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


 Share

Recommended Posts

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?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Usman Khan Lodhi
      Twitter cracks down on QAnon conspiracy group, bans 7,000 accounts
      by Usman Khan Lodhi



      Twitter announced that it would permanently ban accounts that violate the platform's policies while tweeting about QAnon, the conspiracy theory movement that asserts "deep state" actors are plotting against Donald Trump. In the last several weeks, about 7,000 accounts, which violated the firm's rules against spam, platform manipulation, and ban evasion, have been banned. In a suspension later rolled out this week, the circulation of roughly 150,000 additional accounts will be limited, as they'll stop appearing in recommendations, trends, and search.

      Per online conspiracies, the term "deep state" refers to a combination of elites from intelligence, political, business, and entertainment sectors, and QAnon's theories assert that the "deep state" is a secret war with Trump.

      Twitter stated that QAnon-related links will be blocked from being shared on the platform, and accounts associated with the conspiracy movement will no longer be promoted in search, conversations, or trending topics. The firm didn't elaborate on which forums or sites might be impacted.

      Last year, QAnon was designated as a potential domestic extremist threat by the FBI when it issued a warning about "conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists."

      Source: Reuters

    • By Jonathan Nolan
      YouTube takes on conspiracy videos, offering fact-check links while watching
      by Jonathan Nolan

      YouTube announced this week that it is partnering with information site Wikipedia to offer users "additional information" when viewing videos that might be considered controversial or related to a conspiracy theory.

      The measure was revealed by the company's CEO Susan Wojcicki at the South by Southwest Festival in Austin, Texas. The festival is a major event for 'creating and discovering' for professionals in the video, music, and interactive industries. The plan is that in the near future, should you be watching a video that falls into such a category, a text box called an "information cue" will pop up below the video suggesting you to look further into the matter rather than taking what is said in the video as the full story.

      With respect to the viewing experience, Wojcicki said:

      Conspiracy theories have become an issue for the Google-owned company who previously made changes to search engine results to promote more "authoritative results". It's unclear how many videos may be labeled as such or exactly which ones, with an example mentioned during the presentation concerning the 1969 Moon landing. As it stands, the effectiveness of this change remains to be seen.

      Source: CNBC

    • By Hum
      If there is anything worse than losing a child, it is losing a child and having people taunt you over the loss.
       
      That is what happened to the family of Noah Pozner, a 6-year-old with tousled brown hair and lollipop-red lips, the youngest of the 26 children and staff members gunned down in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
       
      In the years since the massacre that shook the country and opened new anxiety over gun violence, the family has received hate-filled calls and violent emails from people who say they know the shooting was a hoax. Photos of their son — some with pornographic and anti-Semitic content — have been distributed on websites.
       
      These outlandish theories, which hold that the Newtown school shooting was a staged mass murder engineered by gun control advocates, have lived until now in the dark corners of the Internet.
       
      But they have gained fresh momentum in the last several months, residents here say, at a time when conspiracy theorists across the country have attained the status of celebrities, and the nation as a whole is engaged in a contentious debate over the nature of truth.
       
      President Trump and his national security advisor, Michael T. Flynn, have been open enthusiasts of Alex Jones’ Infowars, a Web-based radio and video network that has relentlessly pushed the theory that Sandy Hook was staged by Democrats to advance a gun control agenda. 
       
      An unabashed Trump supporter during the campaign, Jones says he received a personal call of thanks from the president-elect days after the election.
       
      Although Trump has not spoken publicly about Sandy Hook, many residents here say he is nurturing the culture of exaggeration and paranoia on which conspiracy theorists thrive.
       
      Mark Fenster, a law professor at the University of Florida and author of a book about conspiracy theories in American politics, said the Sandy Hook hoax theory was a response to a Democratic-controlled White House of a kind that often shows up in political extremist circles.
       
      An unemployed waitress was arrested in December in Florida on charges of making death threats against Pozner, with repeated phone calls to his home in which she muttered ethnic and racial slurs and profanities. Another man is in Rikers Island prison in New York fighting transfer to Connecticut for a deluge of harassing phone calls to the home and office of the medical examiner who signed the coroner reports for Sandy Hook victims.
       
      Another man was convicted of stealing memorial signs erected in playgrounds to commemorate the dead children. He later called the children’s parents and said they shouldn’t mind because their children never existed.
       
      Most of the families associated with Sandy Hook have removed or protected their social media accounts and unlisted their telephone numbers; some have changed homes.
       
      Newtown residents are distrustful of outsiders. On the fourth anniversary of the massacre in December, there was a low-key prayer vigil in a Catholic Church. An unmarked police car was stationed outside the elementary school to keep an eye out for hoaxers who show up frequently, photographing children and confronting families.
       
      The “Sandy Hook truthers,’’ as they called themselves, tormented not only the grieving families, but teachers, police, photographers, first responders, neighbors, government officials and witnesses — they all were said to be part of the ever-expanding conspiracy to fake the massacre.
       
      The conspiracy theorists have shown unflagging energy. The most persistent, Wolfgang Halbig, a 70-year-old Florida man who describes himself as a retired school safety expert, said he had made 22 trips to Connecticut, wiped out his pension and spent more than $100,000, which he raised online.
       
      His theory is that between 500 to 700 people were involved in the “conspiracy” — including the schoolchildren, parents, teachers and police, all the way up to President Obama.

      full article
    • By Sszecret
      Here's a quote from one of the attendants of the Davos panel (can't be bothered to look up her name): "if  you look nationally, internationally at whether or not there are any human rights, if there's any constitutional protections for something like freedom of thought, or mental privacy or cognitive liberty, nothing like that exists yet."
       
      I am quite interested in neuroscience and this as a scientific advancement is worthy of thought. That said, I can't help but see the potential for massive amounts of nefarious use. Thoughts?