News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this**

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Ganymede, Oct 9, 2007.

  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    James911,

    Please refrain from accusations of manipulation of evidence. This is a serious charge.

    GeoffP
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James911 Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    Let's assume that your faked video and picture are correct.
    In your video we see that WTC7 has damages to the right, the left side of it is clearly undamaged.

    This clearely support the fact the WTC7 collapse, if it will ever collapse, will collapse asymetrically, not symmetrically.

    On 9/11 all the floors fell all together at once, the damaged and undamaged side.

    This video/picture that you showed can only proove one thing, your stupidity and the thikness of your head.

    Please Please go back to secondary school and do some science/physics before posting in this thread
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2008
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    But you said that WTC7 was undamaged. I demonstrated that this was not the case.

    Sure this damage alone probably did not cause the collapse as the building fell seven hours later. There were floors on fire during this time.


    As for the collapse, this is how a building will fall when the lower floors lose their structural integrity. This was possibly a result of the fires weakening the beams so much that the lower floors buckled.

    When you make comments like that it just appears that you are resorting to insults because you are unable to construct an argument or back up your claims. You wont last much longer at sciforums if you keep insulting people.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2008
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James911 Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    I will leave it to the readers to judge these posts
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    We have. You're not doing well. Shaman has falsified your statements.
     
  9. Cortex_Colossus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    477
    It's a white bear!!!! AAAAHHHHHH!!!
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The weight of an object has no bearing on it's acceleration due to gravity.

    The difference between 10 and 9.8 is .2 seconds, which is the time the towers were delayed from reaching the ground due to resistance from structural collapse. That seems plausable to me. No lightweight steel structure is designed to resist such forces. Any engineer would tell you that there is an enormous difference between supporting a static weight, and stopping a falling weight.
     
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I eats sarcasm.

    Personally I would have said longer than 10 s, but I've only looked at a few vids. Yet, they seemed pretty conclusive to me.
     
  12. James911 Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    You are not in a position to judge these posts because you can't even work out a simple formula t = sqrt(2 * distance/g)
     
  13. James911 Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    Now, as we are done with the Free Fall spreed issue on 911, let's go to the next topic which is....you guess it....It's the molten steel that was seen all over the crime scene on 911.

    WHY STEEL MELTED on 11 September 2001???????????????????

    See for yourself.

    youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
    youtube.com/watch?v=jrUosvSNLCk&feature=related
    youtube.com/watch?v=P_jiCyMkrRM
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2008
  14. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    Assume that your conspiracy theory is true (that there was bomb planted on
    the basement of the WTC building), what is that for? If one can put bomb there,
    why then also waste energy to crash plane? Or if one can crash plane, why then
    waste energy to also put bomb? Why pull a bullet and then also put poison??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. James911 Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    inzomnia, This is not the correct way of reasoning:

    First you have to look at the evidence and study it, then take a decision.

    I am glade to see people like you here.
     
  16. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349

    If I take time to study it, it will lead to either one of this conclusion:
    * no, there was no bomb planted there ---> case closed
    * yes, there was bomb planted there ---> and hence my question in the previous post. :shrug:
     
  17. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    There are pictures and footage of glowing metal and there are eyewitness accounts of molten metal - but we don't know if it was steel. It is really no surprise that there was a lot of heat generated.
     
  18. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    Do you expect that the study will lead to the conclusion that there was bomb
    and hence that was inside job? How will you prove that it was inside job?

    The building was a world trade center. If one capable to hijack plane, why can't
    they capable to sneak in and put bomb? For example as a trader, as a cleaning
    service workers, etc? Then again, what for is this unnecessary effort if you can
    just crash plane?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. James911 Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    I had lots of friends that were like you and I asked them to watch these three documentaries - Also available to watch free on Youtube and Google video:

    911 Mysteries Part 1: Control Demolition
    911 Ripple Effect
    Painful Deceptions


    When they watch them, they came back shocked and convinced that 911 was indeed an inside job.

    Waste no time, Go and watch them one after the other, you will find all the answers to the questions you're asking, then come back here.
     
  20. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349

    I had watch them (I think the first two). Looks like the building made from spaghetti.
    Maybe it was controlled demolition, maybe not. Then again, even if it was controlled
    demolition:
    • How are you going to prove that that was inside job?
    • What for this redundant effort??? Bombing and crashing plane.
    I see you haven't answered any of my question yet, sorry but I started to
    feel tired in repeating. I'll ask once again, though. If you can pull a bullet, why
    also put poison?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2008
  21. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    Even if it was inside job, why put bomb and then also crash the plane?? Is bombing
    alone not enough? Is crashing the plane alone not enough?
     
  22. James911 Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    Here, we are analyzing the evidences found after a crime scene. This is all what we can do.

    Don't expect me to give you the answer to all of your questions.
    The best person to answer your question are those who committed this crime. They can tell you exactly why they have done it this way and not any other way.

    We need to analyze the evidence then come out with conclusions.
     
  23. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    Yes, I understand you want to analyze the evidence. What for? What are you
    trying to prove?

    Here is an analogy. A woman found dead on the street with a bullet on her head.
    It is thought that she was shot by a stranger. Than one suspect that she was poisoned.
    If she was poisoned, it could be that it is an inside job (e.g. her husband did it,
    and not just some stranger on the street).

    Now, if it was her husband's job, and he was capable to shot the bullet, why
    would he also poison her?? That's just going to make him suspected.

    Same in this case. If it is inside job, and this insider can hijack and crash the
    plane to the building, why should he also put bomb?????? That just going to
    make him suspected. Unnecessary additional trace.
     

Share This Page