[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Hey Deuces, where's the controlled demolition average time? The comparison to the 17.5 second collapse time of WTC 7? Where's the proof of molten steel that you are mad nobody knows about but you?

Hellloooo?

This is all so stupid. Who cares whether they intended to knock down the two towers or the towers and another building. You don’t think watching all the people die who were above the impact points would not have been terrible enough. No one but you is straw-manning the arguments you present here. The terrorists knew that striking the towers with planes would create terror in the general population of the US- end of story.

Provide one piece of evidence that they intended to demolish three buildings.

Why does it seem like I am sourcing the Loose Change movie when I have repeatedly sourced the government and serious researchers who have put their careers on the line?

You might not be aware but there was another thread, much larger than this one, in which there were more in depth discussions and in which I posted a lot more links to sources and quotes. What I find is that once I post a link to something compelling it's promptly ignored. Like I said, Google is your friend. I can barely remember where NIST said it couldn't explain the molten steel from the south tower but I am sure it was from an addendum or F.A.Q., not their report itself. I probably cited it in the other thread. It was obscure so whatever, the case against the government's case doesn't need that tidbit anyway.

Yeah all the aluminum from the plane gathered itself back together like the T-1000 villain from Terminator 2, heated itself up to temperatures unobtainable by office fires, and poured itself out of the south tower.

I don't know what you are arguing but my point is that you can't demolish 3 giant skyscrapers without intending to do so.

Huh???????

Google is our friend. And everything we look up proves you're full of it.

That's why we're asking you to cite your claims.

And the reason you can't find where nist said that is they didn't say that. You read some dumbass conspiracy blog and believed it without checking.

Just like you believed bazants initial paper was about how the towers collapsed instead of about how much energy they had vs collapse requirements.

I'll tell you a secret. Your conspiracy blogs lied to you and you are panicking because you are realizing you have no leg to stand on.

Which you should have realized 10 years ago. At least.

We remember. I posted a link to it earlier. You got demolished in that thread, too. You also acted like you won then, too.
It doesn't help your case.

Loss change, Alex Jones’s and the terminator movies are the sources for your claims. Sounds about right.

You haven't sourced ****. You've claimed that the NIST report says this that and the other without any supporting evidence whatsoever. "Trust me bro" is not a "source" you lying dumbass.

For the 100th time, how do you know there was molten metal pouring from the south tower or that the molten metal on the ground was steel? What are your sources?

Let's recap:
1 - Deuces says the collapse time of all 3 buildings match that of controlled demolitions.

2 - He's asked for these timings and provides none of them.

3 - Deuces says molten steel was found under and pouring out of the towers.

4 - He's asked for proof of this and provides none.

5 - Deuces says that the top portion of a building could not crush the bottom portion of the building.

6 - Multiple videos of this happening to other buildings with no explosives, only gravity, used is provided.

7 - Deuces ignores this and deflects to nonsense about how the top portion didn't remain intact during the collapse which is a total red herring and straw man (after first trying to move the goalposts and claim the break point was in the middle even though he specifically claimed that wouldn't change anything)

8 - Deuces then claims that the Bazant/Zhou paper claims the top portion remained intact.

9 - He is corrected by pointing out that the Bazant/Zhou paper wasn't describing the mechanisms of the collapse but calculating collapse energy so it used a simplified model.

10 - Deuces reiterates his claim despite direct evidence in front of his face that Bazant claimed that the top portion remained intact.

11 - Deuces is corrected with even more direct evidence and runs away.

12 - Deuces stops making concrete claims and starts hemming and hawing about what they meant to do and a lot of other vague nonsense having learned, yet again, that when he tries to make concrete claims he gets his ass handed to him.

Damn man, when you put it like that, he really is "kicking our asses," huh?

Nice posting time, D2e4. A real one in a billion intended result.

So Deuces, is it possible to start a forest fire from a cigarette or an avalanche from skiing?

I said you can have it that NIST didn't say that. They did, but it was obscure and might have been in contradiction to other things they said. I don't need it. You can have it.

Bazant's paper is absolutely about how the towers collapsed. It was written the day after the attacks, so it had no data. It would be a stretch to think they guy even had detailed information on the construction of the towers just lying around his office. The paper is really some professor smelling his own farts. The original contained the ridiculous diagram I posted earlier.

Demolition experts came out immediately and said it was a controlled demolition. Many of them later retracted their statements under social pressure. One who didn't reverse himself died in some weird way, his car running into a lonely tree in the middle of nowhere. Bazant was just conjecturing but his farts were turned into the basis for the pancake theory which is also not a detailed collapse mechanism.

"collapse ensued", the extent of what is said in the NIST report, is not a mechanism. There is no official mechanism.

Bazant might know a lot about buildings but that doesn't mean he knows so much about how they go down that he can write an informed paper in a few days right after the collapse in the total absence of data. He didn't even consider the rate of fall because how could he have got the video to measure it accurately. Your physical trainer might know how to build muscle but that doesn't mean you consult him when you see signs of muscle wasting. You really are a dumdum and I have been really hesitant to label posters like that, even when they are disrespectful to me. But you and JJShabado...man you two are some of the most dense people who also choose to take up debate who I've ever encountered and, again, I don't just reflexively say that to anyone who disagrees with me. I can tell that even some of the most disrespectful and disingenuous people here have half a brain. My guess is you were born into an upper or upper middle class family that heavily emphasized education but you were just naturally born slow. On the brighter side, at least you didn't become a white supremacist which is a very common route for people like you.

The serious truth movement is more of an anti-conspiracy movement. It doesn't know who did it or exactly how it happened, but it makes a super compelling case that what the government said happened didn't. And if it is wrong it is not due to dishonesty. These people have risked their livelihoods to pursue the truth, very cushy careers. There is little money in truth in our capitalist system. If you have degrees and employment you would only take up the cause if you really believed it would help the country. So stop with the accusations of lying. No one is lying. But you just are that stupid to think that anyone who disagrees with you is just lying. You have such a moronic approach to all of this.

If I'd gotten demolished I'd happily admit it. My confidence isn't so fragile. I'm one of the few people you will ever encounter who can admit when they are wrong. Ironically, that is why I am rarely wrong, because I can learn from other people. I could even learn from you, even as dumb as you are. You might be right about something just on blind chance one day.

No it isn't dumbass. You're illiterate.

You're so fing stupid it hurts to look at.

BTW you've still not addressed a single thing in that list, liar.

I believe I linked to the David Chandler lecture ITT in which he clocks it and discusses the near total lack of resistance observed. He also delves into other features of the collapses which match controlled demolitions. Why does this not count as a citation? I've done this in both threads now. Search for "Chandler" nimrod.

"when the footnotes say 'ibid' the author is a liar"

- Gorgo the nimrod

Yes I absolutely say that and anyone who understands freshman physics should agree. To be specific it could crush a portion, but not the entirety, not without help.

The video you showed was a controlled demolition which was rigged to start from the middle. Furthermore the top portion is destroying itself on the way down. Your posting that video was probably the biggest self-own in the entirety of the 9/11 debate on this site and, buddy, that is saying something.

It says the top portion remained intact until it hit the ground and then decided to crush itself. I suppose the top portion was angry at the bottom portion and, even though it was the same material, by some psychic will it made itself stronger? But then when it hit the ground it had quenched its anger and decided to start obeying the laws of physics. Is this what you believe?

The paper literally coined "crush down crush up". What do you think "crush down" is referring to?

David Chandler gave us the average time of controlled demolitions? Great, tell us what he came up with.

And where does "total lack of resistance" come from if all three collapses were markedly slower than freefall acceleration?

Good luck.

I note a complete lack of evidence in this reply. Do better.

Cool, I showed you videos of it happening. Your response is hilarious. Let's get to that now, shall we?

No. Some were from the middle. The last one was 5 stories from the top of a 15 story building. That's not the middle. You are lying.

Destroying itself is not correct, but it was of course not remaining intact. Literally no one claims the top portion remained intact. This is the very definition of a straw man.

You've given absolutely no reason for that.

It says no such thing. You are simply illiterate. 25 years and you still haven't read the paper far enough to get to the ABSTRACT THAT TELLS YOU IT'S NOT MODELLING THE COLLAPSE MECHANISM.

Here: I will agree with you that the collapse mechanism put forth by Bazant in that paper isn't what happened. But he also agrees with that in the paper, so now what? Do you believe you've accomplished something?

Your stupidity is impressive.

You still owe us answers to everything in my list. Get cracking.

Did he really just do a complete 180 from previously saying we were disgusting and depraved because we would not consider the NIST verified molten steel rivers in our analysis but now he claims “I said you can have it that NIST didn't say that. They did, but it was obscure and might have been in contradiction to other things they said. I don't need it. You can have it.”

This guy is just a fool.

I think you are being unfair to Gorgo. He is much better versed and learned in the technical aspects here and is giving you a good ol fashioned ass kicking on every point in every post. He is much less dense than me. I have spent most of my work life dealing with catastrophic forces and accident's and rely on experts to make sense of what happened. Most experts, if they say what didn’t happen are also able to opine what they think happened as an alternative.

You are just a spineless guy that doesn’t agree with the official story because, er reasons that you can’t even validate are true, but present no alternative version that makes any sense whatsoever. You are a professional time waster with your antics.

101st time, clown.

Since the external cladding on the Twin Towers was aluminium, with a melting point temperature only half that of steel... well, you get the idea, obviously, hence the question.

Crashing the planes into a high profile target was their plan. If the buildings then came down, that would be just a bonus for them. The absolute kindest thing I can say to you is that maybe, just maybe you're overthinking this.

We passed being kind to this doorstop over a decade ago.

Sure. But understand that what you are saying if that it is possible to completely demolish a skyscraper with a few jugs of jets fuel and the fire-******ant furniture inside the skyscrapers. That I don't think is possible AINEC.

I don't think it is reasonable to think you can completely bring down 3 massive skyscrapers as some kind unintended bonus. Maybe stop watching all these movies this isn't the Marvel universe. They aren't Jenga towers. Those skyscrapers were engineered precisely to prevent exactly what happened. Someone earlier likened it to an avalanche. I don't have any kind words to describe that comparison. You honestly think that an office fire could result in that total obliteration? in all 3 buildings?

Probability is hard for most people. I get it. But I will ask you what I've been asking others. If you had that crew and the other constraints of the plan, as described in the official narrative, and you had to rerun it, what percentage of the time do accomplish the total demolition of 3 massive skyscrapers, the 3 biggest buildings in the WTC complex, with two commercial planes? Just give me a number based on feels please.

Yet another post with no evidence for your claims.

And you have the gall to ask others to answer your questions.

Have you no shame at all?