15 Years Later: New Scientific Paper in Reputable Physics Journal Argues 9/11 Was An Inside Job - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zyler;51048460]Why are you being so aggressive? You're asking questions and people are answering them. Do you feel that Aaron is acting aggressively towards you or is hating on you because he is providing scientific evidence? You also never answered either of my questions. 1:If Aaron is the "science man" and presumably knows more about science than you do, then why don't you listen to him? 2:If you don't need sources to believe something, then what's wrong with my hologram theory?[/QUOTE] [quote]Take a science class for fucks sake. Holy smokes how old are you? Did you fail school?[/quote] [quote]Take. A science class. Please. [/quote] [quote]You mean pointing out how your bullshit was bullshit? No problem.[/quote] [quote]Please go back to high school. I dont know if you dropped out or just didnt pay attention but please do yourself a favor and educate yourself. [/quote] [quote][image] Nice try. [/quote] [quote]I posted a picture debunking you, fucking christ. [/quote] [quote]What the fuck are you talking about?[/quote] Yeah all of this technical irrefutable scientific jargon has gotten me all flustered. To answer your questions there Zyler, I was mocking him for demanding I take a "science class" instead of giving an actual rebuttle. It isn't your theory, someone else came up with it, you are just repeating it in this thread to discredit me and anyone who doubts the corporate controlled media.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51048476]Don't know why you guys are arguing about liquid vs molten. Anything that's molten is in the liquid state, doesn't mean it has to glow. However, if it's hot enough, as I said before, it glows due to the emission of thermal radiation.[/QUOTE] I put "liquid =/=molten" because i had a brainfart and forgot they're the same thing because i usually associate "liquid metal" with silvery liquid and "molten metal" with glowing hot metal/liquid metal. I snipped it because i realized "oh right thats just you". He saw it and still argued it anyway.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51048500]Right so this is a molten aluminium at a slightly cooler temperature While this is a molten aluminium at a slightly higher temperature Aluminum is solid at room temperature, becomes flexible at higher temperatures like in this video: [video=youtube;FzF1KySHmUA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA[/video] At a higher temperature than that it becomes a molten liquid but does not glow At an even higher temperature than even that it becomes a glowing molten liquid. Am I explaining this right?[/QUOTE] I don't know of those two images are actually aluminium but yes essentially that's what aluminium would look like at the temperature ranges you mentioned. I also don't have any data offhand for how the bending strength of aluminium changes with temperature but it almost certainly behaves as most other materials, softening as it heats up. And yes, it will melt into a silvery liquid before starting to glow because it melts at just 660°C, which isn't hot enough for it to radiate significantly in the visible spectrum.

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51047961]It also led to billions of dollars of debt and the complete loss of public trust in the government. Holy shit, no he didn't. The tower ultimately cost him billions of dollars, even more for the city. He isn't some insane mogule gathering money from the death of thousands, and no corporation is powerful enough to take town the most important landmark in NYC. Silverstein was losing money up until Freedom Tower was created and is a credit to the New York community.[/QUOTE] No single corporation. A conglomerate of corporations invested in the interest of degraded privacy, war profiteering, as well as the expansion of government would be able to destroy it. [url]http://revenuesandprofits.com/dow-30-companies-revenues-profits-analysis-2011-2015/[/url] we're talking of companies which have on hand together 2.3trillion per year, that is merely [I]on the books[/I]

[QUOTE=paul simon;51048502]No, not at all. Anything can cut through anything given enough speed.[/QUOTE] Even water, which is used in industrial water cutters to cut through metal.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048511]Yeah all of this technical irrefutable scientific jargon has gotten me all flustered. [/QUOTE] Convenient that you cut all the rest of those posts out to just leave the part you find easiest to use, ignoring where i did explain shit to you. [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048511]To answer your questions there Zyler, I was mocking him for demanding I take a "science class" instead of giving an actual rebuttle. It isn't your theory, someone else came up with it, you are just repeating it in this thread to discredit me and anyone who doubts the corporate controlled media.[/QUOTE] Dont make me quote them in full to show you you're full of shit, because anyone with a working mousewheel can already do so. Who do you think you're fooling? And, adding onto that, no im not repeating what others are saying, im saying it because i took a class which went over structural supports and i have knowledge of how the states of matter function and change.

[QUOTE=paul simon;51048502]No, not at all. Anything can cut through anything given enough speed. A feather will cut a diamond if you accelerate it enough. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] That first molten aluminium picture is taken with a flash that overpowers the glow.[/QUOTE] Question: How can a weaker object maintain composure cutting through a stronger object? [quote]Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.[/quote] Whether you slam a diamond into a feather at a zillion billion miles per hour or vice versa, the same effect would take place save for air resistance.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048446]hey, speaking of light, flimsy objects, did you know that a wooden telephone pole can cut through the wing of an aluminum airplane, yet massive steel box columns get a cartoon-like punchout hole when a plane hits them. Strange isn't it?[/QUOTE] Are you trying to say that there were no planes? Because they most definitely were planes there.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51048523]Convenient that you cut all the rest of those posts out to just leave the part you find easiest to use, ignoring where i did explain shit to you. Dont make me quote them in full to show you you're full of shit, because anyone with a working mousewheel can already do so. Who do you think you're fooling? And, adding onto that, no im not repeating what others are saying, im saying it because i took a class which went over structural supports and i have knowledge of how the states of matter function and change.[/QUOTE] I just find it hard to take you seriously because you're so aggressive and insulting when I never acted that way towards you.

I'm convinced he's trolling, he's intentionally ignoring my posts which pinpoint exactly where he's wrong.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048524]Question: How can a weaker object maintain composure cutting through a stronger object? Whether you slam a diamond into a feather at a zillion billion miles per hour or vice versa, the same effect would take place save for air resistance.[/QUOTE] 1) Bullets. 2) The planes were destroyed.

[QUOTE=Techno-Man;51048529]Are you trying to say that there were no planes? Because they most definitely were planes there.[/QUOTE] Nope, there being no planes was your idea, not mine.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048533]I just find it hard to take you seriously because you're so aggressive and insulting when I never acted that way towards you.[/QUOTE] Maybe if you paid attention to what anyone was saying and to how reality functions i wouldnt be treating you like a pre-schooler.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048524]Question: How can a weaker object maintain composure cutting through a stronger object?[/QUOTE] It doesn't. The planes were utterly torn to shreds. [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048524]Whether you slam a diamond into a feather at a zillion billion miles per hour or vice versa, the same effect would take place save for air resistance.[/QUOTE] Yes, this is correct. (and in no way a counterargument) If the buildings slammed into the airplane at the same angle and speed, it would make indistinguishable results. (ignoring air resistance, of course, as the buildings wouldn't be able to deal with that)

[QUOTE=Techno-Man;51048529]Are you trying to say that there were no planes? Because they most definitely were planes there.[/QUOTE] they found a plane wheel lodged between two buildings only a few years ago.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048536]Nope, there being no planes was your idea, not mine.[/QUOTE] hey man, quick question, what do you think to yourself when you choose to deny several valid points against you in favor of cherry picking responses, before leaving a generic 9/11 documentary here and bouncing? like don't you [I]feel[/I] like you're incorrect when you can't reasonably respond to anyone's points i'm so curious to your thought process right now

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048511]Yeah all of this technical irrefutable scientific jargon has gotten me all flustered. To answer your questions there Zyler, I was mocking him for demanding I take a "science class" instead of giving an actual rebuttle. It isn't your theory, someone else came up with it, you are just repeating it in this thread to discredit me and anyone who doubts the corporate controlled media.[/QUOTE] He has rebutted your claims though, you seem to be ignoring those parts of his post in favour of the bits where he's getting frustrated by your condescending attitude. If you want people to be nice to you, then maybe act a bit more respectful yourself. Don't you think that maybe Aaron and OvB are both a bit more knowledgable on these scientific issues than you are, maybe you should try and listen to them and understand what they're saying rather than being really dickish towards them? I literally made up that hologram thing off the top of my head, I wouldn't be suprised if somebody else came up with it first considering it's a pretty obvious connection to make. My point in making that theory wasn't to make fun of you, it was to demonstrate another theory that's just as likely as the one you believe in based on the fact that you don't use sources. What's actually wrong with the hologram theory? Why is one theory more likely than the other?

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048446]hey, speaking of light, flimsy objects, did you know that a wooden telephone pole can cut through the wing of an aluminum airplane, yet massive steel box columns get a cartoon-like punchout hole when a plane hits them. Strange isn't it?[/QUOTE] Please elaborate on this. I just realized you meant the holes the planes left in the towers, i want to know how this is comparable in scale to a telephone pole cutting through a plane wing. I also want to know how he thinks bullets and blades work.

[QUOTE=OvB;51048453]My turn: how do you install 60 tons worth of thermite charges in an extremely busy office building without anyone knowing, while making sure anyone ever involved in installing 60 tons worth of thermite, down to the van driver never talked about it? How do you conceal the detonation of 60 tons of thermite in a non-firey collapse down the length of the building? Why where there only sparks seen in one corner of the building which also happens to be the same corner where a mass of aircraft aluminum would collect and be well within melting range and also glow orange at such temperatures?[/QUOTE] WTC was under going elevator modernisation prior to 9/11 by ACE elevator, full access to core

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048533]I just find it hard to take you seriously because you're so aggressive and insulting when I never acted that way towards you.[/QUOTE] You've been very insulting and condescending too, and you've refused to listen to people. Maybe try being more respectful to people if you want people to respect you.

[QUOTE=Techno-Man;51048547]WTC was under going elevator modernisation prior to 9/11 by ACE elevator, full access to core[/QUOTE] Is ACE Elevator owned, operated, employed entirely by extremely loyal gmen? Not to mention the "thermite" in the video is nowhere near the core.

[QUOTE=Techno-Man;51048547]WTC was under going elevator modernisation prior to 9/11 by ACE elevator, full access to core[/QUOTE] And the maintenance workers? And how did they keep it a secret? Do you know how hard it is to keep people quiet?

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51048535]1) Bullets. 2) The planes were destroyed.[/QUOTE] See this is why it's hard to have a conversation with you, you give two-word responses, I guess because I don't deserve even half of a paragraph. So, "Bullets." Okay, yes? Bullets? Some things they can pierce through, some things not, I don't know what you're getting at, I really don't. Guess I'm just dumb huh, brb taking science class in the science field of science. The planes would have still been destroyed if the steel columns cut into the plane, which they apparently failed to do because the flimsy aluminum fuselage and wings so weak that a person can't even stand on them made perfect cuts into the side of this dense grid of enormous steel box columns. Doesn't seem to add up to be, that's all.

[QUOTE=Techno-Man;51048547]WTC was under going elevator modernisation prior to 9/11 by ACE elevator, full access to core[/QUOTE] Too bad it's just a baseless claim with no actual evidence to support it. There was no need for additional force to tear down the buildings, the planes were plenty.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51048558]And the maintenance workers? And how did they keep it a secret? Do you know how hard it is to keep people quiet?[/QUOTE] being a maintenance man myself, i'd be spilling that shit left and right for the good table conversation it would make.

[QUOTE=OvB;51048557]Is ACE Elevator owned, operated, employed entirely by extremely loyal gmen?[/QUOTE] To be fair, hypothetically, you could have government spooks who could have infiltrated the positions to do it. But thats insane still too.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048559]See this is why it's hard to have a conversation with you, you give two-word responses, I guess because I don't deserve even half of a paragraph. [/QUOTE] try actually responding to the people giving you paragraphs instead of ignoring them then

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048559]See this is why it's hard to have a conversation with you, you give two-word responses, I guess because I don't deserve even half of a paragraph. So, "Bullets." Okay, yes? Bullets? Some things they can pierce through, some things not, I don't know what you're getting at, I really don't. Guess I'm just dumb huh, brb taking science class in the science field of science. The planes would have still been destroyed if the steel columns cut into the plane, which they apparently failed to do because the flimsy aluminum fuselage and wings so weak that a person can't even stand on them made perfect cuts into the side of this dense grid of enormous steel box columns. Doesn't seem to add up to be, that's all.[/QUOTE] Did you ignore the other responses? Water can cut through steel, why shouldn't aluminium be able to? And besides, you're under the delusion that the planes WEREN'T torn to shreds, when they in fact were more or less turned to soup on impact.

[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;51048261]The rear side of WTC 7: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtqVIc0cJmQ[/media] Some debris was an understatement, it was a shit-ton. Not to mention they left the fires to burn by themselves for hours with no fire fighters to battle it, causing it to collapse around 5PM. The sheer loss of the fire fighters, and the priority to find survivors in the collapsed towers took priority over saving a building which was already evacuated and empty.[/QUOTE] I constantly bring this up, as people tend to use photos/video (ala the first page here) of the one pristine side, even though it looks like the collapse starts at the back. Part of the main towers fucking gouged out its spine I remember running into 911 truthers at an architectural convention and they were talking about this and said 'there was no visual damage to the building' as their TV showed a clip of it from this side before collapsing, and I just asked what building that was on their TV and they said that was after they started demo like goddamn

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048559]See this is why it's hard to have a conversation with you, you give two-word responses, I guess because I don't deserve even half of a paragraph. So, "Bullets." Okay, yes? Bullets? Some things they can pierce through, some things not, I don't know what you're getting at, I really don't. Guess I'm just dumb huh, brb taking science class in the science field of science. The planes would have still been destroyed if the steel columns cut into the plane, which they apparently failed to do because the flimsy aluminum fuselage and wings so weak that a person can't even stand on them made perfect cuts into the side of this dense grid of enormous steel box columns. Doesn't seem to add up to be, that's all.[/QUOTE] But the planes were destroyed. They were turned into a cloud of debris and scattered over half of Lower Manhattan.