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

[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] Could be that they had nothing to do with it, maybe there was a special crew that went in when the legit workers went home, appearing to be the same company.

[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] Things act differently at speed. Previous example I gave was a water cutter. Water is... well water when it's not moving. Accelerate it though a fast pump and suddenly you can cut metal with it. Or a speeding car crashing into a tree. Or a tornado throwing boards through a concrete wall. [img]http://i.imgur.com/tHBGaLO.jpg[/img] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UvPWny_PBc[/media]

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048570]Could be that they had nothing to do with it, maybe there was a special crew that went in when the legit workers went home, appearing to be the same company.[/QUOTE] Could it be that it's a far fetched conspiracy theory on the same level as chemtrails and JFK's false death?

I believe it's worth noting, that their was also plenty of material inside of the buildings to act as a large blast furnace. It's is entirely possible that you could have metal which actually did melt, because enough oxygen would be forced in via the holes(was windy that day), and it would of caused a significant increase in overall temperature in certain areas. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TU-PCudoE[/media] This is all it takes to make molten aluminum, akin to the stuff found in the building.

[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] I can pick up a bullet and throw it at someone. It will bounce off. I can fire a bullet out of a gun at a person. It will not bounce off. Things that are weak can do damage to things that are strong if they are going fast. A child can understand this. This is a fun thread.

[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] Analogies. Im equating one thing to another thing to make it easier for you to understand because they work on the same principle. [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048559]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.[/QUOTE] The planes in essence acted like massive hollowpoint bullets piercing the towers and then being shredded after impact [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048559]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.[/QUOTE] You mean the exterior of the building mostly comprised of glass and, what, ceramics? And the impact force itself would still be enough to severely fuck up whatever it hit. Thats why i used the bullet analogy, compare throwing a rock at a car vs. launching a rock at a car with some kind of high speed launcher. One will dent it, the other might punch a hole through it. Same material. [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048559]Doesn't seem to add up to be, that's all.[/QUOTE] Because you refuse to understand how this shit works.

roswell is more interesting than 9/11 anyways

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048570]Could be that they had nothing to do with it, maybe there was a special crew that went in when the legit workers went home, appearing to be the same company.[/QUOTE] If your theory actually hinges on this, why hasn't anyone asked one of the people working on the elevator if this was the case? Seems prudent to do so instead of just making the assumption that somehow they were switched out. All of them. From work. For no reason. No one ever said anything.

[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;51048543]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] We seem to be going through this never-ending loop: 1.He poses a question in a really condescending tone without any sources or evidence: [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048003]Why would he buy a colossal asbestos liability with dwindling tenancy? Why would he take out a massive insurance policy on the towers for terrorist attacks just before 9/11 and go on to gain billions of dollars. Why did he not show up to his business meeting at windows of the world on the morning of 9/11? A Doctor appointment? ok. Lucky Larry.[/QUOTE] 2.Evidence gets presented and then his questions get disproven: [QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51048033]Thank God we have internet geniuses like you to unravel literally the biggest fucking criminal action in recorded history, unveil the world's currently most succesful mass murderer and lift the veil from our eyes when every intelligence organization on Earth couldn't pin it on him. You did it. Now if only the FBI could use Google and discover the real truth! He'd be behind bars! Oh wait, the Illuminati would stop it, right? Silverstein earned 4.6 billion, he lost 7 billion in reconstruction. At the end of the day between building the new tower and all the other costs, he lost 10+ billion dollars. What a genius move by 'Lucky Larry', which only netted him several billion dollars in losses and the harassment from untold masses of insane truthers who can't be bothered to do the modicum of research or gather the least bit of common sense to dispel their conspiracy theories. I'm sorry if this is flaming but 9/11 brings out the loonies in my family and I've spent the last week doing nothing but debating every other person I see.[/QUOTE] 3.He completely ignores that the prior evidence was disproven and then moves the goalposts with a new set of condescending questions and remarks without acknowledging the previous ones, and we go back to step 1 [QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51048061]I'm the layman, despite the fact I actually just sourced numbers to you and you have done absolutely nothing besides throw out videos and conspiracy theories that have been debunked a thousand times. Sure, it raised questions when I first saw it. "How did that building fall?" I asked, so I looked it up! "It fell because a fucking sky scraper fell on it and then it lit on fire," I read. That's sensible! But wait, there's more? "IT FELL BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ILLUMINATI JEWISH LIZARDMEN PUT DEMOLITION THERMITE CHARGES IN THERE AND BLEW IT UP AT THE SAME TIME THEY FLEW PLANES INTO THE TWIN TOWERS AND DETONATED EXPLSOIVES IN THERE AT THE SAME TIME TO COLLECT INSURANCE MONEY!!!" I read. "That's fucking stupid!" I said, and after doing enough research to confirm my thought, here we are.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048079]a skyscraper did not fall on it, you know that, it was hit by a small amount of debris and a few floors caught fire. Watch the video. The fucking building goes into a perfectly symmetrical freefall. I guess controlled demolition companies went out of business after 9/11 because, apparently, all you have to do is start some random fires in a steel frame highrise and it will go into a freefall straight into its own footprint. I guess that the building code for highrises must have been seriously amended right? ...right? [editline]13th September 2016[/editline] Also I'm not saying I know who did it, that's not my point. Nor is it the point of the OP.[/QUOTE] Step 4.After repeating this loop a few times and running out of things to post, wait a while and then he starts attacking the character of the person who's debating him instead of presenting evidence [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048240]Hey science man, i've got another question, why was there liquid metal and molten concrete in the rubble for months after the "collapse". Just curious. oh and thanks for clearing up that very sparky wire for all of us, we were very alarmed at first there.[/QUOTE] BloodyNine explains it more succintly here:[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51048254]So we managed to debunk your insurance nonsense so now you're just going to try and run circles on Buidling 7 and whenever anyone hits you with a counter point, you're just going to jump to the next conspiracy theory until everyone gets tired of responding to your drivel. At which point you're going to proclaim victory to yourself and continue to spread your craziness to other people.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51048583]roswell is more interesting than 9/11 anyways[/QUOTE] Wasnt that just a Project Skyhook balloon that got fucked up?

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048524]Question: How can a weaker object maintain composure cutting through a stronger object?[/QUOTE] Yep those planes came out on the other side flying perfectly fine, huh? They didn't maintain composure while cutting through a stronger object, dude. It crumpled in the same way that if you throw a piece of straw at a palm tree, the straw will just bounce off. However, if you shoot it at the tree at 320 mph, the straw will be utterly destroyed, but here's the important part: it will become lodged in the tree. Now imagine we're talking about a fucking massive, momentum-carrying metal object that follows Newton's first law crashing into a [u]semi-hollow[/U] concrete structure. That plane crumpled, and unless that entire area that it crashed into was solid concrete, there wouldn't be any way for that plane not to carry enough momentum to crash through and puncture the building. Unless the entire WTC was just a massive block of concrete with metal inside to keep structural integrity, that plane's not about to fucking plink off the side.

[QUOTE=OvB;51048557]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] Well I never argued that dripping corner was thermite, i don't believe that it was

Barbarian887 i need to ask you honestly, how old are you? Did you drop out of highschool? Serious questions.

[QUOTE=Techno-Man;51048593]Well I never argued that dripping corner was thermite, i don't believe that it was[/QUOTE] So, what are you arguing, in full? And what are your scientific sources?

[QUOTE=gk99;51048591]that plane's not about to fucking plink off the side.[/QUOTE] :terrists: If only. I have to go now. Play nice and keep the flaming and shitposting to a minimum, please.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51048595]Barbarian887 i need to ask you honestly, how old are you? Did you drop out of highschool? Serious questions.[/QUOTE] assuming those numbers are his age, he'd be 29

[QUOTE=Pops;51048601]assuming those numbers are his age, he'd be 29[/QUOTE] I hope not.

[QUOTE=OvB;51048557]Is ACE Elevator owned, operated, employed entirely by extremely loyal gmen? [/QUOTE] Well ACE got the contract in 94 for whatever reason instead of Otis who built and maintained the elevators from the start. ACE seemed to be relatively small and unheard of.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51048587]Wasnt that just a Project Skyhook balloon that got fucked up?[/QUOTE] that's one of the official stories seems odd to me to threaten many people's and their families' lives over a high altitude balloon project but hey i am not the air force

[QUOTE=OvB;51048572]Things act differently at speed. Previous example I gave was a water cutter. Water is... well water when it's not moving. Accelerate it though a fast pump and suddenly you can cut metal with it. Or a speeding car crashing into a tree. Or a tornado throwing boards through a concrete wall. [img]http://i.imgur.com/tHBGaLO.jpg[/img] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UvPWny_PBc[/media][/QUOTE] But I'm not talking about the cutting power of water jets or the strength of a tree vs the broad side of a car, which btw, in the image looks like a lot of deformation, but i dont see wood slicing metal. and a board blowing out a chunk of concrete is a different animal altogether, first of all concrete is brittle compared to a metal, concrete can be chipped away at. For example go find a concrete slab, drop a hammer onto it from say like 6 ft and you'll probably blow a chunk out of it, try doing that to a steel I-beam, see if you can even put a noticeable scratch in it. My point is, you're not making a good comparison. Here look at this: [video=youtube;Nl8xTqTUGCY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl8xTqTUGCY[/video] [video=youtube;A0xQTCsDQ8E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E[/video] That rocket propelled chunk of steel is more akin to what I'm talking about. And again, it does not matter which is moving, the car or the steel plate.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048622]But I'm not talking about the cutting power of water jets or the strength of a tree vs the broad side of a car, which btw, in the image looks like a lot of deformation, but i dont see wood slicing metal. and a board blowing out a chunk of concrete is a different animal altogether, first of all concrete is brittle compared to a metal, concrete can be chipped away at. For example go find a concrete slab, drop a hammer onto it from say like 6 ft and you'll probably blow a chunk out of it, try doing that to a steel I-beam, see if you can even put a noticeable scratch in it. My point is, you're not making a good comparison. Here look at this: [video=youtube;Nl8xTqTUGCY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl8xTqTUGCY[/video] [video=youtube;A0xQTCsDQ8E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E[/video] That rocket propelled chunk of steel is more akin to what I'm talking about. And again, it does not matter which is moving, the car or the steel plate.[/QUOTE] The laws of physics apply the same way no matter what material we're talking about. Look man, OvB knows a lot more about this stuff than you do, maybe you should listen to what he's saying and try to understand it rather than arguing about something you don't have enough knowledge about to debate properly. You don't know enough about this stuff to form an educated opinion on it.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048622]But I'm not talking about the cutting power of water jets or the strength of a tree vs the broad side of a car, which btw, in the image looks like a lot of deformation, but i dont see wood slicing metal.[/QUOTE] [b]ANALOGIES. ITS AN ANALOGY. ITS THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED TO ANOTHER SCENARIO SO YOU CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT HE MEANS. [highlight]ITS A FUCKING ANALOGY.[/highlight][/b] [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048622]and a board blowing out a chunk of concrete is a different animal altogether, first of all concrete is brittle compared to a metal, concrete can be chipped away at. For example go find a concrete slab, drop a hammer onto it from say like 6 ft and you'll probably blow a chunk out of it, try doing that to a steel I-beam, see if you can even put a noticeable scratch in it.[/QUOTE] Its not the same. Not the same material. Not the same situation. Not even remotely comparable. [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048622]My point is, you're not making a good comparison. Here look at this: [video=youtube;Nl8xTqTUGCY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl8xTqTUGCY[/video] [video=youtube;A0xQTCsDQ8E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E[/video] That rocket propelled chunk of steel is more akin to what I'm talking about. And again, it does not matter which is moving, the car or the steel plate.[/QUOTE] STOP. Holy shit, just stop. You dont understand anything. We bring up situations directly comparable in that it can be scaled up and apply, you're just doing... Some shit i dont even know.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51048583]roswell is more interesting than 9/11 anyways[/QUOTE] do you fucking want the majestic 12 to come knocking on your door

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51048629][b]ANALOGIES. ITS AN ANALOGY. ITS THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED TO ANOTHER SCENARIO SO YOU CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT HE MEANS. [highlight]ITS A FUCKING ANALOGY.[/highlight][/b] Its not the same. Not the same material. Not the same situation. Not even remotely comparable. STOP. Holy shit, just stop. You dont understand anything.[/QUOTE] Aaron is essentially saying the same thing as me, but in a way that's not so nice. Barbarian, do you understand that it's very frustrating to explain something to someone who doesn't understand it and refuses to listen? Try to think about this from Aaron and OvB's point of view, I don't think they hate you and they just want to explain to you how this physics stuff works while you don't seem to be willing to listen.

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;51048632]do you fucking want the majestic 12 to come knocking on your door[/QUOTE] What if you have a GEP gun though.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048622]But I'm not talking about the cutting power of water jets or the strength of a tree vs the broad side of a car, which btw, in the image looks like a lot of deformation, but i dont see wood slicing metal. and a board blowing out a chunk of concrete is a different animal altogether, first of all concrete is brittle compared to a metal, concrete can be chipped away at. For example go find a concrete slab, drop a hammer onto it from say like 6 ft and you'll probably blow a chunk out of it, try doing that to a steel I-beam, see if you can even put a noticeable scratch in it. My point is, you're not making a good comparison. Here look at this: That rocket propelled chunk of steel is more akin to what I'm talking about. And again, it does not matter which is moving, the car or the steel plate.[/QUOTE] Can you iterate what your actual point in this post is? [editline]a[/editline] I honestly can't tell. You just posted a video of an object designed to crush a car crushing a car [editline]a[/editline] And withstanding a plane crash wasn't what the WTC towers were designed to do

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;51048632]do you fucking want the majestic 12 to come knocking on your door[/QUOTE] they're better off just shooting polonium-210 pellets into me from my window, tbh

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51048637]What if you have a GEP gun though.[/QUOTE] stick with the prod non lethal take down is always the most silent take down jc

[QUOTE=EvilMattress;51048643]stick with the prod non lethal take down is always the most silent take down jc[/QUOTE] Try a crossbow and tell me that again

[QUOTE=gk99;51048647]Try a crossbow and tell me that again[/QUOTE] crossbow and crowbar works strikingly well when disabling shadow government agents