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.
rollo the ganger
Posts: 5588
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by rollo the ganger » Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:58 am

torus9 wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:47 am
rollo the ganger wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 4:28 pm
Interesting coincidences but it doesn't prove the twin towers and WTC #7 came down with explosives.
Gosh, no. Those were all just lucky coincidences augmented by 5 x daily prayer.
"Eschooch!", "Eschooch!"

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5588
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by rollo the ganger » Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:45 pm

Let us compare what happens in a controlled demolition of a tall building and what happened with the World Trade Center towers. In the videos below, taken at a distance, of controlled demolition one can clearly hear and see the charges going off before the buildings collapse.

The most notable difference is in the demolitions the ENTIRE building falls at once. Not so in the World Trade Towers.

First the demolitions (watch closely):





Now the World Trade Center collapse:



Like a controlled demolition? Not at all.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5588
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:34 pm
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by rollo the ganger » Sat Sep 15, 2018 3:15 pm

As a bonus I thought I'd add this computer simulation of the collapse of the WTC 7 building:



Interesting.

And the real thing:


torus9
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:42 pm
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by torus9 » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:10 am

It was a glorious convergence of coincidences initiated by Allah the backstabber. Simples. And you done yer mama proud, 'muhrica. Kicking the living shit out of people that had nothing to do with it. And THAT will be your legacy! Well done.

I'm out.


montgomery2
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:04 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by montgomery2 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:47 am

Werd, here's my opener from the other thread. I would appreciate if we could discuss your theories between the two of us for a start. The theories of others would just unnecessarily complicate the debate:

The questions:
Q. If we accept the theory that office fires caused the steel beams to weaken and buckle causing trusses to give way on two or three floors, why didn't the tower's top undamaged floors' gravitational fall take the path of least resistance and eventually fall off to the side of the tower? Why instead did its weight allegedly destroy over seventy, undamaged steel-supported floors beneath it, allegedly causing these structually sound floors to collapse at near free-fall speed into clouds of pulverised dust. And what force caused the distengration of the undamaged, central, reinforced, steel-core upon which all the floors were supported?
Answer: My answer to consider is that the tower's top did indeed take the path of least resistance. We could illustrate that with a small model to show that resistance on all sides isn't exactly equal and thus the top section wouldn't be expected to some down symetrically in the center. In fact that would be proven to be quite unusual for even any model builder to illustrate. Yes/No?

The momentum of the top section and it's weight would cause the lower floors to fall at close to free fall speed, but not quite. I don't accept that all the rubble was disintegrated in the way it's explained. But it's of little or no importance in any case because the towers 'did' come down and the reason for the appearance of the rubble would have nothing to do with the method emplyed to make it happen. The lower floors weren't effected by either the explosive charges or the damage caused by the aircraft. So I'm going to claim that question not applicable. Yes/No?

montgomery2
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:04 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by montgomery2 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:50 am

Werd, my answers to the questions from your link:

Answer: My answer to consider is that the tower's top did indeed take the path of least resistance. We could illustrate that with a small model to show that resistance on all sides isn't exactly equal and thus the top section wouldn't be expected to some down symetrically in the center. In fact that would be proven to be quite unusual for even any model builder to illustrate. Yes/No?

The momentum of the top section and it's weight would cause the lower floors to fall at close to free fall speed, but not quite. I don't accept that all the rubble was disintegrated in the way it's explained. But it's of little or no importance in any case because the towers 'did' come down and the reason for the appearance of the rubble would have nothing to do with the method employed to make it happen. The lower floors weren't effected by either the explosive charges or the damage caused by the aircraft. So I'm going to claim that question not applicable. Yes/No?

Werd
Posts: 7362
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by Werd » Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:53 am

You're not asking anything new about "least resistance." This crap has already been addressed in this topic that I bumped for you but you haven't read anything in yet. I posted this on page one.
viewtopic.php?p=114813#p114813
Also on page one are three good videos posted by been-there.
When you can read this entire topic, and then come up with something new, I will consider answering the same issues that have already been debunked.

montgomery2
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:04 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by montgomery2 » Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:57 am

Werd wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:53 am
You're not asking anything new about "least resistance." This crap has already been addressed in this topic that I bumped for you but you haven't read anything in yet. I posted this on page one.
viewtopic.php?p=114813#p114813
Also on page one are three good videos posted by been-there.
When you can read this entire topic, and then come up with something new, I will consider answering the same issues that have already been debunked.
You're done already Werd. You're copping out and trying to change the subject from my answers to you on why your theory so far is nonsense. And to spend more time on this topic is a waste of my time that I'm not willing to grant you. in other words Werd, you're nothing but a phony coksucker.

Have a nice day!

Werd
Posts: 7362
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by Werd » Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:04 am

You're done already Werd. You're copping out
Says the man who is dodging the video with Richard Gage that comes from page one that I was nice enough to link to.
Ironic? Hypocritical? Both words go so well with describing your response. :lol:
your theory so far is nonsense.
And your whole "least resistance" argument holds no water as this video demonstrates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAJrFKxyriQ

Xendrius
Published on Jan 30, 2016
Some ignorant blacksmith was tired of hearing "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams", so he heated up a thin steel beam inside a furnace to 1800F degrees to show how easily it can bend. Somehow that video got 7 million views within a month (because the American mainstream media helped). The original is called "for the undying moronic 9/11 jet fuel argument".

What he clearly did not know is that even NIST (the government agency paid by the Bush regime to cover up 9/11) admitted that none of the WTC steel (that they claim was exposed by the jet fuel fire), reached temperatures higher than 600F degrees. But the brainless official myth believers think that his demonstration somehow supports their myth.

As a nail in the coffin for the official theory, NIST contracted with UWL to see if they could use jet fuel fires in a furnace (optimal temperature conditions at 1500F) to weaken or soften the floor trusses under a 2 hour long period. No weakening let alone melting was observed from that test.

Now why is this damning for the official myth? Because other independent investigators have found clear evidence of molten steel at ground zero, in the form of pools during the clean-up as well as steel girders that showed clear signs of melting and holes in them. Yet NIST claims no temperatures higher than 600F-1000F degrees occured at any point in the towers?

Don't believe there was molten steel at ground zero?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M

The original "blacksmith vs dank memes" video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA
Finally:
And to spend more time on this topic is a waste of my time that I'm not willing to grant you.
Yes I know you're not willing to read through this topic going back to page one and watch all those videos that would prove you wrong since many include architects who know what they are talking about.

Again, anytime you want to bring up something, I will address it. I just speculate more often than not, it will be something that has already been addressed and refuted.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests