"Truthers", 9/11 and Operation Northwoods

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

"debunking of the debunking"

There is so much desinformation by now ..

Indeed it is.

And it's up to one persons to believe what they want to believe.

Me, my self have chosen to believe the official statement, thou I have difficulty to get a straight and clear answer why these 3 building had a free fall(like a demolition team had made it)

There have been made test(They had buld a three storage replica of one the twin towers), in Denmark and Sweden and they could NOT get the same result. YES they even used jetfuel. and they even let it burn for two days(Denmark)

But as stated before. If this was an inside operation, then how could they keep it a secret? It must have been hundred of people involved and when should they have got the time to install all these explosive
(Some days before the two towers was closed due to something, can't remember)

But I wait for an answer on how it could be possible to get THREE buildings to collapse as it had been done by some demolitions expert.

There's one possiblity and that is, that those building was build in a very poor standard(money under the table, to get some authorization or something in that way)

Markus

[Catfish]

Hello MH,

Originally Posted by MH

Read this again from end to the beginning...skip the bull part about RC planes and it will all make sense.

I guess it is more about cancelation of certain defence funding, and governmental/military shortfalls of internal security - which is why there is no further official examination, and publishing.

Greetings,
Catfish

The truth

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The truth

Well obviously! D'uh!

Well obviously! D'uh!

You should see his stuff on the lizard men, its fascinating, the troof is out there.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You should see his stuff on the lizard men, its fascinating, the troof is out there.

No thanks! I got enough of that watching Gorilla199's videos.

[JU_88]

Oh You should see the hostility you get when you openly question a a conspiricy theory in the face of its followers, even in a non-offensive manner - "Go back to sleep and carry on drinking flouride you brain washed sheep" (as one said to me to me once. )
This is brought to you by the same people who preach "Question everything" except for the Alex Jones channel,
hypocracsy at its finest.

I do like question to things when I feel that I cannot rationally digest what is presented at face value, but in doing so I tend to get branded as a 'foil hat' and a 'sheep', depending on who or what im questioning, 9/11 is a perfect example

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Oh You should see the hostility you get when you openly question a a conspiricy theory in the face of its followers, even in a non-offensive manner - "Go back to sleep and carry on drinking flouride you brain washed sheep" (as one said to me to me once. )
This is brought to you by the same people who preach "Question everything" except for the Alex Jones channel,
hypocracsy at its finest.

I do like question to things when I feel that I cannot rationally digest what is presented at face value, but in doing so I tend to get branded as a 'foil hat' and a 'sheep', depending on who or what im questioning, 9/11 is a perfect example

That made me remember a feature on the danish News-program (TV-Avisen) some years after the 9/11. I remember that this person, who was some kind of expert on construction engineering if there weren't some of his kind in the USA that had raised questions about the official NIST-report

This is what he said and what I can remember:

Not officially, if they do, they can start to find them self a new job.

That and many other thing like some peoples response in this forum have made me convinced that his looks more and more like the story of The Emperors new cloethes

Markus

Not officially, if they do, they can start to find them self a new job.

Probably because they would have just demonstrated that they are rubbish at the job.
Would this "expert" be anything like the person doing a three story replica of one of a pair of 110 story buildingsto measure results?

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Probably because they would have just demonstrated that they are rubbish at the job.
Would this "expert" be anything like the person doing a three story replica of one of a pair of 110 story buildingsto measure results?

No, not if I do remember it correct.

It's not just in Sweden and Denmark they have made this test, but in several other countries they have made test and even they can't get the same result as the original collapse.

And that makes me wonder.

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

No, not if I do remember it correct.

It's not just in Sweden and Denmark they have made this test, but in several other countries they have made test and even they can't get the same result as the original collapse.

And that makes me wonder.

Markus

None of them used a 110 story building in their model did they?

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

None of them used a 110 story building in their model did they?

I'm not an expert on constructions and metall, a.s.o but the result of an collapse should be the same if some made a 2-3-4 storage high replica of these two twin towers.

I could offcourse search the internet to find some expert that makes my statement correct, but i wan't

I have chosen to believe the official NIST-report, even thou I have these qeostion about the free fall of those three buildings.

Markus

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Probably because they would have just demonstrated that they are rubbish at the job.
Would this "expert" be anything like the person doing a three story replica of one of a pair of 110 story buildingsto measure results?

ha yes, the Central core was comprised of 47 steel columns, but for the sake of this simulation I have used 4 made of whipped cream and cake.

Maybe they could have figured it out if they actually bothered to examine the WTC steel instead of selling it off to china with out any forensics, Depending on what you believe, they either made a blunder in the midst of chaos or they had traces of thermite to hide.
The only real truth is that the truth has been recycled into slinky springs and affordable cuttlery.

I'm not an expert on constructions and metall, a.s.o but the result of an collapse should be the same if some made a 2-3-4 storage high replica of these two twin towers.

Think about that again then try and answer Augusts question and see the relevance.

I could offcourse search the internet to find some expert that makes my statement correct, but i wan't

They wouldn't be making your statement correct, it would be just another person making the same very basic error.

[Catfish]

In that case it is indeed details, that matter.
Just do pick up a material book, will you ?

I have a bit of experience myself from my service days, would someone with more experience then please tell me how ignited jet fuel can burn heavy-duty steel girders ?
The jet fuel did not burn for hours but blew up in minutes, maybe leaving small quantities behind, but mind you, even then it is impossible to melt such steel.

From another report:
" [...] .. Jet A is the same hydrocarbon burned in conventional steel wall heaters. In an open-air office fire (called a "dirty burn") kerosene or any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700F (260C to 371C).
The FEMA report on 9/11 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560F (293C) The special structural steel of the WTC has over 98% of its strength at those temperatures, and the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load. [...]

Standard A Jet fuel, like it is used in the US, burns at less than 380 degrees Celsius in open air conditions, and a higher temperature is only achieved in ideal conditions.

" [...] In a "controlled burn" (where oxygen and fuel are regulated in an optimal mix), jet fuel will reach a maximum temperature of 1800F(982C), which is still not anywhere near the temperature required to weaken the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building plummeted to the ground. Yet molten steel was reported below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful "fuel" was used, set to burn or explode BELOW the building, not at its top. Thermite, an HTA (high-temperature accelerant) typically used in military operations, would have been able to liquefy the steel. Thermite can reach a temperature of 4500F (2482C) in 2 seconds, and steel begins to melt at 2750F (1510C) [...]"

The smoke you see is a sign of oxygen deprivation = even lower temperatures.
An open air burn with that smoke would not have caused enough deformation to result in a collapse, even if it had burned for hours - which it had not. Remember the building collapsed at free fall speed and vertically, without leaning to one side - no way !

The architects of the towers said such a collapse would be impossible - ok, this is like you ask a nuclear operating company to publish their security check and believe it -
But all engineers said the steel used in the towers was tested at 2000 degrees Celsius, while retaining its specification and inner microstructure (steel is a chrystalline structure as i well know).

What is also often overseen is, that those steel girders were buried inside concrete, and reinforced concrete, at that.

I do not doubt that the planes hit the building, but the buildings should have sustained that damage.