a bunch of cave dwellers with box cutters could get round the American Visa system under which all of them should have been denied entry to the U.S,(althought the CIA is allowed to grant visa the only agency with that right actually) were then able to train in flying planes and sucessfully manage to hyjack and crash them as planned, and some how 3 building just fell over.  And all done because apparently some muslims wanted the West to destroy their countries, the genius of these people.

That´s a conspiracy theory also.   You again said nothing about WT7 why is that?.

[Bored chemist]

Pointing out that burning jet fuel can, in ideal circumstances get 600 degrees hotter than you need for melting steel does, in fact, show that you can melt steel with burning jet fuel.
Putting some steel wool in a candle flame pretty much seals the argument
So when you say "Bored you do not know, ", you are lying again.
You might want to try searching with the correct spelling - steel- if you want better information about it.

Visas are granted by the department of state, not the CIA.

In WWII we discovered that you can teach most fit healthy young men to fly a plane well enough to drop bombs on the enemy.
Crash landing one is, in principle, even easier.
Calling them cave dwellers with box cutters doesn't add to the discussion; it's a lie.
You can check out their histories- for example one was an architect; which is not a bad choice for a qualification for the role of dive bomber if you want to destroy a building.

The case of WT7 is such dross that even the Daily fail knows it is nonsense.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

[alancalverd]

Once you have ignited it, an aluminum aircraft burns at about 3800 C, quite hot enough to melt steel. And of course you don't need to melt steel to make a building collapse: blacksmiths have been working it at red heat  (650 - 950 C) for thousands of years.

Until 9/11, it was very easy for student pilots to get US visas. All you had to do was declare "purpose of visit: pilot  training" and if you already held a private pilot licence and had a place on a commercial course in the USA, no questions were asked.

Flying a jet airliner in visual conditions is exactly the same as flying the Cessna you first trained on. The difficult bits are startup, ground handling, takeoff and initial climb, configuring to cruise, longrange navigation and fuel management, instrument flying, speed control,  reconfiguring, approach, and landing, none of which was required by the hijackers.  Pointing the machine at the biggest building near a river is something you learned not to do in Basic Lesson 1.

[Jolly]

Pointing out that burning jet fuel can, in ideal circumstances get 600 degrees hotter than you need for melting steel does, in fact, show that you can melt steel with burning jet fuel.
Putting some steel wool in a candle flame pretty much seals the argument
So when you say "Bored you do not know, ", you are lying again.

I sware you get worse, Bored you do not know what actually happened inside the world Trade center that day, know one does, save those involved if it was an inside Job.
FACT! You are terrible.

You might want to try searching with the correct spelling - steel- if you want better information about it.

Visas are granted by the department of state, not the CIA.

Not the issue. None of them should have been given one, under State department rules. And the CIA is the only agency in America allowed to give Visas to who ever they want to.  What is the point? You are not actually discussing anything you are prevaricating, most will see if they bother to read this thread.

In WWII we discovered that you can teach most fit healthy young men to fly a plane well enough to drop bombs on the enemy.
Crash landing one is, in principle, even easier.
Calling them cave dwellers with box cutters doesn't add to the discussion; it's a lie.

Not at all the plans were hatched out suposedly in Afganistan in cave and other training camps. As for the Hyjackers some of them alledged to be invloved were shown to still be alive, and living in the middle east.   

You can check out their histories- for example one was an architect; which is not a bad choice for a qualification for the role of dive bomber if you want to destroy a building.

The case of WT7 is such dross that even the Daily fail knows it is nonsense.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Doent kill anything.

Seem to me pretty obvious you´ll defend the government conspiracy no matter what, is that out of cowardice? Or you hope for a reward?

Doesnt seem very scientific to be soo unskeptical

15 Years Later, Physics Journal Concludes: All 3 WTC Towers Collapsed Due to Controlled Demolition
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/physics-study-911-controlled-demolition/#lAH7QydPx7w7bFRg.99

[Jolly]

Once you have ignited it, an aluminum aircraft burns at about 3800 C, quite hot enough to melt steel. And of course you don't need to melt steel to make a building collapse: blacksmiths have been working it at red heat  (650 - 950 C) for thousands of years.

Until 9/11, it was very easy for student pilots to get US visas. All you had to do was declare "purpose of visit: pilot  training" and if you already held a private pilot licence and had a place on a commercial course in the USA, no questions were asked.

Thats all very nice but, not what happened here is it.

[Jolly]

9/11 Twin Towers Thermal Video - NIST culmulus release FEB 2011 Infraspection 5.avi