Post
Topic
Board Politics & Society
Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery?
by
BADecker
on 12/03/2016, 03:16:54 UTC

None of all that conjecture is necessary, I asked a simple question regarding whether you believe that the jet fuel burning was insufficient to weaken the structure and cause the collapse.  You've answered it.  
...

Obviously if we talking about the twin towers and not building seven given the talk of 'jet fuel'.  In these cases, the 'down' is suspicious but the 'up' is even more so.  That is to say, the shattered i-beams and debris velocities and trajectories as the 'collapse' occurred.

It's OK to go ahead and concede that the whole thing was probably a false flag operation performed in order to achieve a psychological impact on the citizens.  The 'catastrophic and catalyzing new Pearl Harbor' anticipated as necessary in the PNAC document not to long before the event (authored by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and co.)  The feeling of entertaining a hypothesis which nicely matches most or all of the observations is much more comfortable than trying to strain a hypothesis which just doesn't work (like the global climate change scammers are burdened with.)   Lots of nations have done such things over the years.  It's probably more common than not.

In hindsight, I am sort of seeing things as a struggle between the 'one-worlders' and the 'American century' crowd.  The former represented by Obama an the latter latter by Cheney.  As I study things more, I see the 'American century' path to be the lesser of two evils which makes me glad they pulled off 9/11.  I've always been in awe of Cheney for the audacity of the feat.  Even the PNAC document concedes that the 'new American century' would probably be the last time a multi-polar world was practical and we'll end up in a one-world system anyway.  In my mind there is no way that such a thing does NOT turn into a hideous totalitarian dictatorship from which there will be nowhere to run and hide.


Lol, of course we agree on many things, but my position here is only to look at the chemistry and physics, not the human dynamics.  So, for example, my explaining how assertion 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of blind devotees of 911 conspiracy theories are wrong, in simple language, does NOT MEAN there cannot be 911 conspiracy theories.  In fact, I have welcomed them.   While you are at it, please figure out the Kennedy killing.

However, a lot of the 911 conspiracy assertions are so stupid it's fucking ridiculous.  So let's get those out of the way.  Just think of me as a guy who WILL ANSWER, and provide the math, for chemistry and physics issues related to 911.  That's it.  No more. 

Are we through with the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" argument or is there more on that subject.

Oh, oh. Starting to use the F-word, are we? What's the matter, can't take the gaff? Too much smoke from the boiled off fuel that kept the Towers cool enough that the steel could barely get warm, right? Chemistry and physics useless because nobody can determine how little of the fuel actually burned to produce heat?

Get off it, Spendy. There wasn't enough jet fuel burned to produce enough heat to melt the aluminum, to say nothing about weakening the concrete encased steel girders, etc.

Tower destruction came from elsewhere, other than the jet fuel.

Cool