Activists & Alternative Media v 9/11 Truth Movement? III
March 11, 2010 - 9:26pm
This thread is a continuation from part II here
So, Liberal and Tory governments have dragged Canada into Uncle Sam's war of terror waged against desperately poor people on the other side of the world. North Americans in general are divided as to why US-led NATO troops from nearly 50 countries are really there in Afghanistan and Iraq and several other countries. The pretext and premise for Canadian troops being sent to Afghanistan since Jean Chretien's time in the sun was and continues to be 9/11. Or at least, this is what we are told by our own warmongering plutocrats here in Canada.
Are anti-war activists and alternative media at odds with the 9/11 truth movement? Carry on ...
For Some, the Search for What Happened on 9/11 Isn't Over by Jesse Ventura
That's right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy because they don't buy the government's version of events. They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible – or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the twin towers and Building 7.
Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, put it like this: "The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers' destruction." He's especially disturbed by Building 7, whose 47 stories came down in "pure free-fall acceleration" that afternoon – even though it was never hit by an aircraft.
Long-time Republican Party supporter and former governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura.
This war on terrorism is bogus The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination 2003
> Michael Meacher
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001)
Rebuilding America's Defenses(pdf)
Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
A Report of The Project for the New American Century
September 2000
9/11 certainly did provide "some catastrophic and catalyzing event" modern day equivalent to the Pearl Harbor attack. Except that this time some of the evil doers had been educated and trained in terrorism on US soil.
Do these values seem reasonable? Let's calculate a few values we can use as a reference...
For the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone.
The official conspiracy theory for pancaking in 10-14 seconds is pulverized. Thanks jas.
What are you trying to say here Jas? I note that in your last thread you challenged people to use their own language to explain things, yet here you are quoting someone else exlusively.
Ya Jas! This is what rightwing librarians refer to as "appealing to authority" for the sake of argument.
Heywood: it's a site I hadn't seen before; it explains the issue that I am interested in -- the explanation of how or how not a building can collapse at near free-fall speed from the top down; it explains it in plain language and does so in a way that I wouldn't be able to paraphrase any better.
Besides, I believe I explained my skepticism in my own words quite adequately in the last thread, and I do not believe your explanations were believable. I think they defy physics as we know it. I believe Trevor ended by suggesting that 90 intact floors of the building produced four seconds of resistance. This is not scientifically plausible. I'm not even sure what your answer was: something about four seconds comprising 30% of the total drop time. Furthermore, we got caught up in what the actual collapse time was. I have seen no reports contradicting the 9 - 13 seconds time frame. At this point, there isn't anything more I can say in my own words. I still await your explanations.
SaskaTories apologize for 9/11-Pig Roast Poster gaffe. Yeah right.
And I must say it looks exactly like any fun-filled pig roast I've ever been to.
Besides, I believe I explained my skepticism in my own words quite adequately in the last thread,
I disagree Jas. You decided to blatantly ignore evidence that parts of the building were standing for 25 seconds after the start of the collapse. That is twice as long as you assert they stood for.
On top of that, the evidence also stated that the final collapse time is not known as the building was obscured by the dust clouds.
Jas, the physics involved in the simple model presented on the website you posted is just wrong. When one floor runs into the next, it doesn't simply possess an initial velocity of zero and initial acceleration of 9.8m/s^2. The time for the building to collapse isn't the amount of time it takes a billiard ball to fall 108 times. Simple intertia is not enough to all of a sudden slow the entire unit to zero. Rather, the energy of the collapsing floors above will exert enough force on the floor being pancaked below for the latter to accelerate to a velocity much faster than Case III.
Let me use my own model.
Take one billiard ball, and set it up on a table just strong enough to support it, with a top made out of, say, just thick enough balsa wood. Now drop the second billiard ball on top of it. What happens? The instant after the two balls make contact, the second billiard ball (and the ball above it) does not possess an initial velocity of zero, and will never possess a velocity of 0 + 9.8t, where t is the amount of time that has passed since the two balls collided. Rather, the ball will possess a velocity of v1 = 1/2(v2) + 9.8t. Where v1 is the final velocity of the ball being collided into, and v2 is the velocity of the first ball the instant before it collides with the second. Basically, the idea is that when one ball strikes the second ball, the whole unit will still be moving at 1/2 the speed the one ball was moving before contact was make.
Now lets expand this model to the WTC (still very simplified, but still better than the one presented in your website). Instead of one billiard ball running into one other billiard ball, we rather have 10 (for the North) to 25 (for the south) floors running into one floor, as the floors above the impact zone fall onto the floors below it. When these floors collide, they won't have a velocity of zero, but rather a velocity of at least v1 = 10/11(v2) + 9.8t. Which is already very near what the speed of the tower would be, if it simply freefalled.
As for the alternative presented, am I being told by this truther that there was a series of coordinated explosions all the way through the building, as it "collapsed"? That's quite an incredible undertaking to coordinate, don't you think?
Acceptance of the "truthers" nuttery generally requires an a priori belief in the omnipotence of Amerikka's dark forces. They can do ANYTHING, so long as it's evil. Everything from planting explosive charges undetected to suppressing whistleblowers for nearly a decade.
The only thing they couldn't do, evidently, was put any Iraqi names on the list of alleged hijackers, which was quite the rookie fumble on their part, requiring an intense media campaign over several years to convince people that Saddam had a part in it. Whoopsie!
The premise in this argument is that the floors above are being pulverized at the same time they are smashing down onto each subsequent floor below (remember? there was no pile of 110 mangled up, pancaked floors at ground zero; it was pulverized concrete, steel and glass and large volumes of dust) and that the top ten floors (in the case of the North building) were losing mass before the so-called pancaking. As she noted, you can have pancaking or pulverizing, but not both. I think the video evidence she includes there supports this.
Now lets expand this model to the WTC (still very simplified, but still better than the one presented in your website). Instead of one billiard ball running into one other billiard ball, we rather have 10 (for the North) to 25 (for the south) floors running into one floor, as the floors above the impact zone fall onto the floors below it. When these floors collide, they won't have a velocity of zero, but rather a velocity of at least v1 = 10/11(v2) + 9.8t. Which is already very near what the speed of the tower would be, if it simply freefalled.
I can't evaluate what you are saying about velocities of zero. If you care to explain that equation you use, I'm happy to look at it. I don't think it takes a PhD in mechanical engineering (which she has) to understand this. The example of the billiard balls was not that they were hitting each other, but to demonstrate what free-fall time would be at different and progressive elevations of the collapse wave. To quote from her explanation:
This is the premise of the controlled demolition theory. Whatever the undertaking was is not always the concern of those supporting the controlled demolition theory. In this case, the concern was simply to point out the impossibility of near free-fall descent with little to no resistance offered by 90 and 75 floors respectively. An observation that can also be confirmed using simple common sense.
The list of US government whistleblowers has grown since 2001, too. And the army of excuses trotted out by non-thruthers claiming stupidity and gross incompetence by crazy George's government is lame beyond belief. I believe some Nazis tried to use a similar "I was only a footzerstompen dumkopf" defence during the Nuremberg trials. But in order for them to claim the dumkopf I was only a stupid fucking moron while people were being murdered all around me trial defence, there first had to be a criminal trial with actual transparency and actual consequences for those held accountable for their war crimes. Unt vee didn't know nothing about ze gaz chambers? They were coming by train for tea and de-lousing? Unt vee didn't know nothing about Al-CIA'duh? Gulf of Tonkin all over again with nobody held accountable. Lame-lame for shame.
They also conveniently neglected to mention the fact that five of the hijackers were trained in the black art of terrorism in the USA at high security military facilities during their days as anticommunist jihadis working for the CIA and US Military. Oops! Vee are ze stupidest dumkopfs? At some point those who were only following orders need to be cross examined under oath and made to turn on the snakes who gave the orders in the chain of command of dumkompfery.
Gleiwitz incident
This provocation was the best-known of several actions in Operation Himmler, a Nazi Germany SS project to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which would be used to justify the subsequent invasion of Poland.
They ripped off the SS and their false flag op in Poland and used it as the basis for 9/11. The Gladio Gang are so unoriginal.
Fidel, your vitriol is so thick I'm starting to have trouble even understanding what you're trying to say. I'm not some kind of Nazi or Bush sympathizer for saying that truthers' theories don't hold up to Occam's razor. The legacy of Bush and Cheney is dark and bleak enough on its own. We don't need to start making up stories about it.
Jas, when I say the phase "velocities of zero", I want you to take a look at the chart in Case III posted (and actually Case II as well). The charts appear to make the assumption that once one floor runs into another, the downwards velocity of the collapsing building is reset to zero. Basic physics holds this isn't the case. Do you understand where I'm getting at?
I take the same approach with 9/11 as I do with climate change - I appeal to a judicious combination of authority and my own intuition. Yes, there are a few engineers who don't believe in the NIST version of 9/11, but they are a very small minority, a smaller proportion than you find in the public (5-30%?). Yes there are a few climatologists who don't believe climate change is due to man made CO2 emissions, but again, they are a small minority, a smaller minority than you find in the public (40%).
Gleiwitz incident
This provocation was the best-known of several actions in Operation Himmler, a Nazi Germany SS project to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which would be used to justify the subsequent invasion of Poland.
They ripped off the SS and their false flag op in Poland and used it as the basis for 9/11. The Gladio Gang are so unoriginal.
The United States is not Nazi Germany, Fidel. It's not a dictatorship, and its not 1939. You can't get away with pulling off such an operation when information is so much more freely available.
No one here is accusing anyone of being an apologist or vicious toady of the bipartisan war criminal shadow government in America.
And every scientist and engineer with a clue knows that Occam's doesn't apply in every case, and that in a few hands is a dangerous thing. You can't fill in missing facts or explain away bullshit physics with Occam's razor. That they trained five of the al-CIA'duh hijackers on US soil is a fact they not only are not denying, they don't even mention it in the official coverup. The best way for war criminals to deal with inconvenient facts is to avoid them altogether.
You can't fill in missing facts or explain away bullshit physics with Occam's razor.
So Fidel...just to be clear:
Do you consider the following to be bullshit physics?
.Rather, the ball will possess a velocity of v1 = 1/2(v2) + 9.8t. Where v1 is the final velocity of the ball being collided into, and v2 is the velocity of the first ball the instant before it collides with the second. Basically, the idea is that when one ball strikes the second ball, the whole unit will still be moving at 1/2 the speed the one ball was moving before contact was make.
You have to make a complete argument for what it is you're trying to say, Heywood. State your business or get off the pot. If you can't refute the challenges made by more than 1000 A&Es for Truth, then what are you trying to say? There is obviously a period before the first word of that blurb you cut and pasted from somewhere on the internet. What are you trying to hide from babblers? What's your source, and explain the context of your bizzaro post in general please.
Wow. Are you ever in a Fidelesque mood today.
Since I know you aren't serious in your post and that you are only trying to obfuscate and create another Fidelesque diversion, I can now confidently believe that not only do you believe Von Daniken was right but that you consider basic physics B.S.
Wow. Are you ever in a Fidelesque mood today.
Since I know you aren't serious in your post and that you are only trying to obfuscate and create another Fidelesque diversion, I can now confidently believe that not only do you believe Von Daniken was right but that you consider basic physics B.S.
So when are you going to actually post something about the thread topic of discussion instead of your usual personal attack posts for my benefit? Instead of seethng with anger over our prolific ability to make your god, crazy George II and masters in the bipartisan US war parties look like the war criminals that they are, why don't you post something that we can all identify with and perhaps even remotely related to the subject at hand?Now, where did you cut and paste your physics quote from, the one where you left out everything that came before the punctuation period?
I have been my fidelesque friend. I know you have a hard time following conversations (GLADIO) but in case you haven't noticed, we've been discussion floor collapse physics.
Nice edit Erich
Now, for the quote. Look up. Waaaaaaay up. To post 11. That you have already referenced in one of your meanderings.
So where's your source link? What are you trying to hide? Are you really a physics wizard who's been holding out on us all along? Let's see the problem worked out where youve solved 9/11. More than one-thousand A&E's for truth are dying to know besides us.
Nice edit Erich
Now, for the quote. Look up. Waaaaaaay up. To post 11. That you have already referenced in one of your meanderings.
Well why did you make it look as if it was your's? Why couldn't you just say, Fidel, what do you think of someone else's post above at number 11? Do you imagine West Coast Greeny can speak for himself, or are you his designated sock puppeteer?
Um. I used a quote block. In reference to something you were already talking about as BS. Now, enough diversions.
Or are the physics just beyond you?
Um. I used a quote block. In reference to something you were already talking about as BS. Now, enough diversions.
Or are the physics just beyond you?
The whole post is one incomplete though as far as I can tell and probably why I skimmed over it. Why must I explain myself to you anyway? Why don't you post something of your own so we can examine how much you know about not just basic physics but as it applies to the actual problem at hand?
I have read articles on the physics of the trade towers collapsing. And I must say that if anyone does take Occam's philosophy to heart, then they should realize that it is the theorizing by a few NIST scientists that require a number of assumptions more than the simplified explanations for controlled demolition provided by A&Es for Truth. Pro government scientists have provided a number of convoluted technical explanations to smooth over the original report. And it's the opinion of very many truthers as well as my own that those numerous assmumptions needed to make their formulas for pancake theory work tend to look more like a leap of faith rather than hard evidence. Occam actually favours truther physics.
A Little Known Fact About the 9/11 Planes
Another seriously undeniable flaw in the 'official' 9/11 story.
The actual murder weapons have never been positively identified
Gleiwitz incident
This provocation was the best-known of several actions in Operation Himmler, a Nazi Germany SS project to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which would be used to justify the subsequent invasion of Poland.
They ripped off the SS and their false flag op in Poland and used it as the basis for 9/11. The Gladio Gang are so unoriginal.
The United States is not Nazi Germany, Fidel. It's not a dictatorship, and its not 1939. You can't get away with pulling off such an operation when information is so much more freely available.
1. US capitalists not only aided and abetted Hitler's re-arming of Nazi Germany for war, the US Government hired former members of Himmler's SS after the war to spy on our WW II allies, the Soviets.
2. The US is the lead country of a group of countries accused of perpetrating false flag terrorism throughout the cold war era.
3. The US has used false pretexts for war on more than one occasion. The WMD in Iraq big lie was preceeded by the "Nurse Nayirah" lie before genocidal US-led sanctions were waged for ten years against a desert country and resulting in the deaths of more than one million Iraqis, and more than 700, 000 of them were children.
4. The Tonkin Gulf lie launched the Vietnam war in 1964. That particular false flag lie only cost 58, 000 American lives.
5. The doctor and the madman lied constantly about the secret bombing of Cambodia. Reaganauts and Thatcherites continued supporting the biggest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, well into the 1980s before so much evidence emerged from the killing fields made it so the Khmer Rouge were a PR disaster in the west for political hawks.
6. We truthers have noticed a pattern of lying by lying-liars in Warshington. Being a pathological liar is apparently a prerequisite for being shoved into key positions of warmongering plutocracy in the USA.
7. If one looks at the established pattern for telling the big lie since 1939 and throughout the cold war as the basis for attacking sovereign countries and using false flags as the premise for waging illegal wars of aggression from Hitler's time through today, truthers conclude that:
A. They're doing it again
B. You've been lied to constantly about 9/11, and
C. They haven't pulled it off. Tens of millions don't believe the big Himmlerian lie and latest premise for warfiteering on the other side of the world. Their own government employees are blowing whistles quite loudly.
You can't fill in missing facts or explain away bullshit physics with Occam's razor.
So Fidel...just to be clear:
Do you consider the following to be bullshit physics?
.Rather, the ball will possess a velocity of v1 = 1/2(v2) + 9.8t. Where v1 is the final velocity of the ball being collided into, and v2 is the velocity of the first ball the instant before it collides with the second. Basically, the idea is that when one ball strikes the second ball, the whole unit will still be moving at 1/2 the speed the one ball was moving before contact was make.
The answer folks was yes. He considers Physics to be BS.
I have to wonder if, ten years from now, we'll still be going all the way back to first principles to try to satisfy the nutters.
This all reminds me of a case study from my first year Psychology elective, concerning a man whose hippocampus had been damaged, and who therefore had short term memory, but could not move short term memories to long term. As a result, he asked the same questions over and over again, believing them to be a new question each time.
And I can picture him in my mind's eye asking "What about WTC 7????" over and over and over and over.
Jas, when I say the phase "velocities of zero", I want you to take a look at the chart in Case III posted (and actually Case II as well). The charts appear to make the assumption that once one floor runs into another, the downwards velocity of the collapsing building is reset to zero. Basic physics holds this isn't the case. Do you understand where I'm getting at?
Thanks, WCG. I don't actually see what you are saying. The diagram made sense to me, but I admit it was the explanation that made the most sense. She is describing a hypothetical situation, which attempts to describe symmetrical collapse based on the force of gravity alone. She doesn't pretend to say it is the model for the actual collapse: "Minimum time for the collapse, if every floor collapsed like dominos." She is saying that, under the assumptions of the official theory, the collapse was triggered by the progressive failing of upper floors moving from the top down, (and not, for example, the failing of lower floors, since they did not sustain any damage from the plane impact), and she is assuming no resistance, which is extremely generous to the actual situation.
In other words, we can't have floor 40 beginning its descent at the same time as floor 70 (as you might have more closely occurring in a controlled demolition). Each floor has to "wait" for the floor above it to collapse before it can begin its descent, which, if you think about it, makes no sense. Again, these are the assumptions of the "progressive collapse" theory. So either I am misunderstanding the mechanics of the progressive collapse theory and how she is interpreting it, or the progressive collapse theory makes no sense. Since this author is an engineer, and since there are 1,000+ other architects and engineers also saying it's bogus, I am guessing it's the latter. But please, obviously, let me know if I've misunderstood what you're saying. Where, for example does the diagram assume a velocity of zero at each step of collapse, and how is this relevant to your argument? Thanks.
I like the way you put this, and I completely agree. This is exactly the way I am approaching this issue.
Jas
Appealing to your own intuition on things like buildings collapsing probably isn't the best way to go unless you have some serious prior experience in building demolitions. As a for instance, the truth movement quite often state's that Silverstein's comment "pull it" meant it was time to set off the charges in WTC 7 and claim that is a common term used in the demolition industry. It's not, and never has been, the truth movement made that up as part of their sales pitch.
THE best way to get to the bottom of this is to not only read the information , but to search out critiques of that information as well. Is the billiard ball analogy even revalent to building collapses? That's what you need to find out.
Yes, Richard Gage has *cough a thousand cough* architects and engineers on his list of supporters but so what ? Does he vet these supporters, or will he take anyone who submits their ( or somebody else's ) name. One thing to keep in mind is Gage does this for a living, see his 24 hour a day telethon website or put yourself on his mailing list. He's got motivations other than "truth" for keeping up this show of his.
Then there's Judy Wood. She of the Directed Energy Weapons school of thought on what "really" happened on 911, the person who purports that Steven Jones is a government agent to "discredit free energy in the public eye, and to mislead the 9/11 Truth Movement with deceitful research." ( from her website )
She's either A Batshit crazy or B Making stuff up.
If you're really interested in following up the science behind 911, I suggest the forums over at The James Randi Educational Foundation. They have literally hundreds of 911 threads including this currently active one on Judy Wood
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=169385
But Randi is a retired clown. And crazy George Bush is, well, still crazier than ten barrels of monkey poo
I seem to recall you having harsh words for Randi in other contexts as well. Too much debunking of that paranormal nonsense that enchants you, Fidel? Is he pointing out the hidden trap door and wrecking all the magic?
I think Randi did a stint on "the magic clown" some years ago. Like most uncritical, pro-crazy George non-truthers, Randi is not a scientist either.
BBC now admits Al Qaeda never existed
Al-Qa'eda = Al-CIA'duh
Salsa, just about anyone has the ability to intuitively understand that 110-storey buildings cannot symmetrically collapse to the ground in the time that everyone witnessed them to (9-13 seconds) if you factor in resistance that each floor must provide. People understand this because it's a common sense thing to understand, like an apple falling to the ground.
So, yes, I do trust my intuition on it, and I trust the science that qualified people are presenting to explain it. Mainly because they're using the science that we all know. It's not some kind of made-up fairy-tale accounting designed to explain what in reality is not explainable by those means. Whatever other theories Judy Wood has do not discredit her qualifications in engineering and materials engineering science or her explanation of how the progressive collapse theory does not explain the collapse of the WTC.
Now, if we can get back to the question at hand.
Fidel
The forums and the 911 stuff have nothing to do with Randi personally. if you'd been there, you'd know this. It's more of a one stop shop that tries to get to the factuality of all that crap you read on truther sites.
Why don't you post something of your own so we can examine how much you know about not just basic physics but as it applies to the actual problem at hand?
The problem at hand, Fidel Von Daniken, is a problem of basic physics. If the speed of the fall of the building can be explained through basic physics, then we can move past the "near free fall" issue that Jas and I were discussing.
Jas
You saw the buildings fall, so you do know that buildings can and do fall like that. Are you asserting that they couldn't have fallen like they did without some help like a controlled demolition? Based on CD's you seen either live or on television, intuitively you should know that Cd are loud..really. really loud and intuitively, you should be wondering why the sounds of the demolitions weren't picked up by any microphones recording the events. Sure, there were "explosions" but nothing of the magnitude of what a CD would produce, nor were they times with the 'squibs" that truthers are so fond of.
Sometimes we need to question out intuition, and ask, does it reflect reality ? You also have to question the motives of the people who are giving you the information. What's in it for them? Money? Fame? Attention? and even if they're qualified in their fields on paper, are there any problems with the information they're putting out?
Sure, we all like to favour the underdog, the rebel, the one with the courage to stand up to the status quo, but that's not a reason to simply believe someone when there's other sources dealing with the same information. As a for instance, suppose I told you I was out hiking in the woods and I had a conversation with a burning bush. You might just believe me, you've heard about someone else having the same thing, right. Now suppose I told you I had a conversation with a burning bush on a street corner in downtown Vancouver, at noon. You're going to doubt me and probably search for news articles about burning bushes in downtown Vancouver. Intuition would lead you to doubt my story in the second scenario.
So, the science. We all like dealing with things we "know" about and we all like analogies we can relate to. Just because someone presents information in a format you think you can understand doesn't mean it's correct. Buildings collapsing is a horrifically complicated scenario, the information is all out there for your perusal, it's just going to take considerably more time and effort to "understand" than the billiard ball scenario.
The question at hand? Why doesn't alternative media devote more space to the truth movement ? That's easy. The truth movement is, for all intents and purposes. dead and devoting valuable space to it is simply bad PR.
Salsa, everyone, even NIST, even scientists and engineers that support progressive collapse theory, admit that the collapse of the WTC was out of the ordinary. Explanations were commissioned rather than investigated. FEMA could not come up with an explanation. NIST confirms that even seismic reports of that event "cannot be trusted" due to the general noise and rumble caused by the collapsing of the buildings. Eyewitnesses and firefighters report hearing explosions. According to firefighters the lobbies had been blown out - what caused this? Kerosene fuel?
The science we know cannot explain the descent of the buildings. Scientists are pointing this out. I am trying to bring the discussion of the buildings' collapses into a common sense, plain language understanding using physical concepts that everyone can agree on. If you want to participate in this discussion, that's great, if not, I don't want to get into an discussion with you that doesn't actually serve to explain the collapses.
Why don't you post something of your own so we can examine how much you know about not just basic physics but as it applies to the actual problem at hand?
The problem at hand, Fidel Von Daniken, is a problem of basic physics. If the speed of the fall of the building can be explained through basic physics, then we can move past the "near free fall" issue that Jas and I were discussing.
I have no problem with believing that at least five of the hijackers trained in terrorism by the US military had something to do with it. How bout you, inspector HeywoodFloyd?
We aren't (GLADIO) talking about the hijackers, Erich Von Fidel. You might be but you're the only one doing so (INFANT MORTALITY RATE).
I think you were done before you even started. HeyWoodFloyd, could you please stop derailing this thread with juvenile personal attacks?
Derailing threads? You've been attempting (BANANADA) that for this whole thread. Am I stepping on your toes?
Derailing threads? You've been attempting (BANANADA) that for this whole thread. Am I stepping on your toes?
Is "Bananada" such a terrible personal insult for you? I am referring to a country as in vegetable and mineral not you personally. I'm not calling you a blithering idiot or anything, as much as I'd like to. But that's besides the point, and no barb intended with respect to the shape of your head.
Fidel, I really have (FROZEN PUERTO RICO DU NORD) no idea what you're talking about. Which puts me in the same company as 99% of Babblers.
Did you do a babble survey or something, mr thread d'railer? Why does every thread you post in have to be about you and your feelings? Why not think about someone else for a change, like the 3000 people murdered on 9/11? Remember that one?
Jas. all I'm suggesting is that if you want to get to the issue of the collapses is do some more research. I know I can't convince you in my own words that the collapse couldn't have happened without a CD, all I'm suggesting is that the sources that you're getting your information from are crap. It's like going to whale.to for medical information. There's no shortage of people on the internet who will gleefully lie to you about pretty much anything and it's up to you to make the determination whether you're being fed a line by researching both sides of the argument.
If you don't want to, that's up to you, there's nothing at stake with 911 in the way peoples quality of life is at stake with all the antivax misinformation. Here's a place to start re the collapse.
http://911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
Did you do a babble survey or something, mr thread d'railer? Why does every thread you post in have to be about you and your feelings? Why not think about someone else for a change, like the 3000 people murdered on 9/11? Remember that one?
Ok little man (pats Fidel on the head). You can have the last word on this, cause I'm bored with you now. You should take your cues from Jas, who knows how to stay on topic.
The A&Es for truth are basically saying that too many of the variables NIST scientists plug into the physics equations describing near free fall collapse require certain leaps of faith to be believed. A slightest angle of degree difference in floors tilting throws their elapsed time out of whack. They say that vibration in the building caused way too much fire proofing material to fall away from structural beams to be believable. They have at least one scientist from Lawrence Livermore who has put together a sequence of events contributing to structural failure of the towers that requires other engineers to assume too far much to be believed without hard evidence. And that same scientist works at a university where military grade explosive thermite was developed with public funding. The truthers tell us that if we use Occam's philosophy for least number of assumptions, controlled demolition is the simplest and most believable explanation there is without jumping to so many conclusions required by NIST static models more useful for explaining initiation of collapse but not a great deal about the sequence of events after that point. Occam says the simplest explanation is the most likely not the convoluted snakes and ladders physics equations used by a handful of government scientists who simply wanted to keep their jobs during what was a crazy George dubya Bush decade of bad science in America.
Do these values seem reasonable? Let's calculate a few values we can use as a reference...
The fact that the person writing these "calculations" has also calculated that the towers were destroyed by "energy beam weapons" (Star Wars) ought to give one pause.
Salsa, with all due respect, I think you could benefit from your own advice. You may not like Judy Wood, but I don't think the AEfortruth site is "crap", as you say. Nor do I think any of the other articles I've cited are crap. Maybe there are different, scientifically valid, competing theories (I doubt it), but let's see which ones bears out. I'm interested in seeing WCG's answer to my reply upthread.
As for the 911mtyhs.com, I've seen it already. We hacked through that stuff in much earlier threads. I'm not going back to argue the same crap. If you can't explain to me how 75 to 90 floors offer virtually no resistance in a top-down, near free-fall collapse, then, I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously your evaluation of the information used here.
I wonder how many more of the Bush-con fairy tales they were sucked-in to believing? "Oh they would have found WMD" sold to Saddam by the west eventually. Some people want to be fooled. It's in their nature. I imagine anyone could sell them a bridge over the Hudson, and they wouldnt even ask for a receipt.
This is for those lefty babblers who don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job. And that's okay according to Canadian Peter Dale Scott who does believe 9/11 was a "deep state" event carried out at arm's length from the cosmetic leadership in America and with both bipartisan party war criminals deeply involved from the time of Ronald Reagan. This rift between the left, and PDS says it does exist as it does between the US ruling class and ruling elite, needs some healing.
9/11, Deep Events, and the Curtailment of U.S. Freedoms
A talk delivered to the New England Antiwar Conference, MIT, January 30, 2010.
by Prof Peter Dale Scott
Let me turn to today’s topic, the war on terror, by reading a long quote from Noam Chomsky in 2002, with which I fully agree:
"the war on terrorism was not declared on September 11 [2001]; rather, it was redeclared, using the same rhetoric as the first declaration twenty years earlier. The Reagan administration, as you know, I'm sure, came into office announcing that a war on terrorism would be the core of U.S. foreign policy, and it condemned what the president called the "evil scourge of terrorism. " …. International terrorism was described as a plague spread by "depraved opponents of civilization itself," in "a return to barbarism in the modern age.”"[2]
Today it is easy to see the falsehood of the government rhetoric in the 1980s about heroic freedom fighters fighting the “evil scourge of terrorism.” Most of the CIA money in the 1980s went to the terrorist drug trafficker Gulbeddin Hekmatyar, remembered for his habit of throwing acid in the faces of women not wearing burkas. Hekmatyar did not represent Afghan aspirations for freedom, but the interests of the U.S. ally Pakistan. As a true Afghan leader said in 1994, “We didn't choose [him]. The United States made Hekmatyar by giving him his weapons.”[3] To describe Hekmatyar’s men as freedom fighters was a fraud. ...
There are even hand-picked bipartisan 9/11 Commissioners who've stated that government agencies deliberately lied to them and are embroiled in a coverup.
Whatever you do, don't ask deniers these questions:
1./ Two 20-something story buildings of the same dimensions, volume, and mass are suspended in the air at same height above the ground. One building has nothing between it and the ground but clean air. Below the other is a high-rise extension of the same building but with five times the mass of the building suspended directly overhead. Both suspended buildings are dropped at the same time. Which hits the ground first?
Because until 9/11, most scientists unafraid of losing their government jobs and highschool grads would have said the building with nothing but fresh air beneath it would hit the ground first.
2./ Who met with the alleged head hijacker's bagman for breakfast on 9-11? Because they'll tend to shy away from answering that it was US intelligence officials who met for toast and cereal with the same bagman who wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11. The 9/11 report stated that discovering who financed the hijackers is unimportant as will most serious deniers.
Jas. It sounds like you've already made up your mind about the CD scenario and an appeal to reason isn't going to sway you. If you've hacked through all the 911 myths stuff, and all the other "debunker" stuff and found it wanting then all that's left is a belief system.
Fair enough, You want to wait and see, give it another 10 years, see what happens and I'll do the same.
Jas, at some point they might even figure out that this thread isn't about 9/11 denial and start one that is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGDA2P0ImNQ
Mr. David Ray Griffin gives a talk entitled "Time for second look"
The english portion starts at ten minutes. David Ray Griffin in Germany May 9th of last year.
Mr. Griffin's audience is primarily "english as an additional language" individuals so he purposely speaks clearly and slowly, perhaps that might help out some of our babblers here.
cheers
bc
Why The Facts of 9/11 Must Be Suppressed John McMurtry on Guns and Butter kpfa radio
A very good analysis of the overall situation for anti-war activists. Just before 9/11 there were anti-globalization protests in Genoa. Peaceful protesters were deemed terrorists by security forces and beaten. The 9/11 wars are market crusades for market supremacy and market fundamentalism. Any countries pursuing alternative economies are deemed evil, and like the religious inquisitions of history, opponents of neoclassical market fundamentalism are automatically labelled heretics and must be destroyed according to group think behind the war without end. Our modern day Nazis wage wars of aggression under the guise of self defence, and it's a similar psychopathic self-centred big lie. America and the national security state are one and the same and have become indistinguishable for most people.
VIDEO: Was 9/11 an "Inside Job"?
9/11 Truthers attend "Treason in America" Conference
ABC tabloid reporters attend, inquire about WhiteHouse gunman not truth
Is this your new theory as to what's wrong with crazy George dubya and neocon cheerleader-drones? - that they're all cokeheads who were trampled on campuses by crazed herds of hippos and are now suffering compounded trauma to their pea-size brains? Plausible I suppose but far fetched and kinda like the, 'Yes, Al-CIA'duh was once with us but then suddenly turned against us' phony baloney.
Al-Qaeda responds to the 9/11 Truth Movement
Too funny, A_J. Award winning news journalist John Pilger wrote:
US government agencies cover up evidence of a conspiracy in the wake of El Sayyid Nosair’s assassination of controversial right-wing Zionist leader Rabbi Meir Kahane (1990s)
District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who prosecuted the case, will later speculate the CIA may have encouraged the FBI not to pursue any other leads. Nosair worked at the Al-Kifah Refugee Center which was closely tied to covert CIA operations in Afghanistan . (New Yorker, 3/17/1995)
How the FBI (and RCMP) protected Al Qaeda’s 9/11 Hijacking Trainer The U.S. government’s intimate on-going connection to al-Qaeda and a chief 9/11 plotter
9/11 Commission told not to 'cross a line' during investigation
In a letter obtained by the ACLU and addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George Tenet on Jan. 6, 2004, the members of the Bush administration cautioned the 9/11 Commission of not to further investigate into the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Iows, don't look too deeply into this, because 9/11 was a US Army-Al-CIA'duh false flag op. Occam says they're looking good for 9/11.
Al-Qaeda responds to the 9/11 Truth Movement
LMAO!
Who is Al-Qa'eda? Have deniers ever actually met one of crazy George's bogeymen? Are they under your bed waiting to ram the Koran and CIA manual for terrierism down your throats? Quick! Duck and cover!
LMAO!
Too funny
Jas, at some point they might even figure out that this thread isn't about 9/11 denial and start one that is.
If they do, it would be awesome if they could explain to us that pesky little lack-of-resistance problem. I might even be willing to believe their kooky progressive collapse theory. Until then, I guess we should get out the tin foil hats.
Hey! Wait a minute! Maybe this is the 'collapsing progressives' theory!
Jas, at some point they might even figure out that this thread isn't about 9/11 denial and start one that is.
If they do, it would be awesome if they could explain to us that pesky little lack-of-resistance problem. I might even be willing to believe their kooky progressive collapse theory. Until then, I guess we should get out the tin foil hats.
Hey! Wait a minute! Maybe this is the 'collapsing progressives' theory!
Even more damning than their leap of faith anti-Occam physics, I think, was the US Government's intimate on-going connection to al-Qaeda and a chief 9/11 plotter who nobody knows where he is and was only briefly mentioned in the official government conspiracy report. And there are lots n lots of whistleblowers.
In crazy George they trusted for a non-transparent and non-accountable invextigation. They were lied to, and they know it.
Not a new article, but well worded:
Let's assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same
degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire
floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to
drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then
combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns
evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level.
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten
seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases. Even if Newton's Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed, as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.
messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message rather than provide investigative
reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president's 9/11 Commission to start an
"investigation" into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission's
investigation also didn't include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include
an investigation into the "unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7
collapsed.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
Saturday, February 27, 1993
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
The towers were hit by 767's, which are larger and heavier than the 707. I believe the 767 also has greater fuel capacity too.
Just a bit more sheet metal and airframe and little more fuel had the tanks been full. Roughly similar in size and weight though.
I think there are issues with the speed of the planes on impact. Pilots for truth are saying they were going too fast for what the planes are designed for at such low altitude. The Pentagon plane was doing some very fancy flying considering the hijacker was an amateur.
Don't bother A_J. Ask them to produce the analysis. Or any of the analysis' that have been claimed to be completed.
Ding-dong! Time to check under the stairs for Al-CIA'duh.
Yes, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707
A 707 that was cruising around just above stall speed, possibly lost in the fog, landing gear and flaps down.... And the towers did withstand the impact of a slightly larger plane going over twice as fast as the design parameters specified. As we all know, it wasn't the impacts that brought the towers down, it was the fires and those types of fires weren't planned for in the impact scenario. Why does the truth movement constantly leave this information out ? Maybe you don't believe me. How about in the words of the lead structural engineer on the WTC towers project?The impact of the planes was so great that funny-strange vibrations knocked off all the insulation cladding structural beams, and then WTC7 fell down from sheer forces of worry. Pfff!
I just checked under my bed, and there were no Al-CIA'duhs there just a few dust bunnies. Honest.
Fidel, Do you ever add anything revalent to these threads, or are you a one man PSYOPS!!! operation ?
Ding-dong! Time to check under the stairs for Al-CIA'duh.
Is this version pointless edit 3 or 4?
Yes, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707
Interesting. We have the word of the chief structural engineer against one of the chief engineers.
Anyway, from the same link, here's essentially what Leslie Robertson has written about the jet impact:
The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.
Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft.
What isn't mentioned here is that the Empire State Building didn't collapse.
At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.
World War II had caused many to shift to a six-day work week; thus there were many people at work in the Empire State Building that Saturday. The plane crashed into the offices of the War Relief Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. Catherine O'Connor described the crash: The plane exploded within the building. There were five or six seconds - I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance - and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire. I kept calling to him, "Come on, Joe; come on, Joe." He walked out of it...
One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.
Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.
The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million.
And the dinky little 10 ton bomber had how much fuel on board ?
Compared with the 150+ ton jet liner?
The Empire State building and the WTC towers used the same methods of construction ?
Interesting. We have the word of the chief structural engineer against one of the chief engineers.
Lets not take them at their word, as you are so wont to do. Show me the reports.
Alright, I know I shouldn't bother, but are you seriously trying to claim that since the Empire State Building (a completely different building with a completely different structure) didn't collapse when struck by a B-25 bomber (a completely different airplane about 1/10th the mass of a 767, carrying less fuel and making a landing approach), then the World Trade Centre could also not have collapsed when struck by an airplane?
One instance of a building not collapsing when struck by an airplane proves that no buildings collapse when struck by airplanes?
That's silly.
Heywood, keep up. I was referring to posts upthread excerpting John SKilling and Leslie Robertson respectively.
AJ, the WTC didn't collapse when struck by planes. It didn't even collapse when hit with bombs.
That's right.
The towers collapsed due to the burning fuel, more of which was carried by the 767's than the tiny (in comparison) B-25 and to which the unique design of the WTC (largely steel, with most of the structure supported by a steel and concrete core) was particularly vulnerable.
Yes, steel and concrete are susceptible to fire.... They should consider making highrises out of wood perhaps.
Wow. Okay, we're definitely going around the mulberry bush on this one.
Well, concrete not so much but steel, yes, definitely susceptible to fire. You're finally starting to make sense.
Well, concrete not so much but steel, yes, definitely susceptible to fire. You're finally starting to make sense.
I know I really shouldn't, but it's just too fun...
AJ, how susceptible to fire is steel?
Do you mean how hot does it need to get before it looses it's structural integrity?
We'll just ignore that melting point idea because it too, is silly
Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire
http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf
At least four of these fire-induced collapses occurred during construction or renovations, when the usual architectural, structural and fire protection functions were incomplete or temporarily disrupted. Partial collapses (14 events) were the most frequent occurrences, and the three World Trade Center complete collapses dominated the full collapse event total of eight cases. Office and residential were the primary occupancy types in these 20 buildings, as would be expected in multi-story construction. The occupancy distribution is as follows...
The events related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) complex in New York were the dominant fire and collapse events of this survey (represented as 4 separate incidents).
Further into this article are some pictures showing how real collapses (all partial) look like in buildings that have burned.
The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire
It is tempting to draw parallels between this spectacle and the destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7 because of the stark opposites: on 9/11/01, three skyscrapers were transformed into piles of rubble primarily as a consequence, supposedly, of fires -- fires spanning small fractions of each building; and on 2/09/09, a skyscraper remained intact after burning like a torch for hours. However such parallels may be limited by major structural differences between the buildings in the two cases -- one being that the Hotel Mandarin Oriental, designed by the famous Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, had a full-height interior atrium, and thus had the hollowness that the 9-11 Commission deceptively attempted to attribute to the Twin Towers.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Ah, yes, the old "things that haven't happened before can never happen" logic.
Re the Beijing Television Cultural Centre: the fire would not have been fueled by gasoline/jet fuel, but wood and paper construction debris. Not all fires are created equal nor do they burn at the same temperature.
Ah yes, it's the old 'We could prove it if we had to, but actually we can't. And besides even if we could, it wouldnt shut the truthers up once and for all' excuse. We've heard it before. Lame-lame for shame.
You want lame...I got LAME
Nobody died on 911 YouTube
Gotta love the troof movement.
You want lame...I got LAME
Nobody died on 911 YouTube
Gotta love the troof movement.
And since there is no legal evidence of 9/11 guilt provided by the slip-shod 9/11 commission assembled only because victims' families demanded an inquiry, Truthers just want proof that Al-CIA'duh acted alone and that it wasn't the anticommunist jihadis acting in unison with their US hawk sponsors, a pre-existing arrangement since the 1980s and 90s and ongoing as far as truthers can tell.
Al-Qa'eda = Al-CIA'duh
Who is behind "Al Qaeda in Iraq"? Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a "Zarqawi Legend"
"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money."
BOO!
Fake Quote
The quote is obviously from Bunel, then, not Cook at all. Yet another example of why it's a very bad idea to trust other people's interpretations of anything: always check the sources for yourself.
BOO
Which is why I posted a link to the real author of the quote, you moran.
Long.