New News to An Old Truth: World Trade Towels
Comments
-
9/11 Physics Debate: Were the Three World Trade Center Buildings Demolished with Nuclear Devices?
Truth Jihad / Kevin Barrett • March 17, 2021
• 134 Comments • Reply
In this, the eighth annual 9/11 Physics Debate sponsored by ANETA.org, François Roby, associate professor in physics at the Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, and German nuclear physicist Heinz Pommer join American engineer Joseph Olson, PE to advance the 9/11 nuclear demolition hypothesis. Since all three agree that the official NIST position (“minor kerosene-kindled office fires demolished the buildings”) is absurd, and that the best and only explanation is nuclear demolition, it isn’t much of a debate. As in all previous debates, it was once again impossible to find any qualified experts to defend the official story. But we do hope to find one or more proponents of the thermite-plus-explosives hypothesis to respond to the pro-nuclear-demolition arguments advanced here. Stay tuned to Truth Jihad Radio for details.
-
CD Posters,
No one wants or can have an honest discussion of WTC Towels collapsed. Why? Because the official report would make no sense and couldn't stand up to facts or truth. The more I see, the less I believe why those buildings collapsed minutes apart from one another. As time passes the official narrative makes less sense. Where is the truth? Too many lives were loss to not have it. CM
-
Where is the truth? Too many lives were loss to not have it.
Indeed .... those who were instrumental in organizing it had and have an agenda, and they do not care about how many people become part of the "collateral damage".
Truth is to where the official reporters point with discrediting comments => in various reports that are officially labeled "conspiracy theories"
-
@C Mc posted:
No one wants or can have an honest discussion of WTC Towels collapsed. Why? Because the official report would make no sense and couldn't stand up to facts or truth. The more I see, the less I believe why those buildings collapsed minutes apart from one another. As time passes the official narrative makes less sense. Where is the truth? Too many lives were loss to not have it.
What constitutes an "honest discussion" of the WTC towers' collapse must be in the ears of the hearer, CM, for I don't know anyone who doesn't want an "honest" discussion, by which they and I mean we want an objective, science-based analysis of what caused that tragedy. We don't want conspiracy theories. We don't want critiques rooted in social and political points of view. We don't want unsupported claims to be given the same standing, the same evidentiary value as claims that have been reviewed, tested, and accepted as accurate by rigorous and recognized methods of investigation.
That's what I mean by an "honest discussion." Please share what you mean by that term.
-
We don't want conspiracy theories.
except the official one .. that has many "holes" as many architects and other experts in related fields of expertise have pointed out over the years.
-
Bill said:
That's what I mean by an "honest discussion." Please share what you mean by that term.
Bill, consider Wolfgang's statement above to answer your concern. CM
Wolfgang said, "except the official one .. that has many "holes" as many architects and other experts in related fields of expertise have pointed out over the years".
-
@C Mc posted:
Bill, consider Wolfgang's statement above to answer your concern. CM
Wolfgang said, "except the official one .. that has many "holes" as many architects and other experts in related fields of expertise have pointed out over the years".
Wolfgang's response doesn't help me understand YOUR definition of an "honest discussion" of collapse of the WTC buildings, CM. I made my definition clear, I think:
- An objective, science-based analysis of what caused the tragedy
- No conspiracy theories
- No critiques rooted in social- and political points of view
- No unsupported claims that are given the same standing, the same evidentiary value as claims that have been reviewed, tested, and accepted as accurate by rigorous and recognized methods of investigation
That's my definition of an "honest discussion" of the WTC tragedy. Again I ask, CM, what's your definition?
-
Bill said:
That's my definition of an "honest discussion" of the WTC tragedy. Again I ask, CM, what's your definition?
- Mainly for a panel of Constructional Engineers from around the world to examine the evidence from the site.
- Re-open the 9/11 on the building collapse section. Release any section not available to the public.
- Assemble a world-wide panel of Demolition Experts to examine the tapes and have them do a mark collapse.
- Assemble a panel of thermo nuclear scientists to examine materials.
Given that the crime scene has been compromised, almost from the beginning, an honest discussion may not be possible. CM
-
@C Mc Here is proof that the World Trade Center Towels didn't collapsed solely to the two planes crashing into them. I am definitely sure, with certainty. I was suspicious before, but now, my suspicion was confirmed. Proof, you say? Watch the video (below) -- a "Control Demolition" of the Trump Plaza Casino, in N. J., two days ago (
A failed business and businessman). One can't help, but see similarities in the two collapses. It is clear (minus the smoke) for all to see! A line from a Marx Brothers film, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" That is, do you trust, the so-called, findings of the 9/11 Commission Report?My eyes saw some discrepancies:
- Controlled Demolition smoke comes out of lower floors before building collapses
- Controlled Demolition timing from Boom to building down is a few seconds
- Controlled Demolition has entire building collapsing simultaneously (order of arrival into the ground is Floors 1, 2, 3, 4, ...)
World Trade Center Towers collapsing lacks smoke puffs coming out from lower floors while collapsing debris is many stories higher. Watching WTC collapse reminded me of a large pyramid fire collapsing after burning for many minutes (similar to WTC standing for over 80 minutes in each tower after airplane crashes that started burning inside where hot steel loses support strength). WTC floor arrival into the ground was all at once.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
If you would avoid editing my original statement, you'll see that I said: "One can't help, but see similarities in the two collapses." I am not persuaded by your observations, Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus. Beyond my view, let the experts do the work. Hopefully, if they can at all, they won't cross out things they think is not relevant, like you did of a sentence of mine above. CM
-
@C Mc Here is proof that the World Trade Center Towels didn't collapsed solely to the two planes crashing into them. I am definitely sure, with certainty. I was suspicious before, but now, my suspicion was confirmed. Proof, you say? Watch the video (below) -- a "Control Demolition" of the Trump Plaza Casino, in N. J., two days ago (
A failed business and businessman). One can't help, but see similarities in the two collapses. It is clear (minus the smoke) for all to see! A line from a Marx Brothers film, "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" That is, do you trust, the so-called, findings of the 9/11 Commission Report?@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus My eyes saw some discrepancies: ...
@C Mc If you would avoid editing my original statement, you'll see that I said: "One can't help, but see similarities in the two collapses." I am not persuaded by your observations, Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus. Beyond my view, let the experts do the work. Hopefully, if they can at all, they won't cross out things they think is not relevant, like you did of a sentence of mine above. CM
While writing "My eyes saw some video discrepancies: ..." that simply disageed with "One can't help, but see similarities in the two collapses", recognized the crossed out words had no relevance for "An objective, science-based analysis of what caused the tragedy" honest idea discussion about "What Happened?" so crossed out words about possible motivation for unrelated Controlled Demolition (no comment on their ideas).
FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation includes:
8. Why didn't NIST consider a "controlled demolition" hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation like it did for the "pancake theory" hypothesis?
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation that included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the WTC towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed according to the scenario detailed in the response to Question 6.
NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Diagram of the Composite WTC Floor System Credit: NIST
NIST's findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
* the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
* the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
After viewing videos, pausing at several places, concur with top down collapse (roof first) description showing no visible indications of Controlled Demolotion explosion(s) in lower floors, which stood in place until falling debris smashed the floor causing instant structural failure so became part of the falling debris. Also noticed lack of momentary pause when debris smashed into a floor so failure was instant (falling debris weight & momentum overwhelmed floor for instant transformation into falling debris). If any plane parts had survived crash into the WTC towers, the roof collapsing with accumulating debris smashed into those parts (instant transformation bent out of shape so no longer recognizable by humans).
Keep Smiling 😊
-
If any plane parts had survived crash into the WTC towers, the roof collapsing with accumulating debris smashed into those parts (instant transformation bent out of shape so no longer recognizable by humans).
"The moon is made out of cheese". CM
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus If any plane parts had survived crash into the WTC towers, the roof collapsing with accumulating debris smashed into those parts (instant transformation bent out of shape so no longer recognizable by humans).
@C Mc "The moon is made out of cheese". CM
Please help me understand relevance of moon, cheese, and WTC Towers.
Found https://mooncheese.com offers moon shaped cheese snacks.
Any moon cheese inside WTC Tower during collapse experienced crushing change (as also happened to cabinets, desks, fridges, people, ...).
@C Mc Where are the jet engines? One may have been found. How many engines were there on the two planes?
Wikipedia article about September 11 attacks shows a jet engine found from Flight 93 crash into Pennsylvania countryside. Wikipedia also has Boeing 767 information: pictures show two jet engines for each of the two planes hijacked to kill many people inside WTC Towers.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
Please help me understand relevance of moon, cheese, and WTC Towers.
Found https://mooncheese.com offers moon shaped cheese snacks.
Any moon cheese inside WTC Tower during collapse experienced crushing change (as also happened to cabinets, desks, fridges, people, ...).
In disregarding your poor humor on this matter, "The moon is made out of cheese", simply means I don't buy your take on the WTC collapse. CM
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Please help me understand relevance of moon, cheese, and WTC Towers.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Found https://mooncheese.com offers moon shaped cheese snacks.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus Any moon cheese inside WTC Tower during collapse experienced crushing change (as also happened to cabinets, desks, fridges, people, ...).
@C Mc In disregarding your poor humor on this matter, "The moon is made out of cheese", simply means I don't buy your take on the WTC collapse. CM
No humor intended. Tried to interpret your phrase "The moon is made out of cheese" honestly. Scientific analysis on earth of rocks from the moon has verifiable factual evidence for phrase "The moon is made out of cheese" lacking truthfulness. My desire is speaking/writing God's Truth in Love (Proverbs 3:1-10 & Ephesians 4:11-16) using kind words (James 1:19-27). FWIW: your phrase "The moon is made out of cheese" reminds me of James 1:19-27 (like words spoken by tongue showing innermost being are words written for CD post).
Keep Smiling 😊
-
You have given your biblical references, thank you. Now, in plain English, what are you trying to convey in light of them? Whatever it is, are you saying it to me alone and/or to others? Am I entitled to my opinions? Do I have to agree with you to be acceptable? CM
-
@C Mc You have given your biblical references, thank you. Now, in plain English, what are you trying to convey in light of them? Whatever it is, are you saying it to me alone and/or to others? Am I entitled to my opinions? Do I have to agree with you to be acceptable? CM
Every human chooses what to really, really, really love the most (from inherited sin nature, initially starts with loving self more than God).
Holy Righteous God Loves every human being intensely all the time. God hears every word we say & sees every word we write, which will be truthfully & correctly judged by God (Matthew 12:33-37). Thankful Breath The Holy causes Living Words of God to appropriately jump out for each individual (myself included). Thankful 🙏 Prayer with God helps me understand Living Words & obey: my desire is to Be Holy as God is Holy ❤️ (am a work in progress who is still living & learning awesomeness of Holy God's Righteous Love in every dimension)
Thankful God's Truth is consistent: God's Light does not have any devious shades of darkness (evil) twisted in. We have a spiritual adversary who wants to twist devious shades of darkness into our thoughts so devious darkness becomes our belief, which includes opinion expression.
Scientific method starts with hypothesis (opinion), then searches for verifiable factual evidence. If the hypothesis (opinion) does not ageee with verifiable facts, then the hypothesis (opinion) is modified appropriately (followed by more searching for verifiable factual evidence for repetition of scientific method for refining hypothesis).
This thread started with WTC Tower collapse opinion. Controlled demolition of Trump Plaza Casino caused collapse. Hypothesis (opinion) was WTC Tower collapse needed controlled demolition. Verifiable factual evidence of watching videos included pausing to look at collapsing progress. Controlled demolition causes all floors to start collapsing at the same time. WTC Tower collapses were top floor first: sequentially smashing into each lower floor. Opinion about controlled demolition of WTC Towers lacks credibility since does not agree with verifiable factual evidence.
Keep Smiling 😊