Does the coli still believe planes brought down the towers on 9/11?

Real N Quotes

East Is In The House OMG
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
8,997
Reputation
-1,286
Daps
15,600
Yall still believe what bush and company told yall? The 9/11 commission story? :francis:

Or do yall really know what happened? :wow:

EDIT: I believe bombs were planted in the basements of each tower, sort of like a controlled demolition. I'll put up some videos of witnesses and firefighters stating they heard bombs before the buildings came down.

Planes crashed into the building, but the detonation brought the buildings down:manny:

Building 7 brehs :yeshrug:
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
44,649
Reputation
8,104
Daps
121,503
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
xCivicx said:
The WTC towers were specifically built to withstand plane impacts

But NOT built to withstand fires, raging, uncontrolled, for more than a few minutes thereby weakening the tensile strength of the support columns, which is why your objection is invalid. The fires COMBINED with the impacts and the unique construction of the buildings are responsible for the collapses as noted by the NIST report but overlooked by people who insist that the collapses were orchestrated instead of a natural progression based on natural factors. The buildings did NOT land in their own footprint, did NOT fall at 'free-fall' speed, and there was NO evidence of explosives/accellerants (aside from normal building materials) found at the scene.

Also, the simple fact of the matter was that cell phones back in 2001 COULD work at 30,000 ft., just nor RELIABLY. The difference between those phones then, and phones NOW, is the fact that there was far more analog coverage......

AFTER THE ATTACKS: COMMUNICATIONS; New Perspective on the Issue Of Cell Phone Use in Planes

According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.
...........​
It is still not clear, except perhaps to investigators, whether the various calls placed from the hijacked planes were from cell phones or air phones, the wireless pay phones built into some aircraft seats that are operated by AT&T Wireless and the GTE operation of Verizon Communications. (Air phones communicate with ground-based antennas that do not interfere with cellular networks.)

But at least one of the calls appears to have come from a passenger in a bathroom outside the reach of the air phones, suggesting that a cell phone was used in that case.

For the mathematically challenged, 10 miles = ~53,000 ft. as the farthest range ANALOG signals can be sent/received while DIGITAL signals have a range of about 32,000 ft. Both the Air Phones on the planes as well as cell phones constructed and in-use at the time could make and receive phone calls according to experts in the fields of electronic communication and avionics. Maintaining a connection was an entirely different matter and does not invalidate the evidence that refutes the conspiracist's assertion that cell phones COULD NOT BE USED while in-flight.​
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
3,857
Reputation
1,642
Daps
12,171
But NOT built to withstand fires, raging, uncontrolled, for more than a few minutes thereby weakening the tensile strength of the support columns, which is why your objection is invalid. The fires COMBINED with the impacts and the unique construction of the buildings are responsible for the collapses as noted by the NIST report but overlooked by people who insist that the collapses were orchestrated instead of a natural progression based on natural factors. The buildings did NOT land in their own footprint, did NOT fall at 'free-fall' speed, and there was NO evidence of explosives/accellerants (aside from normal building materials) found at the scene.

Also, the simple fact of the matter was that cell phones back in 2001 COULD work at 30,000 ft., just nor RELIABLY. The difference between those phones then, and phones NOW, is the fact that there was far more analog coverage......

AFTER THE ATTACKS: COMMUNICATIONS; New Perspective on the Issue Of Cell Phone Use in Planes



For the mathematically challenged, 10 miles = ~53,000 ft. as the farthest range ANALOG signals can be sent/received while DIGITAL signals have a range of about 32,000 ft. Both the Air Phones on the planes as well as cell phones constructed and in-use at the time could make and receive phone calls according to experts in the fields of electronic communication and avionics. Maintaining a connection was an entirely different matter and does not invalidate the evidence that refutes the conspiracist's assertion that cell phones COULD NOT BE USED while in-flight.​

Dude, you're wasting your time. I had a long post similar to yours I was going to post but I said to myself, why bother. Nothing I could say or show would convince them otherwise. I suggest you do the same. Heck, they didn't even know that Airfone existed.
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
44,649
Reputation
8,104
Daps
121,503
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Dean_Keaton2k said:
Planes crashed into the building, but the detonation brought the buildings down:manny:

Building 7 brehs :yeshrug:

There was no 'detonation'. Building 7 got hit by a chunk of debris from Tower 1's collapse which opened a huge hole in the south side of the structure and caused fires that went uncontrolled for about 4 hours that weakened the steel supports holding it up......................



About 1:40 seconds in, a firefighter is heard saying 'Look at the hole in that building.'​
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
44,649
Reputation
8,104
Daps
121,503
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
MasterOfAllHeSurveyz said:
Dude, you're wasting your time. I had a long post similar to yours I was going to post but I said to myself, why bother. Nothing I could say or show would convince them otherwise. I suggest you do the same. Heck, they didn't even know that Airfone existed.

Nah. I actually spent a couple days at Ground Zero. These cats are basically saying that what I and hundreds of other people saw with our own eyes didn't happen.

Fukk that.​
 

xCivicx

Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
24,546
Reputation
2,725
Daps
78,824
Reppin
Atl
I still have yet to see anyone logically explain how "jet fuel" can magically survive an explosion that supposedly completely annihilated a "plane"

Explosions consume explosive materials completely

But I guess in this cases, for the first time in history, the explosion stopped itself before consuming all remaining jet fuel in said explosion(again, this is after both planes had been flying around for over an hour) and allowed "jet fuel" to "flood down stairs"

And the explosion decided to leave enough jet fuel to melt 2 100+story buildings, for the first time in history

A lot of "firsts" occurred in that event. I'm sleep though
 

xCivicx

Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
24,546
Reputation
2,725
Daps
78,824
Reppin
Atl
Not know where Osama Bin Laden is from but know the whole thing is staged brehs.
:deadmanny:
I think what he meant to say is that the Saudi government knew where Osama was in Afghanistan(iirc) at the time of the event

The Saudi government offered to turn Osama over to the US if the US could conclusively prove that Osama committed the act

The Bush administration at the time rejected that and created the term "we dont negotiate with terrorists"

That's where that came from. Osama has STILL never been formally charged with 9/11 by the US

But again I'm sleep
 

xCivicx

Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
24,546
Reputation
2,725
Daps
78,824
Reppin
Atl
But NOT built to withstand fires, raging, uncontrolled, for more than a few minutes thereby weakening the tensile strength of the support columns, which is why your objection is invalid. The fires COMBINED with the impacts and the unique construction of the buildings are responsible for the collapses as noted by the NIST report but overlooked by people who insist that the collapses were orchestrated instead of a natural progression based on natural factors. The buildings did NOT land in their own footprint, did NOT fall at 'free-fall' speed, and there was NO evidence of explosives/accellerants (aside from normal building materials) found at the scene.

Also, the simple fact of the matter was that cell phones back in 2001 COULD work at 30,000 ft., just nor RELIABLY. The difference between those phones then, and phones NOW, is the fact that there was far more analog coverage......

AFTER THE ATTACKS: COMMUNICATIONS; New Perspective on the Issue Of Cell Phone Use in Planes



For the mathematically challenged, 10 miles = ~53,000 ft. as the farthest range ANALOG signals can be sent/received while DIGITAL signals have a range of about 32,000 ft. Both the Air Phones on the planes as well as cell phones constructed and in-use at the time could make and receive phone calls according to experts in the fields of electronic communication and avionics. Maintaining a connection was an entirely different matter and does not invalidate the evidence that refutes the conspiracist's assertion that cell phones COULD NOT BE USED while in-flight.​
Steel does not soften or melt by way of conventional fire. This is scientific fact. The mesh steel beam support structure should have stayed in tact according to NISTs own model

If you have a problem with that, take it up with them, not me :yeshrug:

It's on record that at least 1 phone call made from the "planes" lasted over 5 minutes with no drops or interruptions in service. This is not possible now and was not possible then
 

Mike Nasty

Superstar
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
12,108
Reputation
2,099
Daps
59,027
The Saudi government offered to turn Osama over to the US if the US could conclusively prove that Osama committed the act
Sure they did, cause the Saudis with their special forces could have just scooped him up out of Afghanistan or Pakistan
 

Mike Nasty

Superstar
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
12,108
Reputation
2,099
Daps
59,027
I still have yet to see anyone logically explain how "jet fuel" can magically survive an explosion that supposedly completely annihilated a "plane"

Explosions consume explosive materials completely
Now you're a hazmat expert. I thought you were a structural engineer.
:stopitslime:
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
44,649
Reputation
8,104
Daps
121,503
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
xCivicx said:
Steel does not soften or melt by way of conventional fire. This is scientific fact.

Due to the thermal elongations coupled with reductions in steel strength and stiffness that occur at elevated temperatures, even minor member end restraint, imperfections, crookedness, or force eccentricity can initiate visible local flange and/or web buckling, or overall member buckling, above about 600 °F (315 °C). With complete restrain from thermal expansion, these may occur at temperatures as low as 250 °F (120 °C). Buckling is very likely to occur at temperatures in the 1,200 to 1,400 °F (650 to 760 °C) range, when the strength and stiffness are less than 50 percent of their nominal ambient values. Past experience from flame curving and straightening indicates that local buckling often can occur quite suddenly at, and above, this temperature range.

In addition to these buckling distortions of the member, the steel will experience increasing end rotation and vertical deflections during the fire from the existing dead and live loads. Under fire conditions, both for uncontrolled natural exposures and in standard tests, the temperature-induced deflections of fire-resistive steel beam/concrete floor systems can be large. Actual fires have produced deflections ranging from several inches up to, in extreme cases, 3 to 4 ft, which are an order of magnitude greater than the normal serviceability limits that are anticipated for buildings. In this sense, it must be remembered that the intended structural outcome of fire safety design is to maintain building integrity and prevent (or delay) catastrophic collapse, despite suffering potentially extensive structural and nonstructural damage. Thus, even rated fire-resistive construction will often experience major structural and nonstructural damage during a severe fire.

xCivicx said:
It's on record that at least 1 phone call made from the "planes" lasted over 5 minutes with no drops or interruptions in service. This is not possible now and was not possible then

Your assertion doesn't disprove what experts in the field and evidence to the contrary have proven. The calls WERE possible then and now. Maintaining the calls was problematic, but not impossible.​
 
Last edited:

xCivicx

Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
24,546
Reputation
2,725
Daps
78,824
Reppin
Atl
Sure they did, cause the Saudis with their special forces could have just scooped him up out of Afghanistan or Pakistan
Maybe, maybe not :yeshrug:

But US special forces definitely could have pulled him out of his cave easily, had his whereabouts been given to them

In fact, isnt that how his "death" played out in 2011?
 
Top