911 contradictions

The RODOH Lounge is a place for general discussion, preferably non-Holocaust. The Lounge is only lightly moderated but please keep this a friendly place to chat with and get to know your fellow board participants.
User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 7790
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by been-there » Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:06 pm

montgomery2 wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:59 pm

None of that says that you're a 911 conspiracy theorist but I suppoose I'll be able to safely assume that you are. I like to give people a chance to proclaim they're batshit crazy before condemning them.

You and Weird so far and I hope you two are the last! I don't care much for loonies as company on the holocaust question. Although I suppose there as many on the H.P. side who are just as loonie on the 911 issue.
But that is yet another purely ad hominem response.

What happened to this approach?
montgomery2 wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:10 pm
...I have to say, the leading factor that has caused me to form opinions has been the poor behaviour of some of the people involved. It speaks loudly of insecurity on their part and the more abusive they become, the louder it speaks of insecurity.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

montgomery2
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by montgomery2 » Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:11 pm

been-there wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:06 pm
montgomery2 wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:59 pm

None of that says that you're a 911 conspiracy theorist but I suppoose I'll be able to safely assume that you are. I like to give people a chance to proclaim they're batshit crazy before condemning them.

You and Weird so far and I hope you two are the last! I don't care much for loonies as company on the holocaust question. Although I suppose there as many on the H.P. side who are just as loonie on the 911 issue.
But that is yet another purely ad hominem response.

What happened to this approach?
montgomery2 wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:10 pm
...I have to say, the leading factor that has caused me to form opinions has been the poor behaviour of some of the people involved. It speaks loudly of insecurity on their part and the more abusive they become, the louder it speaks of insecurity.
This is a waste of time, as is any 911 conspiracy theory for the most part. So until Werd gathers up the courage to address my post on his evidence, there's not much point in continuing. Both of you should take the opportunity to run away while I'm giving you the chance.

montgomery2
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by montgomery2 » Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:15 pm

Here's a reminder of what you are afraid to answer to Werd:


Here is is in a nutshell Werd: You attempted to say that the tower didn't fall to the middle because there would be no side being the side of least resistance. And I answered by telling you that is not the reality of the situation. What happened in that regard was exactly what one would expect. One side maintained more resistance and that caused the top of the tower to fall to one side. And then I explained how any model would demonstrate exactly the same tendency to not fall symetrically. And you appear to fear answering that!

Your other theory was something to do with how the remains of the tower was pulverized into dust and you seemed to suggest that would be consistent with explosive charges. I told you that wasn't of any consequence simply because the lower part of the tower simply wasn't pulverized as it was falling. And so there doesn't seem to be any further attention needing to be paid to that issue.

I believe your position to be that the airplanes did minimal damage to the twin towers and the catastrophic damage that caused them to fall was done by explosive charges. If that's correct then you might want to state that is your theory.

Let's deal with these issues that were your own choices on how you wanted to start off this debate. There's no need to deal with your claims that some architects have given evidence that reinforces your theory yet. As there is no need to deal with my submissions which will be offered that virtually thousands of engineers have accepted the government's evidence.

Werd
Posts: 8370
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by Werd » Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:51 am

You attempted to say that the tower didn't fall to the middle because there would be no side being the side of least resistance. And I answered by telling you that is not the reality of the situation. What happened in that regard was exactly what one would expect. One side maintained more resistance and that caused the top of the tower to fall to one side. And then I explained how any model would demonstrate exactly the same tendency to not fall symetrically. And you appear to fear answering that!
Um, you're talking about the south tower. The reason given in the mainstream that the top section tilted was because of the asymmetrical damage that was caused due to how the plane entered the building. It entered close to one corner and almost came out the other side close again to that same corner point.

Unlike the north tower where the plane went in basically straight in the middle.

BOTH buildings fell too close to free fall speed. The official report admitted that they fell around 10-11 seconds. Not exactly free fall through thin air but close enough to be impossible with supporting mass underneath intact. THAT was the point of the Richard Gage video.
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/nea ... celeration
Your pancake theory is bullshit and you still ignore great posts from been-there going back to page one such as this and you also ignore the Richard Gage video once again.

Such is Monty.
You are free anytime you want to scroll through these three topics and pick out any alleged mistake you think been-there and myself have made. Nobody is stopping you.

That is all.

Werd
Posts: 8370
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by Werd » Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:30 am

Two more videos from Xendrius.





I think it's safe to say that the second video especially puts Monty's questions and retorts about "people would have seen" or "someone would have talked" straight into the trash where it belongs!

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by blake121666 » Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:43 am

Werd wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:51 am
You attempted to say that the tower didn't fall to the middle because there would be no side being the side of least resistance. And I answered by telling you that is not the reality of the situation. What happened in that regard was exactly what one would expect. One side maintained more resistance and that caused the top of the tower to fall to one side. And then I explained how any model would demonstrate exactly the same tendency to not fall symetrically. And you appear to fear answering that!
Um, you're talking about the south tower. The reason given in the mainstream that the top section tilted was because of the asymmetrical damage that was caused due to how the plane entered the building. It entered close to one corner and almost came out the other side close again to that same corner point.

Unlike the north tower where the plane went in basically straight in the middle.

BOTH buildings fell too close to free fall speed. The official report admitted that they fell around 10-11 seconds. Not exactly free fall through thin air but close enough to be impossible with supporting mass underneath intact. THAT was the point of the Richard Gage video.
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/nea ... celeration
Your pancake theory is bullshit and you still ignore great posts from been-there going back to page one such as this.
You are free anytime you want to scroll through these three topics and pick out any alleged mistake you think been-there and myself have made. Nobody is stopping you.

That is all.
It's remarkable that those people in your video don't understand dynamic load vs static load. The person in your video made the claim that the "structure was capable of holding 3 to 5 times the weight". But he is referring to a static load of that weight. As explained in RTG's video link on the other thread, the dynamic load of that weight falling 12 ft is equivalent to having to support about 114 times that weight. The upper section was indeed a piledriver onto the lower section. And the momentum of such a piledriver would of course accelerate with the greatly insufficient resistance it encountered (initially about 20 times too little and acceleratingly worse).

It is also a little misleading to be referring to the freefall speed of the whole building. The fall begins where the columns were sheared as I explained here. The top falls as one unit and itself pulverizes when reaching the bottom. True freefall would've been about 8.49s and 7.75s respectively for the North and South Towers from their respective shear points. The actual fall times were about 30% slower than freefall - which is quite reasonable.

It's also strange that the Mathematical Physicist there is concerned with the "pulverization": saying that things were as if they were pre-pulverized. The concrete floor support of the building is pretty damned trivial! He should've concerned himself with the HUGE MASSIVE steel box columns. Those are the things to worry about giving way - and they did! Pulverizing concrete is nothing at all compared to snapping steel box columns of pretty damned thick steel (although it starts thinner towards the top - like 1/4 inch thick at the very top - and like 4" at the very bottom). His focusing on the concrete pulverization in that way immediately tells me that he is out of his depths about the structural engineering to be concerned about here.

Werd
Posts: 8370
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by Werd » Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:54 am

So if the lower 79 floors are strong enough to support a stationary 31 story building, do you think they will be strong enough to support a 31 story building falling at 19 mph?

The answer is emphatically no!
And does the person who talks about static versus dynamic address the molten metal, the pyroclastic flow, the power down and the ease with which to rig the towers with explosives? His whole theory is basically that the top was heavy enough to rip apart everything else that was below the entry point of the plane to the point of even causing molten metal, pyroclastic flow and secondary explosions witnesses picked up. And at near free fall speed. 10.5 seconds. That's pretty close to 8.5 seconds which is what free fall would have been. He even admits it.
the building collapsed at nearly free-fall speed.
But it's not because of what conspiracy theorists point out. It's because the weight is no longer static but operating under gravitational pull and plummeting because of a lack of support underneath which is what exists when the buildings just stand there. In other words, he is saying nothing new.

Nothing in that 16 minute video that I posted from Xendrius is addressed in this link. He can play around with math and pennies all he wants, but he still hasn't explained all the other oddities including the molten metal, the pyroclastic flow, the power down and the ease with which to rig the towers with explosives all shown in that 16 minute video from Xendrius.

Next!
Last edited by Werd on Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by blake121666 » Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:59 am

Werd wrote:
Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:54 am
And does the person who talks about static versus dynamic address the molten metal, the pyroclastic flow, the power down and the ease with which to rig the towers with explosives? His whole theory is basically that the top was heavy enough to rip apart everything else that was below the entry point of the plane to the point of even causing molten metal, pyroclastic flow and secondary explosions witnesses picked up. And at near free fall speed. 10.5 seconds. That's pretty close to 8.5 seconds which is what free fall would have been. :lol:

Nothing in that 16 minute video that I posted from Xendrius is addressed in this link. He can play around with math and formulas all he wants, but he still hasn't explained all the other oddities that have been brought up and made note of in many places, including that 16 minute video from Xendrius.

Next!
Your video didn't say anything about that. 10.5 seconds is 24% greater than 8.5 seconds. But it was closer to 11 seconds - which is 30% greater than 8.5 seconds.

I have no explanation for WTC7 (because I haven't spent the time to look at it); but if the top of each WTC1/2 building fell on the bottom of each building, it would've been a piledrive. The buildings would've fallen as seen. Given the extremely large forces we are talking about, I guess any type of weird things could've resulted - such as your "molten metal" or whatever. A massive building falling 110 stories is an awful lot of energy.

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by blake121666 » Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:05 am

Yeah, I see your edit. Everyone is quite wrong about the "close to freefall" claim for WTC1 and 2. They aren't looking at it correctly. I get the point that the whole building of course falls; but the START of the fall is where the top was separated from the bottom. That top section starts its fall at its bottom - which is significantly distant from its top section (or even the center of mass of that section).
Last edited by blake121666 on Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Werd
Posts: 8370
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by Werd » Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:05 am

Your video didn't say anything about that. 10.5 seconds is 24% greater than 8.5 seconds. But it was closer to 11 seconds - which is 30% greater than 8.5 seconds.
This comes from the documentary by George Humphreys in 9/11 The Great Illusion. You can also find similar figures here as quoted from NIST own report.



Maybe that math genius can also address this issue raised by been-there which is also in this video above.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests