What really happened on 9/11?

@maxdancona,

Quote:

And, the paper you are citing that list names of "scientists" are great....

It is great, it is conclusive evidence for super thermite, nano thermite, an explosive that was developed by the US Lawrence Livermore Labs in the 1990s.

It had no, that's zero legal/legitimate reason to be at WTC. It is one of a number of smoking guns that show the US official conspiracy fable is nonsense.

0 Replies

@camlok,

OK on the planes and the super secret military nano-thermite.

Who was flying the planes (given that there were no hijackers)?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Who was flying the planes (given that there were no hijackers)?

Superfluous information. That is the job of a new investigation. Now that you know the US official story is false, you should be spending your time spreading the word, instead of trying to protect the murderers of millions.

Think of the implications, Max. I know it's always an American's wont to whine about their losses but think about the hundreds of millions who have died and had their lives ruined by US war crimes, the result of this horrific crime on 911.

You have a son who took an oath to protect the scum who would do this evil and here you are prancing about, pretending to be deep in thought about all this.

1 Reply

@camlok,

It is not superfluous at all.

Every point you are making has been refuted by the other side. I read both sides of the super-secret military nano-thermit tiff. Whether or not I am impressed by either side of this specific argument isn't important to the real problem you have.

The real problem that you have that even if I accept everything you have said is true... you still fail to present any plausible explanation of what really happened?

You now accept that these planes exist. Who might of been flying these planes (presumably on a suicide mission) is now very important for the plausibility of your narrative, particularly given the fact that there were no hijackers.

So please answer.

Who was flying the planes that hit the World Trade Center towers?

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Every point you are making has been refuted by the other side. I read both sides of the super-secret military nano-thermit tiff.

You are, as you so frequently are, mistaken, Max.

Is Popular Mechanics your bible?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You assert that George Bush did have foreknowledge of the attacks.

Max, you can't even get simple facts straight.

I said "In all likelihood, he did know."

That is equal to a "very strong probably to a must have known".

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Max had said, "I am just asking questions with an open mind, ... . "

Now, Max says, "I am not watching the video (I have seen enough of these propaganda videos) ... . "

Max's open mind!

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

So please answer.

Who was flying the planes that hit the World Trade Center towers?

I don't have a clue. And there is no logical reason that I should or could know any more than there is a chance you might know.

Perhaps Finn knows, or Baldimo, McG, Lash, blatham, Cicerone, guijohn, layman, revelette, georgeob1, ... .

How about it? Do any of you aforementioned folks know? Oh, I forgot farmerman the scientist. How could that have happened?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Every point you are making has been refuted by the other side.

Another of the big 911 myths.

0 Replies

NEW! George Bush Caught Still Lying About 9/11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32qB7On8ngM

0 Replies

(This is a discussion happening on two threads... but I will respond here). I am not interested in discussion the "Physics" here. There is already a Physics discussion happening on the other thread... it seems to have devolved into name calling. No one is learning anything. No one is being persuaded. I am not interested in this.

My question on this thread is this; Is there a plausible explanation of what happened on 9/11 that doesn't involve terrorists hijacking planes. That is, even if we accept everything that the 9/11 truthers are telling us, is it possible to find a narrative of what happened that doesn't have impossible contradictions.

That is the question. I think it is a fair. At least it interests me.

The question of whether planes actually hit the World Trade Center towers is very important to any understanding of what happened on 9/11. At least in my opinion, arguments about whether red powder is paint dust or nano-thermite residue are rather pointless if there is no plausible alternate explanation of what happened.

If anyone is interesting in a discussion (without the name calling), I would be very interested in exploring this.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

At least in my opinion, arguments about whether red powder is paint dust or nano-thermite residue are rather pointless if there is no plausible alternate explanation of what happened.

Jesus, you are years behind, Max.

But fire away on something that is completely out of your league. Tell us your thoughts.

What shocks me is how a science guy can want to bother with needless speculation when there is no way on dog's green earth that hijackers could have caused all those high temps that created the molten metals [no, not aluminum]

How did these hijackers cause free fall for a building they couldn't have come closer than two football fields from?

Get after it.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

There is already a Physics discussion happening on the other thread... it seems to have devolved into name calling.

You're mistaken about that. Farmerman required no devolvement process; he jumped right into the insults and name-calling. You must not have been paying any attention.

Quote:

. . .even if we accept everything that the 9/11 truthers are telling us, is it possible to find a narrative of what happened that doesn't have impossible contradictions.

This is backwards. The real question is: Even if we accept everything that supporters of the official story are telling us, is it possible to find a narrative that doesn't have impossible contradictions?

You seem to be of the opinion that if planes struck the buildings, then implausible physical anomalies need not be explained. That is not true.

Quote:

The question of whether planes actually hit the World Trade Center towers is very important to any understanding of what happened on 9/11. At least in my opinion, arguments about whether red powder is paint dust or nano-thermite residue are rather pointless if there is no plausible alternate explanation of what happened.

This is you again attempting to propose that if no one can tell you who did it, how they did it, and why they did it, then physical anomalies need not be explained. But that's not the way it works.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

My opinion is that what you are calling the "implausible physical anomalies" have been explained adequately enough that further argument isn't worth my time. Once I have satisfied my own curiosity, I don't feel any obligation or desire to watch more videos on the topic.

That is my choice. And everyone makes choices about what interests them... you have to, no one has time to digest every theory that exists on the internet. There are lots of theories I choose not to spend any energy on; from ancient martian civilizations to perpetual motion. These things don't interest me. Sorry.

I don't know what the goal is here. If you want to persuade me, then I have told you how to go about doing that. I am not interested in arguing about "Physics", especially when in my opinion the science being discussed contradicts with the basic Physics I learned while earning an actual Physics degree.

I haven't insulted anyone. I merely said that I don't find the argument at all convincing. And, I have told you the way to change my mind on the topic. I was dragged into this topic by Camlok who kept bringing up the topic in unrelated thread... and then attacked my intelligence when I didn't express interest. So, I started this thread to express interest.

So yes, if the goal is to persuade me... that is exactly how it works. After all, I am the only person who decides which arguments are relevant to me. And there is one issue that is relevant to me.

Even if I accept all of the the arguments that Camlok and you are presenting as fact, Is there a plausible explanation for what happened on 9/11 that doesn't involve terrorists hijacking planes.

If you can present such as plausible scenario, then you have my interest. If you can't, then I am simply not interest in rehashing scientific argument that I find dubious.

There is no need for personal attacks. I am not attacking you are Camlok or anyone else. That is simply where I stand on the issue.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

. . .

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

There is no need for personal attacks. I am not attacking you are Camlok or anyone else.

I didn't say that you were attacking me.

Quote:

So yes, if the goal is to persuade me...

Why would I care to persuade you to do what you refuse to do? I understand that if you had anything of relevance to contribute to the discussion of the physics of 9/11, you would have done so in that thread. You don't have to explain to me your reluctance to do so, as I understand completely.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

My opinion is that what you are calling the "implausible physical anomalies" have been explained adequately enough that further argument isn't worth my time. Once I have satisfied my own curiosity, I don't feel any obligation or desire to watch more videos on the topic.

That is certainly one the most unscientific things I have heard. Bolstered by nothing more than My opinion.

Quote:

Is there a plausible explanation for what happened on 9/11 that doesn't involve terrorists hijacking planes.

Absolutely. Because there were no terrorists, it follows that someone[s] else perpetrated the acts.

The very secret but not secret superthermite/nanothermite that most assuredly existed, see video where unreacted particles are "exploding" and exhibiting the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction, creating the by products of a thermitic reaction tells us that the someone[s] else did it.

9-11: Military nano thermite unknown to the general public found in the dust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA-AqM7JNuo

Within a minute you discover that thermite residues and unreacted thermite were found in WTC dust. That sinks the official story for obvious reasons.

Your entire "argument" is a sham, Max. You want to focus on useless speculation that could go on forever, which is exactly the diversion you planned, instead of focusing on a few events/issues that absolutely sink the official story.

There is so much evidence, so much damning evidence against the official story. How can we tell? Because all the curious A2Kers are shitting their pants afraid to go anywhere near it.

All the self-described scientists can't do the science. How crazy is that?

1 Reply

@camlok,

I am not making an argument on this thread. I am simply asking if there is a plausible explanation that doesn't involve terrorists flying planes into the buildings. I am simply asking questions.

How many pounds of non-thermite would be required to take down the building? How many people would have been involved in installing it in the walls of the building? This sounds like a big project.

The people who put the thermite in the buildings must were presumably American agents who knew that what they were doing was going to kill thousands of innocent Americans.

How did the Government agency involved in this plot ensure that they didn't feel remorse and alert the public?

The biggest missing piece in the thermite theory is still the airplanes. You can fake TV footage, but there were an awful lot of eyewitnesses who were there and saw what appeared to be airplanes flying into buildings.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The people who put the thermite in the buildings must were presumably American agents who knew that what they were doing was going to kill thousands of innocent Americans.

That has never stopped the US government before. US governments have slaughtered tens of millions of people, they have murdered their own. You operate on the silly notion that they actually care about you.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The biggest missing piece in the thermite theory is still the airplanes. You can fake TV footage, but there were an awful lot of eyewitnesses who were there and saw what appeared to be airplanes flying into buildings.

Let's discuss the planes, Max.

How does a United Airlines "stock" airliner, UA175, fly thru two WTC walls, that is, into WTC2 and then out the other side, thru walls which were made up of 14" steel box columns, when a bird strike can cause major damage to the front of a jet?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/13/19/32273BAD00000578-3490044-image-a-5_1457897497814.jpg

And even more remarkable, come out in perfect shape?

1 Reply

What really happened on 9/11?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know