Jet fuel can't melt steel. (But it sure can weaken it)

[T3X4S]

 

 

Final seconds are hilarious

 

[FloatingFatMan]

Let's face it guys, the ONLY conclusion any of these armchair "experts" will accept, is "The US government did it".  Nothing else, absolutely nothing else, will satisfy their weird agenda. They are convinced the US gov is guilty of mass murder and nothing will sway them, not even blatant evidence and logic to the contrary.

 

The thing I have to ask though, is if these guys are the ONLY ones who "know the truth", and there's a huge conspiracy here to murder 1000's of innocent people, why hasn't the evil government silenced the few who "know"?  What's another dozen or so flapping heads compared to the 1000's already killed?

[HawkMan]

6 hours ago, monkeylove said:

If that's the case, then why do investigators of fires, aircraft crashes, and crime scenes go through physical evidence extensively?

 

The purpose of collecting evidence is to rebuild towers? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

becuase: did you even read my effin post ? any of them ?

 

6 hours ago, monkeylove said:

That's what happens when much of the physical evidence is destroyed: we're left with videos, polls, simulations, and conspiracy theories.

 

No, that would have happened anyway, there's ny point in "investigating" wreckage that had nothing to do with the collapse other than being part of it but not the cause of it. 

 

There's a huge difference between an investigation that needs to find a location and cause without knowing where and what happened just from a wreckage, and an investigation that knows exactly what happened and where it happened. 

 

It's long past the point where' there any reason to reason or explain things to you, you're obvously locked into the "it's a conspiracy and nothign will convince me otherwise" view and don't listen to any facts, or real rationale or logic anymore. 

[FloatingFatMan]

32 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

It's long past the point where' there any reason to reason or explain things to you, you're obvously locked into the "it's a conspiracy and nothign will convince me otherwise" view and don't listen to any facts, or real rationale or logic anymore. 

He, and all the other conspiracy theorists, never listened to any of that to start with.

[Emn1ty]

13 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

He, and all the other conspiracy theorists, never listened to any of that to start with.

Conspiracy is about rationalizing a preconceived conclusion, not deriving a conclusion from evidence.

[monkeylove]

On 3/11/2016 at 9:57 AM, jjkusaf said:

Because they want to know why/where the fire occurred, they want to know what brought the plane down, and they want to know why/how/who committed the crime.  The examples you listed are poor because they typical start with the unknown variable.

 

With the WTC ... they already knew the main culprit so the “unknown” was established even before they fell.  With further investigation ... they determined that the heat weakened the steel + the damage from the impact = tower collapse.  Not exactly rocket science.

 

What other "evidence" do you want.  Have you applied to the NIST so you can give them your insight?  Or are you just playing armchair investigator on a tech site?

 

No ... this is what happens when armchair investigators do not comprehend what the investigators found.

 

Completely the opposite. That's why a lot of physical evidence is gathered, documented, and analyzed when planes crash, etc.

The fact that they "already knew the main culprit" even before an investigation was launched proves my point even more!

The question you should ask isn't what "other 'evidence'" is needed but why was very little evidence gathered. That's why what the investigators "found" was only around 150 pieces out of 350,000 tons. Even more pathetic was the fact that even some of that was left at the yards!

Why do you think it's called "armchair investigation"? Instead of going through the physical evidence, one sits down and views videos and simulations.

 

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/11/2016 at 10:54 AM, trag3dy said:

Yes and we've been over that haven't we? Let's assume that the people who were conducting the examinations know a little bit more about what they're doing than you think you know what they should have been doing.

 

Okay? With me so far?

 

How much do you think would have been enough? Because apparently what the experts decided and what you from your armchair decided do not line up equal with each other.

 

You seem to have something in mind and it's your job to prove your argument and so far you haven't provided a single shred of proof of even a solid reason for why it wasn't good enough for you other than you just think so.

And little bit is that?

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/11/2016 at 10:56 AM, mudslag said:

 

Which would imply that they went through the pieces and picked out the quality ones. If you want to suggest that wasn't done, then you need to provide evidence of that otherwise your argument has failed. 

 

I like how you skipped over the next post, I don't think you realize what those pieces even represent. 

No, they didn't. Read the report and the news article shared earlier.

 

Refer to the report explaining what those pieces represent.

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/11/2016 at 3:21 PM, FloatingFatMan said:

Let's face it guys, the ONLY conclusion any of these armchair "experts" will accept, is "The US government did it".  Nothing else, absolutely nothing else, will satisfy their weird agenda. They are convinced the US gov is guilty of mass murder and nothing will sway them, not even blatant evidence and logic to the contrary.

 

The thing I have to ask though, is if these guys are the ONLY ones who "know the truth", and there's a huge conspiracy here to murder 1000's of innocent people, why hasn't the evil government silenced the few who "know"?  What's another dozen or so flapping heads compared to the 1000's already killed?

The only thing you should consider is the fact that investigators acknowledged that they did not go over 80 pct of the physical evidence (with around 5 pct of it stolen!), spent less than two months going over the remaining 20 pct, selected only around 150 pieces (another organization claims that they got more than 200; groups of investigators cannot even agree on that!), and then accidentally lost even some of that. No wonder they ended up resorting to videos and simulations!

 

[T3X4S]

@monkeylove - so... what do you think about:

UFO- Roswell
JFK assassination
moon landing
illuminati

NWO

vaccines

Reptilians
Tunguska Incident

Maybe another thread is better for this...
Love to hear your thoughts

 

 

[FloatingFatMan]

3 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

The only thing you should consider is the fact that investigators acknowledged that they did not go over 80 pct of the physical evidence (with around 5 pct of it stolen!), spent less than two months going over the remaining 20 pct, selected only around 150 pieces (another organization claims that they got more than 200; groups of investigators cannot even agree on that!), and then accidentally lost even some of that. No wonder they ended up resorting to videos and simulations!

 

Unless you are an expert in building demolitions, you don't get to say how many fragments were or were not enough to establish the cause of the collapse.

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/11/2016 at 3:56 PM, HawkMan said:

becuase: did you even read my effin post ? any of them ?

 

No, that would have happened anyway, there's ny point in "investigating" wreckage that had nothing to do with the collapse other than being part of it but not the cause of it. 

 

There's a huge difference between an investigation that needs to find a location and cause without knowing where and what happened just from a wreckage, and an investigation that knows exactly what happened and where it happened. 

 

It's long past the point where' there any reason to reason or explain things to you, you're obvously locked into the "it's a conspiracy and nothign will convince me otherwise" view and don't listen to any facts, or real rationale or logic anymore. 

The point is not to find out whether or not the steel debris "caused" the collapse but analysis of the debris and other explanation to explain such. Why do you think investigator carefully go through the physical evidence when planes crash or buildings collapse, more so when BOTH are involved in this tragedy?

 

Finally, I did not argue that there is a conspiracy. What I said is that much of the physical evidence was not examined and destroyed hastily for no reason at all. The argument started when one forum member claimed that much of the physical evidence was analyzed and was not destroyed, and I countered that claim.

 

Do you agree with my point?

 

[HawkMan]

12 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

Completely the opposite. That's why a lot of physical evidence is gathered, documented, and analyzed when planes crash, etc.

The fact that they "already knew the main culprit" even before an investigation was launched proves my point even more!

The question you should ask isn't what "other 'evidence'" is needed but why was very little evidence gathered. That's why what the investigators "found" was only around 150 pieces out of 350,000 tons. Even more pathetic was the fact that even some of that was left at the yards!

Why do you think it's called "armchair investigation"? Instead of going through the physical evidence, one sits down and views videos and simulations.

 

 

So your response after several people telling you your argument is wrong, how and why it's wrong and explaining it to you. is to REPEAT the same exact statement, with NOTHING to back it up..

 

*sigh

 

yeah, go believe what you want, also the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese and the sun orbits the earth. The same arguments you use to claim your side in this can be used to "prove" these statements. also the same stataments are used to disprove them as to disprove your cliams here, logic, physics and physical proof. 

[monkeylove]

On 3/11/2016 at 4:29 PM, FloatingFatMan said:

He, and all the other conspiracy theorists, never listened to any of that to start with.

Conspiracy theory? Are you claiming that much of the physical evidence was not destroyed and was analyzed carefully?

 

On 3/11/2016 at 6:06 AM, Emn1ty said:

Conspiracy is about rationalizing a preconceived conclusion, not deriving a conclusion from evidence.

Exactly! There was very little evidence gathered during the investigation, and I proved that in this thread.

 

[HawkMan]

2 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

The point is not to find out whether or not the steel debris "caused" the collapse but analysis of the debris and other explanation to explain such. Why do you think investigator carefully go through the physical evidence when planes crash or buildings collapse, more so when BOTH are involved in this tragedy?

 

Finally, I did not argue that there is a conspiracy. What I said is that much of the physical evidence was not examined and destroyed hastily for no reason at all. The argument started when one forum member claimed that much of the physical evidence was analyzed and was not destroyed, and I countered that claim.

 

Do you agree with my point?

 

SO using this post, your argument is that they need the steel from the are that collapsed to see that the steel was what collapsed.

 

done. that's what the effin did...

[FloatingFatMan]

Just now, monkeylove said:

Conspiracy theory? Are you claiming that much of the physical evidence was not destroyed and was analyzed carefully?

 

No, I'm claiming that you won't accept ANY amount of evidence unless it supports your weird claims, and it never will.

 

You are not an expert. You have zero comprehension of how much physical evidence was needed, or how it was analysed, or ANYTHING to do with the whole disaster. You're just a person sitting behind a PC screen, making crap up because you don't have anything better to do.

 

[monkeylove]

4 minutes ago, T3X4S said:

@monkeylove - so... what do you think about:

UFO- Roswell
JFK assassination
moon landing
illuminati

NWO

vaccines

Reptilians
Tunguska Incident

Maybe another thread is better for this...
Love to hear your thoughts

 

 

These have nothing to do with my argument, which is based on part of the FEMA report that I shared and some newspaper articles.

 

There is no "conspiracy theory" in my arguments. Just common sense.

 

3 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

So your response after several people telling you your argument is wrong, how and why it's wrong and explaining it to you. is to REPEAT the same exact statement, with NOTHING to back it up..

 

*sigh

 

yeah, go believe what you want, also the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese and the sun orbits the earth. The same arguments you use to claim your side in this can be used to "prove" these statements. also the same stataments are used to disprove them as to disprove your cliams here, logic, physics and physical proof. 

Nothing to back it up? Didn't you see the FEMA report and newspaper articles cited in my previous posts?

 

[HawkMan]

3 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

Conspiracy theory? Are you claiming that much of the physical evidence was not destroyed and was analyzed carefully?

 

Do you know what I do when/if I get memory error on a computer ? I check the memory sticks. Not the HDD, not the CPU, not the PSU, not the case.  IF the memory somehow proves to not be the issue, THEN I work on other thigns in a logical manner (though in this case it's fair to say it's going to be the motherboard if it's not the memory sticks thesmevles but eh...) 

 

Quote

Exactly! There was very little evidence gathered during the investigation, and I proved that in this thread.

No, you, unlike many many others have not proven a thing in this thread. 

[T3X4S]

I love it when people use "common sense" as their evidence.

 

[monkeylove]

1 minute ago, FloatingFatMan said:

No, I'm claiming that you won't accept ANY amount of evidence unless it supports your weird claims, and it never will.

 

You are not an expert. You have zero comprehension of how much physical evidence was needed, or how it was analysed, or ANYTHING to do with the whole disaster. You're just a person sitting behind a PC screen, making crap up because you don't have anything better to do.

 

No, I am not looking for "any amount of evidence," just proof that the physical evidence was documented, stored, and analyzed carefully. I have part of the FEMA report which shows otherwise. Can you counter that claim or not?

 

[monkeylove]

3 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

SO using this post, your argument is that they need the steel from the are that collapsed to see that the steel was what collapsed.

 

done. that's what the effin did...

No, they need to investigate the debris to find out why the buildings collapsed in such a manner, not to mention a third one that wasn't even hit by the planes! It's painfully clear that videos and simulations will not do, especially when much of the debris was not analyzed and was destroyed for no reason at all.

 

[FloatingFatMan]

Just now, monkeylove said:

No, I am not looking for "any amount of evidence," just proof that the physical evidence was documented, stored, and analyzed carefully. I have part of the FEMA report which shows otherwise. Can you counter that claim or not?

 

Why do you need such proof? What will it tell you if you do get it? What business is it of your anyway, and why do you even care?  You're not an analyst, or an expert, or have anything whatsoever to do with the investigation, so really, what and how they've analysed the evidence is no business of yours. Clearly, you're convinced there is more going on here than meets the eye, so what will you get out of such proof, either way?

[HawkMan]

2 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

No, they need to investigate the debris to find out why the buildings collapsed in such a manner, not to mention a third one that wasn't even hit by the planes! It's painfully clear that videos and simulations will not do, especially when much of the debris was not analyzed and was destroyed for no reason at all.

 

they.... did... 

 

as we've explained and proven to you tens of times already....

[theyarecomingforyou]

12 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

These have nothing to do with my argument, which is based on part of the FEMA report that I shared and some newspaper articles.

 

There is no "conspiracy theory" in my arguments. Just common sense.

One cannot apply 'common sense' to structural engineering and the physics behind it and expect to come to an informed conclusion. The whole point is that expertise is required to examine the evidence, to investigate and determine the cause. One small detail could change the entire outcome of the investigation yet you're applying only a superficial analysis without any rigorous scrutiny. You have no interest in the truth, only in justifying your belief.

 

Personally I don't dismiss the possibility it was a conspiracy but none of the evidence presented so far supports that. It is far more likely that the United States' belligerent foreign policy pushed Osama Bin Laden to retaliate in the most effective way he could conceive. As for investigation of the debris, the sheer volume makes analysing it all unworkable and the cause is usually determined by relatively small amounts of wreckage - human error is to blame for the rest, as investigators simply aren't trained to deal with a situation like that. Afterwards the attack was hijacked for political gain but that's to be expected from politicians.

[mudslag]

 

4 hours ago, monkeylove said:

No, they didn't. Read the report and the news article shared earlier.

 

Refer to the report explaining what those pieces represent.

 

 

Again you're making the claim for which you have yet to backup. What you've posted does not support your claim. The report posted shows exactly what those pieces represent further down the report. Either you are to incompetent to understand what the report is about or you're in denial.