Indisputable Facts 9/11: Quite disturbing information

NOTE: Edited since my previous writing had mixed up posters

Mordrid said:

You say you're open to new evidence, then proceed to limit the presentation of that evidence. If you're not willing to follow the investigation wherever it leads, you're not willing to know the truth.

Click to expand...

Limiting? There's simply no evidence that anyone rigged the buildings up for a controlled demolition. Can't support a theory that you have no evidence for. You can kick and scream that several ton pieces of steel were "flinged" out 400 ft... but you don't have any corroborating evidence to support that it was caused by anything other than the collapse itself.

Did you ever look at the documentary evidence of the steel at the sites? Have you ever found a single instance where the damage was consistent with explosives? Did you ever find physical or documentary evidence to corroborate the witness testimony you will undoubtedly resort to? If the answer is "no" then you have your answer as to why the controlled demolition argument fails at it's prima fascia. If you can't get your base evidence in play, then don't have an argument... "You can't handle the truth!" is not an argument

Mordrid said:

Preconceptions will limit your perceptions. If your reasoning powers max out at "building fell down; gravity makes things fall down; therefore gravity made building fall down", then this topic may not be accessible to you.

Click to expand...

The "reasoning" doesn't stop at "gravity makes things fall down". It looks at the cause and effect: The planes damaged the structural members. In one case, the damaged section of WTC 2 supported 30-stories above it while crippled.

Fire suppression... crippled because the plane impacts tore up the water lines.

Lack of compartmentalization inside the office spoaces, the plans were "open"

Flash ignition across several floors

Removal of fireproofing

Load distribution both before and after the collapse began.

You're overstepping you education if you're tell others they're not "ready" when you don't even think about those things yourself

Kyuubi said:

Ok... You say you can't fathom three buildings collapsing in one day? No, you're just not applying "critical thinking" and you're not considering cause and effect. They were all involved either directly or indirectly to the initial attacks on the towers because they were all within a couple blocks of each other... is that REALLY so hard for you to wrap your head around? These weren't separate events that took place with MILES between them... Not only do you seems to have trouble wrapping your head around the setup, you appear to have issues defining what measures up as coincidence.


Uh-huh... right... You jumped into a thread and called the collapse and carnage of an entire building complex an unusual "coincidence" without mentioning that they were secondary effects of an attack that started on two buildings.

Then you think that because several buildings were still "standing" the last "3" should have done the same. It's a stupid assumption.

Click to expand...

:giggle: You've confused me with someone else. I never said any of this stuff, which should be obvious from the quotes of mine that you included. You don't even know who you're ranting and raving at; and your rhetoric is logically ridiculous; so how can you possibly be credible!

Is there some kind of post count competition going on that I don't know about?:unsure:

Mordrid said:

:giggle: You've confused me with someone else.

Click to expand...

Oh dear me it seems I did confuse a little of who said what of the content... silly me. :giggle:
I've adjusted my post accordingly... thankyou for pointing out the error

There is evidence that explosives could have been planed without
any of the office workers knowing about it. Have you ever worked
in the land of Cubicles? Periodically tradespeople arrive with huge
tool-boxes and do work on the building, plumbing, air-conditioning
whatever, stuff gets worked on, nobody checked out the work to
make sure these people are not planting bombs in the building and
given that the explosives can be set off by coded radio signals,
there would not have to be runs of "det-cord" all over the building.
Note that the spaces above the office ceiling & also elevator shafts
are great places to hide explosives.

The major clue ( at least IMHO ) is the complete & total destruction of
WTC 1, 2 & 7 .... note that it is documented in the procedures for
POLICE & FIRE investigators that the complete destruction of anything
is considered VERY suspicious, and the complete & total destruction of
THREE buildings on the same day should be considered VERY, VERY Suspicious.

Think about it......

Mario Savio said:

There is evidence that explosives could have been planed without any of the office workers knowing about it. Have you ever worked in the land of Cubicles? Periodically tradespeople arrive with huge tool-boxes and do work on the building, plumbing, air-conditioning
whatever, stuff gets worked on, nobody checked out the work to
make sure these people are not planting bombs in the building and
given that the explosives can be set off by coded radio signals,
there would not have to be runs of "det-cord" all over the building.
Note that the spaces above the office ceiling & also elevator shafts
are great places to hide explosives.

Click to expand...

You haven't acquired enough evidence to prove that the explosives were physically present on the site, so why is there a need to speculate this far? Find the evidence they were there and THEN people can speculate on the method of implementation if they wish.

Mario Savio said:

The major clue ( at least IMHO ) is the complete & total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 .... note that it is documented in the procedures for POLICE & FIRE investigators that the complete destruction of anything is considered VERY suspicious, and the complete & total destruction of THREE buildings on the same day should be considered VERY, VERY Suspicious.

Click to expand...

The mere fact that they fell isn't enough to convince me that there had to be explosives. Things tend to be suspicious where there's not a glaring source of the fire or incident. The plane impacts stick out like a sore thumb on the ignition source and the damage done to the buildings as a contributor. I think you're confusing this way too much. The issue isn't whether the towers should have collapsed or not, it's why? And how we improve safety measures to make buildings safer when things like this happen.

Mario Savio said:

Meanwhile back at the subject at hand....

Why should it be considered credible,
that a 110 story building could "collapse"
in a manner that includes the pulverization
of mass quantities of building materials.

Click to expand...

You mean that the wtc floors should have been found in a neat pile like you see of the T-Beams in those earthquake ravaged areas? Most of the concrete inside the towers was lightweight and a few inches thick, part of a composite floor system... Not 3 foot thick precast concrete beams covering an acre of floor space. It's easily explainable by the collapse and not exclusive to blast events. None of the structural steel exhibited blast damage, let alone pulverization either... so what is your response to that?

Mario Savio said:

+ the ejection at high speed, of chunks of
building steel weighing in at many tons and
these ejections sent some bits at least 400 ft from the tower.

Click to expand...

Did any of these columns show signs of blast damage anywhere? no... so the only explanation is they got ejected via kinetic energy released by the collapsing buildings. Or do you find the prospect of ear shattering mini-nukes a comfortable alternative theory? Because if you're going to blame explosives for that, you better hope there's evidence of explosives THAT powerful going off in the vicinity in order to make this idea or your fly...

Aufgeblassen said:

I am merely telling you how it looked.

Click to expand...

That is a very interesting description. In the cremation process, skeletal remains are often not reduced to Ashes. Crematorium doesn't produce the necessary heat to completely incinerate skeletal remains. What is left after the cremation is put in a machine known as a cremulator, which is a device that grinds skeletal remains into powder.

cremulator - Wiktionary

My condolences for your loss.

Kyuubi said:

You haven't acquired enough evidence to prove that the explosives were physically present on the site, so why is there a need to speculate this far? Find the evidence they were there and THEN people can speculate on the method of implementation if they wish.


The mere fact that they fell isn't enough to convince me that there had to be explosives. Things tend to be suspicious where there's not a glaring source of the fire or incident. The plane impacts stick out like a sore thumb on the ignition source and the damage done to the buildings as a contributor. I think you're confusing this way too much. The issue isn't whether the towers should have collapsed or not, it's why? And how we improve safety measures to make buildings safer when things like this happen.



You mean that the wtc floors should have been found in a neat pile like you see of the T-Beams in those earthquake ravaged areas? Most of the concrete inside the towers was lightweight and a few inches thick, part of a composite floor system... Not 3 foot thick precast concrete beams covering an acre of floor space. It's easily explainable by the collapse and not exclusive to blast events. None of the structural steel exhibited blast damage, let alone pulverization either... so what is your response to that?



Did any of these columns show signs of blast damage anywhere? no... so the only explanation is they got ejected via kinetic energy released by the collapsing buildings. Or do you find the prospect of ear shattering mini-nukes a comfortable alternative theory? Because if you're going to blame explosives for that, you better hope there's evidence of explosives THAT powerful going off in the vicinity in order to make this idea or your fly...

Click to expand...

Given that the mayor of NYC had the site cleaned up starting the night of 9/11/2001, and exactly what happened to much of the remains of the WTC towers? The other fact I'd like to bring up is that the bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the security detail prior to 9/11/2001.

Note that it is NOT only the totality of the destruction but the fact that the "pile driver" is clocked at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, that is a good trick if there ever was one. where is the jolt of energy transfer?
Why did the building disintegrate? that is many tons of pulverized material, & very little in even recognizable bits, that is where is there an example of a badly damaged but recognizable copy machine, desk, chair, computer, telephone ... or? where is it? The amount of energy used to pulverize the building & its contents is not only in excess of the energy available from the falling mass, but the energy ( in order to pulverize as completely as was observed ) would have to be focused on the specific bits to be pulverized,
misdirected energy is wasted energy and stuff like launching tons of steel as much as 450 ft from the tower is also a huge use of energy, were did all that energy come from?

Mario Savio said:

Given that the mayor of NYC had the site cleaned up starting the night of 9/11/2001, and exactly what happened to much of the remains of the WTC towers? The other fact I'd like to bring up is that the bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the security detail prior to 9/11/2001.

Click to expand...

Cleanup crews took 8 months to remove all of the debris, don't you think with that many people and that much time there was enough opportunity to photograph and document the debris for evidence?

Much of the debris that did get shipped elsewhere for other purposes, as well as what was permanently retained made a stop at Fresh Kills landfill, where further opportunity to examine it was offered and used accordingly.

I know that every photo I've seen there's nothing showing blast damage. Only stripped bolts where the columns connected which is an absolutely expected failure mechanism in this type of construction. It was even the primary failure point for the columns that experienced direct impacts from the planes. I hardly think of that as a coincidence - the joints are the weakest links.

Bomb sniffing dogs being removed? It's circumstantial, and you need far more of it if you plan to go the route without the physical or documentary evidence.

Mario Savio said:

Note that it is NOT only the totality of the destruction but the fact that the "pile driver" is clocked at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, that is a good trick if there ever was one. where is the jolt of energy transfer?

Click to expand...

What about 64% of gravity? That means the structure was resisting the collapse as you think it should have. Energy was being dissipated but not entirely because elements were overwhelmed before the loads could be transferred to the ground. They were overwhelmed because the mass exhibited a dynamic load, eccentrically in a chaotic collapse on whatever was still intact. The dynamic load increases the amount of force behind the mass, and the eccentricity of the load substantially reduces the structure's ability to resist it. How do you propose this proves the presence of explosives? Please remind me. I see plenty here that's well explained by basic engineering concepts

Mario Savio said:

Why did the building disintegrate? that is many tons of pulverized material, & very little in even recognizable bits, that is where is there an example of a badly damaged but recognizable copy machine, desk, chair, computer, telephone ... or? where is it?

Click to expand...

The buildings did not "disintegrate." The structural steel wasn't pulverized for example, and we were able to get very good information about how those pieces failed during the collapse. Regarding the concrete I don't think you read any of the description I provided about their construction in the towers. If you're not going to read it, please just be straight up about it.

The tower's contents were in large part pulverized, but lets be realistic... Desks, computers, telephones, people, etc... these things are not made, nor are they capable of withstanding 30 floors worth of building falling on top of them. They do not have the structural strength period... I really don't know how you find this matter unusual...

Mario Savio said:

misdirected energy is wasted energy and stuff like launching tons of steel as much as 450 ft from the tower is also a huge use of energy, were did all that energy come from?

Click to expand...

From the kinetic energy released by the collapse itself... As much as you don't like that idea, that's about your only realistic source. We can speculate how powerful they would need to be, but you don't have any hard evidence to rely on, so we have to go with whats' most realistic.

Please note that thee was a restaurant at the top of the north tower,
if the destruction of office contents is a function of having many floors collapse down on it, then what about the restaurant? There would be a LOT of chairs & tables + the restaurant fixtures & kitchen gear, NONE of that survived in even a very beat-up but recognizable form? what about the huge air-conditioning units to cool the restaurant? where is the STUFF?
also note that a wave of destruction moving downward at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, indicates clearly that it is meeting resistance that is only 36% of the mass of what is above. The "pile driver" MUST slow down in-order to deliver its energy. There is no JOLT, on the way down, just uniform motion. The fact is that POLICE investigators consider the complete destruction of anything to be very suspicious and may I add that the complete & total destruction of 3 steel framed buildings on the same day is VERY, VERY suspicious!

Man... you are really trying to stretch this controlled demolition thing hard despite the lack of evidence.

if the destruction of office contents is a function of having many floors collapse down on it, then what about the restaurant? There would be a LOT of chairs & tables + the restaurant fixtures & kitchen gear, NONE of that survived in even a very beat-up but recognizable form?

Click to expand...

"Some" items were recognizable and badly damaged, but those were very few and far between and there's no way of "knowing" what floors they originated from. But as I keep asking, how does this stuff validate explosives as you keep pushing? You haven't explained. Do you expect explosives to completely grind down materials?

also note that a wave of destruction moving downward at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, indicates clearly that it is meeting resistance that is only 36% of the mass of what is above.

Click to expand...

Alternatively the better explanation is that because the mass had gained momentum it was imparting a dynamic load substantially higher than its static load. And those forces were hitting the in tact structure in an irregular eccentric, chaotic fashion which didn't allow a direct transmition and dissipation of the forces into the ground. You're now parroting Tony Szamboti, who thinks Bazant's work was a literal mockup of reality and doesn't understand the difference between reality and limiting case models. Whatever jolt there might have been would have been spread across many smaller impacts as the columns bypassed each other when the collapses began. Once they were out of alignment the rest was history

and may I add that the complete & total destruction of 3 steel framed buildings on the same day is VERY, VERY suspicious!

Click to expand...

Ok... You say you can't fathom three buildings collapsing in one day? No, you're just not applying "critical thinking" and you're not considering cause and effect. They were all involved either directly or indirectly to the initial attacks on the towers because they were all within a couple blocks of each other... is that REALLY so hard for you to wrap your head around? These weren't separate events that took place with MILES between them... Not only do you seems to have trouble wrapping your head around the setup, you appear to have issues defining what measures up as coincidence.

You can consider it suspicious if you want but the fact remains the sequence of events from the plane impacts to the ultimate collapse of towers' 1 & 2 had far reaching effects on other structures nearby. Or do you want me to suddenly believe that the loss of all of the other buildings in one form or another were also suspicious... For example Bldg 6 had a gaping hole to it's basement, when debris fell directly on top of it. Blg5 suffered a major interior collapse because of fire alone, other buildings were crushed... Are those a secondary effect of the collapses to you or other "attempted CD's"?

Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Ockham was the village in the English county of Surrey where he was born.
The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Sometimes it is quoted in one of its original Latin forms to give it an air of authenticity:
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"
"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
In fact, only the first two of these forms appear in his surviving works and the third was written by a later scholar. William used the principle to justify many conclusions, including the statement that "God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone." That one didn't make him very popular with the Pope.
Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam's Razor, as in Leibniz's "identity of observables" and Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Kyuubi said:

Man... you are really trying to stretch this controlled demolition thing hard despite the lack of evidence.



"Some" items were recognizable and badly damaged, but those were very few and far between and there's no way of "knowing" what floors they originated from. But as I keep asking, how does this stuff validate explosives as you keep pushing? You haven't explained. Do you expect explosives to completely grind down materials?


Alternatively the better explanation is that because the mass had gained momentum it was imparting a dynamic load substantially higher than its static load. And those forces were hitting the in tact structure in an irregular eccentric, chaotic fashion which didn't allow a direct transmition and dissipation of the forces into the ground. You're now parroting Tony Szamboti, who thinks Bazant's work was a literal mockup of reality and doesn't understand the difference between reality and limiting case models. Whatever jolt there might have been would have been spread across many smaller impacts as the columns bypassed each other when the collapses began. Once they were out of alignment the rest was history



Ok... You say you can't fathom three buildings collapsing in one day? No, you're just not applying "critical thinking" and you're not considering cause and effect. They were all involved either directly or indirectly to the initial attacks on the towers because they were all within a couple blocks of each other... is that REALLY so hard for you to wrap your head around? These weren't separate events that took place with MILES between them... Not only do you seems to have trouble wrapping your head around the setup, you appear to have issues defining what measures up as coincidence.

You can consider it suspicious if you want but the fact remains the sequence of events from the plane impacts to the ultimate collapse of towers' 1 & 2 had far reaching effects on other structures nearby. Or do you want me to suddenly believe that the loss of all of the other buildings in one form or another were also suspicious... For example Bldg 6 had a gaping hole to it's basement, when debris fell directly on top of it. Blg5 suffered a major interior collapse because of fire alone, other buildings were crushed... Are those a secondary effect of the collapses to you or other "attempted CD's"?

Click to expand...

Other buildings in the same complex may or may not have been targets for complete demolition, however the ones to concentrate on are WTC 1, 2 & 7 because these buildings were completely destroyed. and I stick to my original assertion and that is when something is completely destroyed, its because somebody intended to completely destroy it. this "it could happen like that" bit is just as likely for it to NOT happen like that in that WTC 1, 2 & 7 could have been damaged but not destroyed, the fact of complete destruction is considered a very suspicious factor in Police investigations.
an aircraft crash into a building is NOT a guarantee of total destruction of said building. & fires alone can NOT cause the total destruction of a steel framed skyscraper.

also it is taken as a given that so much stuff would be pulverized as a consequence of the "collapse" ...
> ""Some" items were recognizable and badly damaged,"
Please enlighten me, what items & are there any pictures available?
Link please .....

Mario Savio said:

this "it could happen like that" bit is just as likely for it to NOT happen like that in that WTC 1, 2 & 7 could have been damaged but not destroyed, the fact of complete destruction is considered a very suspicious factor in Police investigations.

Click to expand...

Nobody here is dealing with "what ifs" we're dealing with reality. The reality is that the buildings collapsed, and your "opinion" that the collapses were in any way suspicious runs contrary to the facts that we have available. Everything you deem as "suspicious" has a very simple explanation in regular engineering and design discussions and you have yet to explain what you think is wrong with all of the answers you've been provided. You're just throwing claims at me... show you're evidence.

Mario Savio said:

fires alone can NOT cause the total destruction of a steel framed skyscraper.

Click to expand...

Correct..... IF a building is properly fireproofed and meets building code standards, and if the construction system is not as vulnerable to cascading failure once a collapse event is initiated. Make due note of the "qualifiers".
Your categorical claim is absolutely wrong. EVERY competent engineer and architect knows that steel must be fireproofed because failure to do so means if there is a fire, that structural steel will weaken and lose it's load capacity and put the building at risk of collapse. It's rare for buildings to be constructed the same way in each case, so there are are a number of factors that play in, but saying it will "never happen" is an unqualified opinion. We do not say "never" when we design buildings, it's a case by case element.

Mario Savio said:

an aircraft crash into a building is NOT a guarantee of total destruction of said building.

Click to expand...

The aircraft impacts on their own weren't enough. They were a contributor.

- The impacts lowered the carrying capacity of the floor and caused an asymmetric redistribution of loads.
- The impacts destroyed the water lines feeding the sprinkler system
- The impacts dislodged the protective foam from structural steel members
- The impacts penetrated the gypsum wallboard protecting the core columns
- The fires were ignited on MULTIPLE Floors with jet fuel accelerant
- And due to aforementioned damage, steel was directly exposed to fire and high temperatures, thereby weakening them ON TOP of increased load bearing.

You CANNOT treat them as separate. They coincided. Again... you're not paying attention to "cause and effect"

Mario Savio said:

> ""Some" items were recognizable and badly damaged," Please enlighten me, what items & are there any pictures available? Link please .....

Click to expand...

It's not my burden of proof. You are the only one in this thread who has some god awful problem that most of the contents were crushed and pulverized by a mass of building weighing over 100,000 tons. Unless you explain how this is somehow the smoking gun for explosives (which you've thus far avoided like the plague) all I can tell you "things survived" but it's an absolutely insignificant detail to me because whether or not things survived doesn't change anything about the outcome. My observation so far is you haven't been reading a thing that I've written.

Kyuubi said:

Nobody here is dealing with "what ifs" we're dealing with reality. The reality is that the buildings collapsed, and your "opinion" that the collapses were in any way suspicious runs contrary to the facts that we have available. Everything you deem as "suspicious" has a very simple explanation in regular engineering and design discussions and you have yet to explain what you think is wrong with all of the answers you've been provided. You're just throwing claims at me... show you're evidence.



Correct..... IF a building is properly fireproofed and meets building code standards, and if the construction system is not as vulnerable to cascading failure once a collapse event is initiated. Make due note of the "qualifiers".
Your categorical claim is absolutely wrong. EVERY competent engineer and architect knows that steel must be fireproofed because failure to do so means if there is a fire, that structural steel will weaken and lose it's load capacity and put the building at risk of collapse. It's rare for buildings to be constructed the same way in each case, so there are are a number of factors that play in, but saying it will "never happen" is an unqualified opinion. We do not say "never" when we design buildings, it's a case by case element.






The aircraft impacts on their own weren't enough. They were a contributor.

- The impacts lowered the carrying capacity of the floor and caused an asymmetric redistribution of loads.
- The impacts destroyed the water lines feeding the sprinkler system
- The impacts dislodged the protective foam from structural steel members
- The impacts penetrated the gypsum wallboard protecting the core columns
- The fires were ignited on MULTIPLE Floors with jet fuel accelerant
- And due to aforementioned damage, steel was directly exposed to fire and high temperatures, thereby weakening them ON TOP of increased load bearing.

You CANNOT treat them as separate. They coincided. Again... you're not paying attention to "cause and effect"


It's not my burden of proof. You are the only one in this thread who has some god awful problem that most of the contents were crushed and pulverized by a mass of building weighing over 100,000 tons. Unless you explain how this is somehow the smoking gun for explosives (which you've thus far avoided like the plague). My observation so far is you haven't been reading a thing that's I've written.

Click to expand...

"cascading failure" This cascading failure ONLY works as long as
its not loosing too much mass out the sides of the building.
Also, have you ever seen a truck after a rock-slide hit it?
There is a characteristic of the damage that is missing in the steel
shown in all the pix of the WTC steel being taken away.
There have been all sorts of discussions about how the columns shifted
and so once the vertical alignment was lost it was all downhill from there
but hold on a moment, the vertical alignment would have to be lost
for ALL of the structure all the way down because if any bit of the structure held tight while other bits broke, the whole thing would tip and fall over, rather than collapsing straight down.
There is a LOT of "it could happen like that" in the official story,
with equal odds of it NOT happening like that.

The whole 19 suicidal Arabs story is LAME!

BTW: I can not show you pix demonstrating the absence of anything
that survived the "collapse" however, I make an appeal to this forum,
who has any pointer to INFO, that shows a pix of any office furniture
or copy machine, or anything that was in the WTC tower(s) that day.
any takers? Picture is worth a thousand words.... what do you have?

We have video documentation of an airliner flying into and exploding in a building.

That is one hell of a missile.

The destruction that followed cannot be accurately projected, as the variables are many, and the results of each equally so.

Pretending some sinister plot was in place and timed so perfectly with this attack is complete nonsense, and unworthy of serious discussion.





But then again this is the conspiracy forum.....and thus accepting of nonsense.

Mario Savio said:

the vertical alignment would have to be lost
for ALL of the structure all the way down because if any bit of the structure held tight while other bits broke, the whole thing would tip and fall over, rather than collapsing straight down.

Click to expand...

You are making absolutely no sense here. The collapse was progressive, meaning the collapse didn't simultaneously effect the whole building at once, it was a cascading failure effect. The alignment is lost at the interface between the debris mass and the "intact" structure.

Mario Savio said:

There is a LOT of "it could happen like that" in the official story, with equal odds of it NOT happening like that.

Click to expand...

The odds of collapse at this stage in the game are 100% because it already happened... over a decade ago. There was 6 years worth of engineering investigations done into the collapse initiation mechanisms. And the evidence points to airplane impact AND fire as the best explanation. The evidence for explosives is pretty much non-existent, and you've certainly done nothing in this thread to undermine that fact.

Mario Savio said:

The whole 19 suicidal Arabs story is LAME!

Click to expand...

Great, I appreciate your thoughts but substantiate it. While you're at it... substantiate anything in particular you think I've been wrong on... You wanted a thorough "talk" as opposed to the mocking, so step up your game; do the same.

Mario Savio said:

BTW: I can not show you pix demonstrating the absence of anything that survived the "collapse" however, I make an appeal to this forum, who has any pointer to INFO, that shows a pix of any office furniture or copy machine, or anything that was in the WTC tower(s) that day. any takers? Picture is worth a thousand words.... what do you have?

Click to expand...

This level of detail is not required because you are refusing to substantiate your foundational claim that the collapses could only have been caused by a controlled demolition. Unless you can elaborate on how this should be a "smoking gun"

If you can't prove that the explosives were there, or were used... method of implementation is irrelevant. The evidence says they weren't there to begin with, so there is no method of implementation to speculate on.
If you can't prove that the explosives were there, or were used... the total destruction of the buildings must be explained by the evidence that is available; that fire and impact damage initiated a progressive collapse
If you can't prove that the explosives were there, or were used... then whether or not computers and furniture survived the collapse is basically a moot subject.

I can go on and on... but the short version of the story is... the engineering explanations check out and as of right now, the conspiracy that involves blowing the buildings up with rigged explosives... not so much, they are.....


P S E U D O - S C I E N CE

First of all, I am shocked to see that the very fact of total
destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 isn't setting off alarms big-time
for EVERYBODY!

Note that in the OFFICIAL white wash job, the NIST
claims that "total collapse was inevitable ...... "
Ya, right & I'm the Easter Bunny!

Lets get real here, the whole set-up where guys who had trouble
controlling little single engine aircraft allegedly complete feats of
flying skill that even professional pilots find difficult.
both in the clearly dead-on strikes to the WTC towers & the fantastic maneuver getting to the PENTAGON.

Note that the official "report" on the subject alleges that the hijacked airliners where being flown in excess of 500 mph near sea level, now even if an airliner could attain such speeds near sea level, there is the problem of it being VERY far outside the designed flight envelope of the aircraft, therefore its dangerous in that the hijacker "pilot" could loose control and crash the aircraft before getting to the WTC, or the aircraft could experience serious mechanical failure at that speed, and in any case not completing the planned attack, would mean ALLAH would not be pleased.
therefore an attack of this nature by alleged religious fanatics is illogical.

The other bit is that there is NO precedent for an aircraft penetrating a wall completely as is seen on 9/11/2001 in 3 cases we see an aircraft strike a wall, penetrate said wall and disappear completely inside, ( in the case of the PENTAGON strike, less than 1% of the aircraft is seen in bits on the lawn ) note also that the pentagon strike was at an angle, WHY is there not TONS of aircraft wreckage on the PENTAGON lawn?

9/11/2001 = FRAUD

Mario Savio said:

Lets get real here...

Click to expand...

I've been "real" with you this entire time... the collapses may have been a "shock" in 2001 on the day it happened, but then again we had almost no information at that time. We've had 12 years to digest it. Simple fact is the CD theory fails at it's core foundation and the engineering explanations suffice to explain the correlation between cause and effect. That is a separate matter from what you think of the NIST report or the 9/11 commission.

Mario Savio said:

Note that the official "report" on the subject alleges that the hijacked airliners where being flown in excess of 500 mph near sea level, now even if an airliner could attain such speeds near sea level, there is the problem of it being VERY far outside the designed flight envelope of the aircraft, therefore its dangerous in that the hijacker "pilot" could loose control and crash the aircraft before getting to the WTC, or the aircraft could experience serious mechanical failure at that speed, and in any case not completing the planned attack, would mean ALLAH would not be pleased. therefore an attack of this nature by alleged religious fanatics is illogical.

Click to expand...

Dangerous maneuver or not, a hijacker willing to do a suicide attack has very little concern for permanent damage to the aircraft if ultimately they are crashing it into a large immobile target. Whatever detriment to the plane the maneuvers were, they still still hit the buildings.... end of story. I can't make this any more clear.

Mario Savio said:

The other bit is that there is NO precedent for an aircraft penetrating a wall completely as is seen on 9/11/2001 in 3 cases we see an aircraft strike a wall, penetrate said wall and disappear completely inside, ( in the case of the PENTAGON strike, less than 1% of the aircraft is seen in bits on the lawn ) note also that the pentagon strike was at an angle, WHY is there not TONS of aircraft wreckage on the PENTAGON lawn?

9/11/2001 = FRAUD

Click to expand...

There is not tons of debris in the pentagon lawn because the momentum of the aircraft was directed towards the inside of the building... much the same as with the towers, where the vast majority of the debris will have traversed. You're headed in the direction of no-planer theories... I hope you realize that those theories are fringe even among the conspiracy movement...

May I attempt to make an analog here.
Picture this: An anvil with a walnut sitting on it and you wield a huge hammer and smash the walnut, bits fly everywhere! what fun! .... now another picture, this time the walnut is sitting on top of a stack of foam blocks and you bring on the hammer hit it as hard as you can swing that thing and you crack the walnut, but do not shatter it as in the first example and the hammer keeps going for some bit after making contact with the walnut.

My point here is that as in the first example, if the energy of a "dynamic load" is to be expressed, the hammer must stop, if the hammer keeps going after contact, the forces applied to the target bit are considerably less that in the first example.
the basic physics indicates that the Tower(s) could not have been destroyed at the rate they were with only the gravitational acceleration of the falling mass, there had to have been an additional source of energy involved.

Can U dig it?

Mario Savio said:

Can U dig it?

Click to expand...

I have to conclude unfortunately that you have no familiarity with the topics you dug yourself into. At this point you should consider either doing the proper research or move on. You haven't read anything I've written to you... so I don't think I need to waste anymore time giving you the benefit of the doubt. You don't want to learn anything so I think we're done.