Were you ever going to find those thermite references you promised?

Did you happen to see the massive fireballs generated on impact? What do you think fueled those? Maybe you've seen a few too many movies and you think when things collide they just combust from friction or something. That's not the case. Massive amounts of fuel were consumed in the explosions. Much of it didn't stay in the crash zone.

The official story says these extreme temperatures from office fires, for which their is no evidence, deformed key structural elements and "collapse ensued", somehow. But if you read the report, which most of you believe in full without having read a single word or know what's in it, it says that the temperatures needed were arrived at via this special, rare phenomenon caused sometimes by pressure gradients where air can be become superheated. Mind you, the furniture and furnishings inside the WTC are held to a strict fire code. And then there are the heat sinking effects of the steel core of the building which were also completely ignored by the NIST report.

If you take those things into account, NIST is basically saying a few drums of strategically placed jet fuel will do it. It's beyond ridiculous.

I think one of the problems here (let's say you guys aren't trolling and you really believe the government's nonsense) is the government's story fails in so many places that asking you to believe that the government could lie so boldly in total becomes a bigger ask than to ask you to believe that the government lied in any instance and the bigger ask gets in the way.

So I would ask you guys to read the sections of the NIST report where they talk about the temperatures. Just read it and see if you are not offended by their apparent lack of competency. It doesn't mean you then have to think Dick Chenney personally flew the plane into the Pentagon and parachuted out at the last minute which is why they won't release any clear video of it. Just tell me that you really think making up temperatures to help your conclusion if a valid investigative technique which is somehow justified in this case.

You didn't need to engage with the report or government narratives in any way to arrive at the conclusion--planes crashed into the buildings, they burned all day and then fell down. There was no report on the day it happened.

I'm gonna wait a few years until the internet spins up something juicy that trips my trigger instead lol

So, you are giving me the choice between a team of experts who investigated for years and actually examine the site and conducted tests on the debris vs an internet crackpot who can’t concentrate long enough on one argument to give any cohesive responses and instead cites to JFk and the titanic incident to support his points?

I think I will obviously put more trust in the non-crackpots. I mean, you have no reason to lie…. other than you keep getting caught making claims you can’t back up.

I do t really understand your first paragraph - are you claiming the on-going fire wasn’t fueled by the jet fuel in the planes because it was all used in the initial impact and fireball explosion? Do you have an alternate source of fire in the “crash zone” other than jet fuel? Is there another source of combustibles in your version of events? Thermite?

Douches is dull and noncommittal. We need Playbig back to hear more about the lizard people with the space laser.

There isn't a single thing in the nist report that doesn't make sense with the laws of physics and I've yet to hear anything other than incredulity regarding that fact.

Lol. Next you'll be telling us you believe what you saw with your lyin' eyes on lyin' CNN that day.

The problem is it's not conclusive. To me it looked smaller than what that type a/c should be, but that's because they released this one little video to "prove" and shut the conspirators up after all the questions were asked (especially from reporters first on the scene that said it didn't look like a plane crashed).
There's too many anomalies such as 4 of the hijacker's passports were quickly recovered and fully readable. That should go into the Guiness Book of World Records for he biggest coincidense of all time. Assuming they were on their body or in at least a carry-on close by, with the huge fireball upon impact and the fire that resulted (and the airplane disintegrating into ashes), how on earth were they so quickly able to recover the passports to "prove" it was done by a few guys in a borderline third world country (and not part of a war between the deep state globalist and a growing alliance)? And what came out after 9/11? We were able to take over another country (because the fact checkers said there were WMD's there) and create DS agencies like FEMA and DHS (I heard that in a week or two Congress is gonna release a report suggesting DHS tried to assassinate (or at least let an assasination happen) Donald Trump.

And FWIW I'm not saying it was definitely a missile, but if an aircraft really "landed" there and slammed into the building, the plane wouldn't of desintagrated without any pieces larger than your hand (according the the first reporters on scene, but it was later debunked by "fact checkers"). I saw first hand at Teterboro airport a few years back when a jet actually crashed into a warehouse in an exact similar manner as what happened at the Pentagon and the a/c was more than recognizable. Even if his airspeed was at cruising speed you would still see a twisted ball of metal at the very least.

The bottom line is people like Dr. Judy Wood and others with credentials of being able to comment on such things are saying "this is impossible, that could of never happened" with regard to how the towers free fell within it's footprint but when an unknown internet "fact checker" says "we investigated similar claims and found these statements to be false", it somehow miraculously overrules all these qualified people coming out behind their names and credentiaols saying what the gov't is claiming doesn't make sense scientifically.

It's quite conclusive when taken with the entirety of the evidence. Not that it needed to be. It was really freaking obvious what happened.

Nothing anomalous about that.

What the...do you think it landed first and then drove into the building????

It didn't. There are lots of much larger pieces, including bodies of passengers.

Do you think the pentagon is made out of the same stuff as this warehouse?

This dingbat thinks the towers were destroyed with lasers. Come on man. Aren't you embarrassed yet?

“Building pulverized into dust” and “no airplane parts bigger than your hand” despite the thousands of pictures from the sites that prove how ridiculous these beliefs are.

One of the crash zones burned less than an hour before the tower collapsed, the other about an hour an a half. Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. Congrats on getting everything wrong. I'm assuming you didn't lose anyone in the attacks and none of your children were maimed or killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. So what do you care, right?

The 9/11 attacks were a crime, and a crime which dictated the agenda of the wealthiest and most powerful country to ever exist. It's not a random event like when there is a storm and a lightening bolt hits a tree and it falls on a car. As a the defining event of our lifetimes we need to know everything about it including whether or not it was enhanced in ways not immediately clear. We need to know if the coordination with the anthrax attacks and the threats to the executive branch was done by the same people and we need to know the people behind all these crimes.

Would you mind leaving the quote attributions on so we know who you are responding to? I've been saying there was a plane which crashed into the Pentagon but you are trying to make it look like I am saying otherwise. If you are right you shouldn't need to employ scummy tactics.

Is your argument that wtc 1-2 was wired for detonation and they let it burn for an hour and a half and then detonated it?

If so, I assume that that eliminates the theory of them being surprised that the planes were hijacked.

So does this mean that your strongest assumption is that the planes were piloted via drone and then the building was detonated? Or is it something else? I guess I would just like to start focusing in on the preferred theory

PB, how do you think 911 played out? I understand that no one knows for sure but try anyways?

Were planes hijacked?
Empty plane?
Military Plane?
Illusion?
Were the Towers Detonated?

What happened?

So, how long and at what temperature should the fires have burned before they would be contributing factors in the towers collapsing?

Gee, were there any posts that made such claims that the quotes could be attributed to? Were you discussing the Pentagon with me previously?

The paper by Jones and Harrit I've linked to 50 times? You've made the claim that their work doesn't support their claims. Their paper was peer reviewed and published 15 years ago. I've never heard of a paper published to challenge it. Claims have been made against it. This guy named Millette publicly began reproducing their work under the assumption it was invalid. For unknown reasons he abandoned the effort at a critical stage (seems like he saw that the paper he was challenging was valid after all if you ask me).

You are a scientist, right? Maybe you could be the one to successfully challenge this paper which appears to, as of now, stood the test of time. What is the expected reign of a confirmed hypothesis? If I had to guess it would be about equal to the amount of time it has reigned so far plus some amount of time which would be a function of how much interest the hypothesis generated. This paper generated a lot of interest but it still stands. According to how we gain knowledge in our society we can say, to the best of our ability to know, there was thermite in the dust generated in the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Nothing I typed was wrong--it was just a short synopsis of the day ffs. You really want me to type out the bldg7 cliffs? lol I just hit the key points of what happened that morning way before any reports or govt narratives. It wasn't too hard to get an idea what happened with no real outside input. Why are you acting all special? You've contributed literally nothing to the story. All you're doing is repeating other people.

Didn't lose anyone in the towers but a huge wing of the fam lives in the bronx/city island etc so 911 definitely changed their lives.

You need to know? What so some other people can go take care of it for you? lol

That's because of the hand waving. The references to the Bazant paper, which does take liberties with physics, I don't think are part of the official NIST reports on the TTs. The reports hand wave in order to not say things which are obviously contradictory to Newton.

Now if you are going to say that there isn't a single thing in the NIST report which doesn't make sense wrt to temperatures of the steel then we have an issue.

I Imagine the "issue" we are going to have is that someone who can be bothered is going to demonstrate why your claim is complete horseshit, you are going to find some dishonest reasons to deflect and ignore the fact that your claim has been demonstrated to be complete horseshit, ignore any follow up, and move on to the next completely horseshit claim. You know, the same thing you've done with every single other claim you've made in this thread.

You said the buildings burned all day. They didn't so you are wrong. The twin towers burned for about an hour. each And during that hour it's not as though the fire was hitting the beams as if via a blowtorch. We are talking about burning office furnishings which are up to a fire code. It's not like there were stacks of kindling set up next to every beam. The official story not only, with ridiculous so called justifications, assumes that all the fireproofing was magically knocked off, but has to concede the heat transfer was through the ambient air. So fire ******ant office furnishing were heating the beams through air for an hour. So let's add roasting marshmallows to the list of ways to demolish skyscrapers into nothing.

NIST came up with a method to estimating how hot the beams got by looking at the degree of burning of paint on the beams. They heated paint from beams known not to have been exposed to heat and noted the degree of degradation at different heat levels. They compared this to samples of beams from the impact zone. But there weren't too many samples because most of the evidence had been hauled off to China. NIST turned this absence of evidence into a convenience. They were able to get samples of beams from the impact zone from some researchers who had gathered them before the evidence purge. But none of these samples showed paint degradation anywhere near what NIST needed for their model. So what did NIST do? They just made up temperatures for the absent steel beams with no physical justification whatsoever.

Can you provide a link to any of these papers?

there isn't a single thing in the NIST report which doesn't make sense wrt to temperatures of the steel

I think I'm going to unblock just for the lolz. At least temporarily.

He's probably talking about this paper, published in the pay to publish journal, Bentham:
https://benthamopenarchives.com/cont.../TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

Here is proof that the red layer Jones talks about is Kaolinite, NOT thermite.

https://www.internationalskeptics.co...postcount=1694

More discussion of the topic:
https://www.internationalskeptics.co...d.php?t=140017

Could have knocked me down with a feather that Douches was full of ****. What an unprecedented turn of events.