[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Oh you don't think it's possible? Well, that settles it then - dipshit ignoramus who doesn't know anything about anything doesn't think it's possible, ergo the only plausible explanation is that the largest conspiracy in the history of humankind took place. That's how probability works in your broken brain, right?

What about empty skyscrapers with no furniture? Does it become possible then, you ******ant?

Oh and dipshit, you've ignored the molten metal questions more times than I care to count. Is ignoring questions you can't answer is "being honest" in your view?

I wouldn't call the thick end of 100 tons of jet fuel per plane 'a few jugs' exactly. And flame-******ant furnishings are not, and are not intended to be, fireproof for more than a short time, hopefully enough time for people to get out of there in a hurry.

Who can forget what we were all taught in school about putting out large kerosene fires? Just throw an office desk and a couple of Aeron chairs on it.

Stop posting like you're a chimp and I'm banging on your enclosure and pointing at you.

I'm sure everyone can judge for themselves who's the chimp around here.

So when you going to get around to answering about the molten metal? Let me guess - never, but you're going to continue repeating the claim as though it has never been challenged. That's why you're a dishonest little scumbag.

Most of the fuel in the planes was consumed in the fireballs.

There was no jet fuel in Building 7.

Did you know that one of the assumptions in NIST's model is that the impact of the planes removed all the fireproofing in the entire impact zone? They justified this by an experiment. They took a section of steel beam with fire proofing on it, shot it with a gun, and when the fireproofing came off they said ok that means the plane impact removed all fireproofing for several floors. I'm not lying or making that up.

This wasn't enough to justify the temperatures they claimed, so then they started just making them up. They were able to estimate the temperatures experienced by a few beams in the impact zone, but only a few because the materials, what we would under normal circumstances call evidence, had been quickly shipped off overseas for scrap. So for the missing beams they just assigned the theoretically highest temperatures an office fire can achieve (in specialized rare conditions).

Why the **** should we believe you about anything when you refuse to cite your sources? Pretty sure about 100% of the claims made in this post are pure bullshit and you are lying and making them up. Let me guess, the source is "trust me bro"?

You should really cut back on the crack, Dunces, it's completely fried your tiny brain.

Sometime might want to remind this dumbass that there was diesel fuel in wtc 7 and a parking garage full of cars.

Jfc, you're missing the point. They wanted to hit a high profile target such as the WTC...that's it. That was the plan. Not that they thought they could bring it down intentionally or otherwise. If the towers did come down then all the better for them. And you need to stop watching Oliver Stone movies, this isn't some labyrinthine conspiracy, it was just a conspiracy in the technical sense of a bunch of Jihadists planning it together and nothing more.
Do you honestly not realise just how ****ing stupid a controlled demolition theory sounds? Conspirators got in in advance and planted explosives in the walls of the wtc with not a single person noticing? This is just loose change bullshit. You really are the equivalent of a Flat Earther, seriously.

No one cares about you nit picking an assumption when you can’t back up any of your other assertions about the NIST report.

Nist's estimation of how much fireproofing was dislodged was actually very conservative. They didn't account for any gaps in insulation (from uneven spraying or some that had fallen off over time) even though gaps were visually apparent in photographs of the area in question pre-9/11. They also didn't account at all for how much would've been removed from vibrations caused by the impact, even though that was highly likely and very likely to be significant.

As for their methodology for estimating how much was removed:

From page 150 of NISTNCSTAR 1-6

His description of the experiment that confirmed fireproofing was removed from core columns is of course, completely disingenuous. They didn't just shoot a gun at a column. They launched various relevant materials at various speeds to simulate the impact of the airplane. It's not hard to imagine why.

And, as I showed above, they did not just assume that all of the fireproofing was removed from core columns. They estimated how much, and were very conservative in doing so.

If I'm not mistaken, it was also demonstrated later that the building would've still collapsed without the fireproofing being removed. Not making that claim off the top of my head because I don't remember the specifics, but I'm fairly sure I remember that. It's been awhile.

So yeah. He's lying again. Surprise.

Man, why would Deuces need to lie to us when all the evidence is so clearly on his side? It just makes no sense.

You forgot the part about how after doing that, they flew remote controlled planes into the buildings.

Be glad he's not a no-planer. Some of them think the planes were holograms.

I've been reading some earlier posts itt and he was claiming that the planes could have been converted into drones as the technology existed mutter mutter rant etc

I had a friend about fifteen years ago who didn't have a job and lived in his car. He was a nice guy and a very good chessplayer. He had lots of time on his hands, and after countless hours of research he concluded that no planes struck the WTC.

I believed his theory for a while.

You believe that some 900 year old dude built a big boat and sailed around the world in it with all the animals. Let's just say that you believing something doesn't lend it much credence.

Fine and dandy like cotton candy. I wouldn't say that you believing something gives it credence either. (Unless it's something that you're an expert about ofc.)

I suppose I wasn't clear. I said I believed his theory "for a while." I've done little research into any conspiracy theory. I was trying to say I was naive to believe the no-plane theory.

On the other hand, I fully believe the 'the dude who built the big boat' story. By faith. I certainly can't prove it based on historical evidence.

Sounds like someone can be an utter dumbfuck and still be good at chess.

Uh oh, Deuces.

Looks like time is running out for you to get that evidence in here.

LOL

Quite so!

Bobby Fischer was arguably the greatest chess player ever, but for most of his life he was an outspoken antisemite

Oh man, don't close the thread, we were just starting to have fun!

It really would be a shame if it closed just before deuces could get here with his revelatory evidence.