Debate Robot Teapot On Whether 9/11 Was A Conspiracy

[Robot Teapot]

I liked the bit where NIST in 2011, finally and begrudgingly, after relentless pressure from physicists and other experts, admitted that WTC7 collapsed at FREEFALL SPEED for at least 3.9 seconds. Good luck finding a solitary MSM article covering this huge admission and it's logical conclusion.

They typically danced around the reasons as to how this was the case, but basically admitted controlled demolition.

Wake up, sheeple!

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Can the OP @Lipitor edit a poll into the header of this thread? I'm not sure if it's too late to do so, but I'm a relative noob on here and would be interested to know who here thinks 9/11 was as the official story goes, vs 9/11 being obvious shenanigans.

I'm of the latter persuasion, if that wasn't already clear.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

I liked the bit where NIST in 2011, finally and begrudgingly, after relentless pressure from physicists and other experts, admitted that WTC7 collapsed at FREEFALL SPEED for at least 3.9 seconds. Good luck finding a solitary MSM article covering this huge admission and it's logical conclusion.

They typically danced around the reasons as to how this was the case, but basically admitted controlled demolition.

Wake up, sheeple!

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

*reads report*

Yeah, might want to tighten that tinfoil hat a bit, comrade. Next you'll be telling us about how jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

 

[not william stenchever]

I calculated g in high school physics by videotaping an object in freefall and using software to plot its course, taking it's position for each increment of t. Incidentally that object in freefall was a rubber ball and not a building that necked itself because the plane it met on Tinder didn't show up to the date (on account of being splattered across a pasture in Pennsylvania)

The calculations don't give a damn though, they work out the same regardless

 

[metroid_fetish]

Didn't happen. Fake towers.

 

[Robot Teapot]

*reads report*

Yeah, might want to tighten that tinfoil hat a bit, comrade. Next you'll be telling us about how jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

I did say this is NIST's report, and that it's their job to paint over facts. I guess you skimmed over the bit where they ADMIT 3.9 second freefall? Or maybe, even if you did see that part, that you don't understand it's significance?

I'm not going to be critical. I get that it's fucking HARD to get over the mental hurdle that there's even the remote possibility that there were actual shenanigans going on that day. Hell, it took me 6 years to explore the possibility.

There's plenty of red flags from 9/11 like the put options in the days before, etc. More than plenty. These can be debated. Thing is, there's also undeniable fucking physics. Science. There's plenty of 2+ hour lectures online you can watch by experts in their fields re 9/11. Scientists, architects, demolition experts, physicists. Hell, I watched a 1 hour lecture about the nature of the pyroclastic behavior of smoke, and how to see the difference when it's the result of an explosion, and when a result of a collapse. (Pro-tip - that billowing, rapidly outward projecting smoke from WTC's 1+2 during collapse? Fucking clearly explosive in nature)

Look. When NIST admitted freefall speed, they really fucking admitted controlled demolition.. there's no other plausible way for a building (WTC7) to collapse at that speed and in that manner.

Start looking yourself, or don't. But don't just assume I'm batshit insane.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

9/11 Truthers are the Bronies of the conspiracy nutbar world.

 

[Randall Fragg]

Start looking yourself, or don't. But don't just assume I'm batshit insane.

I’m not just assuming. I’m making an educated guess based on your previous post history.

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

9/11 Truthers on 9-11 are like your drunken uncle trying to grope you at Christmas.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

I did say this is NIST's report, and that it's their job to paint over facts. I guess you skimmed over the bit where they ADMIT 3.9 second freefall? Or maybe, even if you did see that part, that you don't understand it's significance?

I'm not going to be critical. I get that it's fucking HARD to get over the mental hurdle that there's even the remote possibility that there were actual shenanigans going on that day. Hell, it took me 6 years to explore the possibility.

There's plenty of red flags from 9/11 like the put options in the days before, etc. More than plenty. These can be debated. Thing is, there's also undeniable fucking physics. Science. There's plenty of 2+ hour lectures online you can watch by experts in their fields re 9/11. Scientists, architects, demolition experts, physicists. Hell, I watched a 1 hour lecture about the nature of the pyroclastic behavior of smoke, and how to see the difference when it's the result of an explosion, and when a result of a collapse. (Pro-tip - that billowing, rapidly outward projecting smoke from WTC's 1+2 during collapse? Fucking clearly explosive in nature)

Look. When NIST admitted freefall speed, they really fucking admitted controlled demolition.. there's no other plausible way for a building (WTC7) to collapse at that speed and in that manner.

Start looking yourself, or don't. But don't just assume I'm batshit insane.

And you ran an experiment yourself involving cinderblocks, chicken wire, and lighter fluid too, amirite?

"(Pro-tip - that billowing, rapidly outward projecting smoke from WTC's 1+2 during collapse? Fucking clearly explosive in nature)"

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journalbecame fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

You have the right to your opinion. You don't have the right to your own facts.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

9/11 Truthers on 9-11 are like your drunken uncle trying to grope you at Christmas.

Every year I re-read the Popular Mechanics articles on the matter as a sort of pallet cleanser.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

Every year I re-read the Popular Mechanics articles on the matter as a sort of pallet cleanser.

There's a lure to conspiracy theories, especially around things like disasters, mass deaths, etc. You want to make sense of it, and when someone offers some rational-seeming explanation, it's easy to latch onto.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

There's a lure to conspiracy theories, especially around things like disasters, mass deaths, etc. You want to make sense of it, and when someone offers some rational-seeming explanation, it's easy to latch onto.

I give credence to conspiracy theories when there's something which actually doesn't add up, like the Kennedy assassination. But every Truther claim has been completely and logically refuted a million times over. It's on the same level as Flat Earth shit by this point.

 

[Robot Teapot]

Wew lads! Taking a lot of hits on this. That's fine. The fucking thing though is, ultimately I'm dealing with hard physics, not animated planes and directed energy weaponry retard level nonsense.

I'll say just this to my critics and doubters here (with hopefully a basic knowledge of physics) - Explain to me how a building can achieve freefall speed collapse without the aid of controlled demolition to create zero structural resistance?

A poll? Just for me? hahahaha

I give credence to conspiracy theories when there's something which actually doesn't add up, like the Kennedy assassination. But every Truther claim has been completely and logically refuted a million times over. It's on the same level as Flat Earth shit by this point.

What about when undeniable physics doesn't add up?

 

[Superman93]

This was not the direction I thought this thread was heading

 

[Rumpled Foreskin]

What about when undeniable physics doesn't add up?

So just to humor your terminal autism, why not present us actual evidence rather than just words? You know, some graphs or articles etc.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

This was not the direction I thought this thread was heading

It's literally been 17 years of this shit how did you not expect this?

 

[Robot Teapot]

So just to humor your terminal autism, why not present us actual evidence rather than just words? You know, some graphs or articles etc.

Once again, NIST, apparently the foremost US authority on all things science/tech/etc, were forced to admit that freefall speed happened during the (already ridiculously questionable) collapse of WTC7.

Even if a plane hits a building and it collapses as a result, you wouldn't see anything near freefall speed. WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. There were some office fires. We are told that these office fires caused the collapse (lol). Yet it collapsed at mostly FREEFALL SPEED. Look? I can't take you lot through this by the fucking hand. It's really basic physics, and unless YOU'RE the autist, you should be able to comprehend the massive issues with the official explanation.

tl:dr NO U

 

[Rumpled Foreskin]

Once again, NIST, apparently the foremost US authority on all things science/tech/etc, were forced to admit that freefall speed happened during the (already ridiculously questionable) collapse of WTC7.

Even if a plane hits a building and it collapses as a result, you wouldn't see anything near freefall speed. WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. There were some office fires. We are told that these office fires caused the collapse (lol). Yet it collapsed at mostly FREEFALL SPEED. Look? I can't take you lot through this by the fucking hand. It's really basic physics, and unless YOU'RE the autist, you should be able to comprehend the massive issues with the official explanation.

tl:dr NO U

Can you link an article or anything? Just trying to see things from your perspective.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

Once again, NIST, apparently the foremost US authority on all things science/tech/etc, were forced to admit that freefall speed happened during the (already ridiculously questionable) collapse of WTC7.

Even if a plane hits a building and it collapses as a result, you wouldn't see anything near freefall speed.

Cite appropriate documentation proving this.

WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. There were some office fires. We are told that these office fires caused the collapse (lol).

Six floors of office fires, raging uncontrolled with the fire-sprinkler system offline. There's a reason why high-rise fires are fucking dangerous as hell.

Yet it collapsed at mostly FREEFALL SPEED. Look? I can't take you lot through this by the fucking hand. It's really basic physics, and unless YOU'RE the autist, you should be able to comprehend the massive issues with the official explanation.

tl:dr NO U

If it's basic physics you shouldn't have trouble laying out how freefall speed is an issue in this.

Alternately, you could go back to sobbing about jet fuel.

 

[Robot Teapot]

Can you link an article or anything? Just trying to see things from your perspective.

This dude does a reasonable job of breaking things down. There's 3 parts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkp-4sm5Ypc