Remembering 9/11

[Jubee]

5:55 here - goes back to eznutz's post.

Enjoy, don't rage gentleman.

 

[Jubee]

Okay, I'll admit when I'm wrong, buildings have collapsed due to fires.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

 

[fuji]

Dr. Steven Jones, well respected scientist, fake expert. Got it.

He is a raving kook who is not respected by anyone. He has no relevant expertise, his research on cold fusion had nothing to do with buildings or thermite. He's been widely ridiculed for his ludicrous views on 9/11, which have been rejected for publication by credible journals.

One Meridian Plaza, 1991 - burned for 6-7 hours, 4 floors and never collapsed. That was some kind of incredible steel Fuji.

You can't possibly be ignorant enough to think that's relevant.

Plausible, no doubt, but, can you say that with complete certainty?

I can say with complete certainty that no bombs were used on the WTC.

Or are you just reaching here? Sort of like the furniture office fires + carpets + water coolers, burning up to temperatures over 2,500 F that are required to start to melt steel.

There's no reason to think it melted steel.

And yes we know for absolute fact that the building collapsed from the impact floors: you can see it yourself in videos of the collapse. It's very obvious.

That point alone refuted your nonsense.

 

[SuperCharge]

So you truly believe that an office fire has the potential to heat up to temps of 2,500+ which is required to compromise steel?
WOW!
You sure you're on the side of science here? lol

You left out the rest of my post, quite selective if you ask me, however, I'll re-post it.

"That's the whole point, a plane couldn't bring down a building that size.
1) jet fuel burned up instantly.
2) any residual fires due to the jet fuel fireball could not heat up enough to start melting steel. Really, office furniture, machines? papers? desks? chairs? You really believe that?
Let's not forget there is insulation in the building as well.

Then Newton's 3rd law comes into play, over 70% of the building was fine, so you believe that the top smaller portion really got damaged so much that it tore through down to ground level and there was NO resistance?
LOL come on now.

As eznuts put it, you have to take it up with Newton. "

Thanks for keeping it real Jube. I can see many here need to go back to high school and retake physics.

 

[Jubee]

I certainly hope you don't think this guy has to... if you truly watch this video and then think the author of the video does, you may want to look over your H.S. science grades.
You can start at the beginning or 4:49 (this will help fuji a bit "verniage") 13:09 or 12:55.

Enjoy. The guy in the video certainly seems to sound like he has a very strong background in "science".

 

[eznutz]

Nice discussion. If only the building was a solid object like your analogy implies. In reality it was a bunch of interconnected pieces that each would fall independently as their connections failed.


But don't worry, that's only science. I'm sure that memes like the one you posted are so much more informative.

Except the section of building fell in one continuous motion and it had just enough "KINETIC ENERGY" to fall at the rate it did.
Yet this top section used "ZERO ENERGY" pulverizing everything in it's way on it's way to the ground 2 secs longer than free fall.

That can only happen if the the structure below has already been compromised.
And what do we have here, is that a 45 degree angle cut on one of the core columns.

 

[papasmerf]

Except the section of building fell in one continuous motion and it had just enough "KINETIC ENERGY" to fall at the rate it did.
Yet this top section used "ZERO ENERGY" pulverizing everything in it's way on it's way to the ground 2 secs longer than free fall.

That can only happen if the the structure below has already been compromised.
And what do we have here, is that a 45 degree angle cut on one of the core columns.

You do have 180 degree and 45 degree cuts...................This was done during rescue, recovery and cleanup.

 

[fuji]

Thanks for keeping it real Jube. I can see many here need to go back to high school and retake physics.

Like you, jube, and eznutz, who think a bowling ball being dropped on a house of cards will decelerate.

 

[fuji]

I certainly hope you don't think this guy has to... if you truly watch this video and then think the author of the video does, you may want to look over your H.S. science grades.
You can start at the beginning or 4:49 (this will help fuji a bit "verniage") 13:09 or 12:55.

Enjoy. The guy in the video certainly seems to sound like he has a very strong background in "science".

Stop believing garbage on YouTube, and stop spamming us with it. You lost your core argument, you can't cover that up by spamming us. The building did not collapse from the basement as you claimed.

 

[SuperCharge]

You do have 180 degree and 45 degree cuts...................This was done during rescue, recovery and cleanup.

That picture is actually amazing. Look at the one steel beam, cut on the 45 degree angle. That's very interesting. Isn't that what an explosive would do? How would a steel beam be cut like that?

 

[Jubee]

He is a raving kook who is not respected by anyone.

"Kook"? Your name calling says enough.

his ludicrous views on 9/11, which have been rejected for publication by credible journals.

Yes, rejected by people who tow the government line, much like the John L. Gross who denied molten lava, same with those on the 9/11 commission who OMITTED any mention of "molten" steel/lava found on the site itself.
Forget what the firefighters and first responders saw, right?

You can't possibly be ignorant enough to think that's relevant.

If you're talking to yourself, don't let me interrupt, continue......

I can say with complete certainty that no bombs were used on the WTC.

Were you there? What are your basis for this comment?

There's no reason to think it melted steel.

I'll refer you to news clip, 14:40 15:55
The guy narrating the entire video has very strong knowledge of all this "sciencey" stuff.

And yes we know for absolute fact that the building collapsed from the impact floors: you can see it yourself in videos of the collapse. It's very obvious.

Are you saying it's not possible for a demolition to be set up in a way that floors be taken out from the top?

 

[fuji]

That picture is actually amazing. Look at the one steel beam, cut on the 45 degree angle. That's very interesting. Isn't that what an explosive would do? How would a steel beam be cut like that?

An explosive would not cut a beam like that. A demolition crew working on cleaning up the site would do that...

 

[SuperCharge]

Stop believing garbage on YouTube, and stop spamming us with it. You lost your core argument, you can't cover that up by spamming us. The building did not collapse from the basement as you claimed.

Fuji if you don't like it, leave the thread. You are much better in the politics section anyway. Don't let me get started on the pentaCON.

 

[Jubee]

Except the section of building fell in one continuous motion and it had just enough "KINETIC ENERGY" to fall at the rate it did.
Yet this top section used "ZERO ENERGY" pulverizing everything in it's way on it's way to the ground 2 secs longer than free fall.

That can only happen if the the structure below has already been compromised.
And what do we have here, is that a 45 degree angle cut on one of the core columns.

Two words, "cutter charges". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
The clean cut is akin to those beams found at the base of 9/11, strangely similar. (similar to the pic above)
Most anyone with some intelligence can deduce how many of these would be set up around the towers (inside of course) and then triggered to weaken the columns, which in turn would weaken the structure to a falling speed just a 1 longer than if the building had ZERO resistance below it.


Then you have this guy doing his experiments with that thermiticy stuffz, I found this on the Bush's "internetz".

 

[SuperCharge]

An explosive would not cut a beam like that. A demolition crew working on cleaning up the site would do that...

That's a lie and I know for a fact it is

 

[eznutz]

You do have 180 degree and 45 degree cuts...................This was done during rescue, recovery and cleanup.

This picture was taken the Sept 12th. At this point of the "rescue, recovery & cleanup" they were using buckets, not cutting steel in 45 degree angles.
It should be noted that after this picture was published, photographers were banned from Ground Zero.

 

[fuji]

"Kook"? Your name calling says enough.

He has no relevant expertise whatsoever. Researching cold fusion has nothing to do with the topics.

Yes, rejected by people who tow the government line,

Basically you will say that about anybody who doesn't stupidly believe your ludicrous conspiracy--which you now think includes the peer review panels of the journals which rejected Jones' bullshit

And no, having been thoroughly refuted you do not get to go spam more stupid links to more fake experts. This is not a debate you can win by wearing is out.

Your theory made certain predictions that proved false. There building did not collapse the way your theory predicts. Your theory is therefore wrong and no amount of spamming us will change that.

Do you think you get to make up one bullshit theory after another hoping people will get tired of showing you why it's bullshit? You lost the debate when your a FIRST bullshit theory was refuted.

 

[fuji]

This picture was taken the Sept 12th. At this point of the "rescue, recovery & cleanup" they were using buckets, not cutting steel in 45 degree angles.
It should be noted that after this picture was published, photographers were banned from Ground Zero.

An explosion wouldn't do that.

Obviously.

 

[Jubee]

Stop believing garbage on YouTube, and stop spamming us with it. You lost your core argument, you can't cover that up by spamming us. The building did not collapse from the basement as you claimed.

I dare you to watch this and tell me with which part(s) you had a problem.
You're obviously not watching this and you're being close minded, so your "stop believing this garbage" which is ACTUALLY SCIENCE, tells me you clearly have a narrative that you choose to believe, REGARDLESS OF SCIENCE.
If you can't muster 15 mins, go to 12:55 in the video for the summation of REAL SCIENCE.

You have a lot of posts obviously, so clearly you have a lot of time during the day, give the guy a listen. He keeps it very simple for his audience.
If you claim you don't want to watch it, or won't and claim he's stupid, then obviously, you just love your country's political narrative and/or don't want to believe you fell for these lies.
That's fine, I know many people that felt stupid for it and I have more respect for them now, that they question the bullshit of the government's explanations and lies of that day.

 

[Jubee]

An explosion wouldn't do that.

Obviously.

A cutter charge could. In fact, look at the angle and compare it to the one found at the site of 9/11, eerily similar isn't it?