NIST 9/11 Sussudio-science?- Truth deniers v Isaac Newton II

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Unless of course this is more common than I have been led to believe.

 

Ya, 767s are driven into the world's tallest buildings all the time. The chore here will be narrowing down *which* of the many examples of this to show you.

 

Meanwhile, can you dig up some more examples of space shuttles exploding on takeoff? And maybe some giant passenger liners striking icebergs, too. Otherwise, what am I to believe *really* happened, hmm???

Rupert3434

Snert wrote:

Actually, they're right.  I reproduced the events of the day using a fairly accurate scale model of a WTC building (a Cap'n Crunch box, with 2,973 pieces of cereal, for authenticity) and a substitute 767 (my index finger) and sure enough, when the "767" hit "WTC1" just a little bit above the Cap'n's hat, it did NOT collapse into its own footprint but in fact toppled onto the placemat. 

Wow. It's SO much easier to just mock attempts at explanation instead of comiong up with ones yourself.

Do you at least agree that NIST having numbers that don't make sense to physics and outright saying 'we don't fucking know what these mean' is a bit precarious?

Rupert3434

Snert wrote:

Quote:
Unless of course this is more common than I have been led to believe.

 

Ya, 767s are driven into the world's tallest buildings all the time. The chore here will be narrowing down *which* of the many examples of this to show you.

 

Meanwhile, can you dig up some more examples of space shuttles exploding on takeoff? And maybe some giant passenger liners striking icebergs, too. Otherwise, what am I to believe *really* happened, hmm???

Three words:

Empire. State. Building.

(Does anybody actually read what they post at the outset of these threads?)

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

If they caused significant damage to the floors they hit to cause the collapse of the structure, it seems odd that it would all go down at once, and not say, with the top stories kiltering and falling of their own accord before the rest of the structure.

 

Isn't that what happened (except, obviously, for that "of their own accord" bit)?  Should the top floors have collaped onto lower floors, waited around for a spell, then continue to drop later on?

al-Qa'bong

Rupert3434 wrote:

 

Three words:

Empire. State. Building.

(Does anybody actually read what they post at the outset of these threads?)

 

Ah yes, the previously discounted "King Kong" theory.

Fidel

That's just placing the onus of proof on truthers to explain exactly and in great detail how all three buildings were brought down. And we can toss out aeroplanes in one of the scenarios. Their problem is that they believe everyone fell off the turnip truck yesterday. Why are truthers asking all these hard questions and making trouble for the Gladio Gang? It makes no sense for them. Because whatever crazy George and his government of war criiminals were sellin, they bought no questions asked sight-unseen. And I'd like to bet truth deniers have bought more than a few lemons in their time, too.

Rupert3434

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:

If they caused significant damage to the floors they hit to cause the collapse of the structure, it seems odd that it would all go down at once, and not say, with the top stories kiltering and falling of their own accord before the rest of the structure.

 

Isn't that what happened (except, obviously, for that "of their own accord" bit)?  Should the top floors have collaped onto lower floors, waited around for a spell, then continue to drop later on?

Could have. There are probably THOUSANDS of ways it COULD have fallen if it wasn't demolished with explosives. Except one where the speed of descent is equal to the speed of gravity, implying no resistance from anything beneath it, and thus, freefall.

Thank you NIST...

You're also probably going to say that Dubya was just so confused between fact and the still not yet nascent conspiracy theory that this is hardly significant. 

al-Qa'bong

Quote:

Because whatever crazy George and his government of war criiminals were sellin, they bought no questions asked sight-unseen

 

Well, if you want to go there, purt'near everyone in the world saw images of those aeroplanes hitting the towers.  It seems as if your argument is based on conjecture and belief in the unseen. 

And as far as crazy George et al go, so far I haven't read anyone on the "aircraft side" in these goofy, yet entertaining 9-11 conspiracy threads mention motive at all.  For all we know, Dubya paid some guys to sacrifice themselves by flying aircraft into the buildings, but there isn't anything that I've seen to suggest that these aircraft were negligible factors in the collapse of those buildings.

Rupert3434

al-Qa'bong wrote:

And as far as crazy George et al go, so far I haven't read anyone on the "aircraft side" in these goofy, yet entertaining 9-11 conspiracy threads mention motive at all.  For all we know, Dubya paid some guys to sacrifice themselves by flying aircraft into the buildings, but there isn't anything that I've seen to suggest that these aircraft were negligible factors in the collapse of those buildings.

 

Ah...but there's a metaphor in the sight-unseen. Of course you saw planes hit the buildings. It's only natural to assume that would make them fall. Problem is, both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were build to withstand the impact of a (potentially fuel-loaded) commercial aircraft. To build something that large, that close to the airport, and not take that into consideration would have been a retarded oversight.

This is above and beyond the:

 

1) Steel that couldn't have melted from burning jet fuel temperatures

2) The shoddy explanations or lack of explanations that followed in NIST's inquiry

3) The fact that WTC 7 fell dispite beeing essentially untouched

4) The fact that the buildings fell 'essentially in free fall"

 

 

And Snert...I'm not familiar with the King Kong theory, but I bet if terrorists didn't distroy WTC 1 and 2 than giant gorillas must have played some part in it.Wink

al-Qa'bong

Wouldn't have everyone's lives been simpler had the conspirators merely blown up the buildings in the way you theorists (apparently "truthers" is offensive - we musn't say harmful things)?  They could still have blamed Osama bin Laden, since al-Qaeda was purportedly behind the first WTC attack (the one in the basement parking lot, or the "footprint" as it's called around here), and been just as credible as they've been since coming up with this outlandish aircraft theory.

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:
Wouldn't have everyone's lives been simpler had the conspirators merely blown up the buildings in the way you theorists (apparently "truthers" is offensive - we musn't say harmful things)?  They could still have blamed Osama bin Laden, since al-Qaeda was purportedly behind the first WTC attack (the one in the basement parking lot, or the "footprint" as it's called around here), and been just as credible as they've been since coming up with this outlandish aircraft theory.

 There was a discount on 9/11. Three steel frame buildings brought down, into their own footie prints, for the price of just two planes. How many Americans are even aware that there was a third WTC building demolished on 9/11?

Asking why cutter charges were even necessary is to have fallen head over heels for the official conspiracy theory. Truth deniers want everyone to share in what is obviously a lemon of a conspiracy theory pawned off on the world public. They don't seem to realize that not all of us find sustenance in the government kool aid. The official conspiracy theory is just not enough for those of us who realize that there was something lacking in George Dubya Bush era science all the way around. No thank you we will not have a second helping.

al-Qa'bong

Incoherent ravings aside, is there room in your theory to explain why Dubya and his fellow conspirators didn't just bomb the buildings; or why they had to use aircraft or hologram images of aircraft?

Salsa

Hi Rupert

Yes, the lemmings, 10% of brain and bumblebees things weren't caused by science, they're merely things that people heard, believed and repeated in much the same way that the truth movement shares it's information. They say things, dumb things, other truthers hear them and viola! we have a mass movement of dumb.

What dumb things you ask????

That the passengers on the planes were paid off and living in a land far, far away on their fatted Swiss bank accounts. This is direct from  famous truthers website.

That two buildings of identical design, involved in the same catastrophe, should behave differently, like it's weird or something.

WTC 7 Was not on fire.

Buildings hit by planes are supposed to fall sideways. Huh? says who?

The steel melted

 it seems odd that it would all go down at once, and not say, with the top stories kiltering and falling of their own accord before the rest of the structure......didn't even have to write that one.

NIST's numbers don't make sense to physics...yea only to 0.00067 of them.

Empire. State. Building.....the plane that hit the ESB was how big ? and the 767 was...how big ? Do some research man, get past the truther sites.

 Except one where the speed of descent is equal to the speed of gravity, implying no resistance from anything beneath it, and thus, freefall.....wrong

both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were build to withstand the impact of a (potentially fuel-loaded) commercial aircraft.....wrong, potentially empty and flying at slow speed looking for the airport. The effects of a fire like WTCs 1 and 2 was not taken into consideration, just the impact, which, the buildings survived.

 

The truth movement says, you believe it and you repeat it. just like the lemmings, 10% and bumblebees, and I'm here to tell you that what you're hearing are made up stories.

 

Welcome to the partyCool

mmphosis

Salsa wrote:

mmphosis wrote:
Terrorists did it!  This was reported on September 11, 2001.  Not sure where the people in the media got that information -- this was more like someone's initial opinion.  The msm now calls 9/11, the "9/11 Attacks" to try to drive home the point that this was an attack.  I have yet to see any evidence that 9/11 was an attack or not.  Yes, seeing the video played over and over and over again of two planes crashing into two towers and quickly cutting to the two towers collapsing into their footprint certainly looks like "an attack" but it doesn't prove anything.

This is either nonsense or gibberish or maybe a melding of the two. What are you trying to say here ?

I am not trying to say anything except that the msm immediately jumped to the conclusion that 911 was the work of terrorists.

What I am saying is that 911 was an inside job.  Look into what was happening prior to 9/11.  There was lots of motivation for an inside job:   a lame-duck president, the stock market crashing, threats by US military people to bomb Afghanistan into oblivion, calls for a "Pearl Harbor" like event to catalyze the actions that were taken after 911 and in the name of 911.  911 was a self-inflicted staged event.

Salsa wrote:

Quote:
The hijackers (assuming they were hijackers) are all dead, conveniently dead.  (Well, as far as we know they are all dead.  There is the odd report that some of the 19 men on the planes are alive which implies that the person was not on the plane.)  It's easy to blame the dead people. ie. Lee Harvey Oswald.

Yes, that happens in suicide missions, see "occupational hazard"

It may also be a means to carry out murder by proxy.  You conveniently removed my example of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Salsa wrote:

Quote:
Osama Bin Laden.  As much as he might like to claim that he did it, according to the FBI, he is no longer a suspect.

Can you prove that he's no longer a suspect. With something revalent I mean like a quote from the FBI saying they no longer suspect OBL, not something lame like pointing out that 911 isn't listed on OBL's FBI wanted poster.

From the June 2006 Idaho Observer:

Bin Laden not suspect in 9/11 attack says FBI

Within hours of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration publicly identified Saudi national Osama bin Laden as masterminding the attacks. The Bush administration’s official public position has never changed. But bin Laden has never been formally charged with crimes associated with 9/11. Though the alleged al Qaeda leader stands charged as a suspect in numerous acts of terror since 1998, FBI Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb told Muckraker Report editor Ed Hass. "...the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

Sheridan was tipped off when he noticed that Bin Laden’s "Most Wanted" poster made no reference to 9/11. According to Tomb, "The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

Salsa wrote:

Quote:
Apparently, some people in Afghanistan that used to be funded by the USA when the USSR had their invasion

Yes, we know and this is proof of MiHOP how ?

No, we don't know.  Show me evidence of people from Afghanistan having conspired to Make It Happen On Purpose.  The United States invaded Afghanistan weeks after 9/11, but the report of "terrorism" doesn't show up for years.  To me, the report is only a story, an interpretation because no criminal investigation was done.

The pseudo science given by NIST doesn't make sense and we're left with these threads with very basic questions about what really happened.

mmphosis
Salsa

mmphosis wrote:
What I am saying is that 911 was an inside job.  Look into what was happening prior to 9/11.  There was lots of motivation for an inside job:   a lame-duck president, the stock market crashing, threats by US military people to bomb Afghanistan into oblivion, calls for a "Pearl Harbor" like event to catalyze the actions that were taken after 911 and in the name of 911.  911 was a self-inflicted staged event.

 

Yes, you and the truth movement are saying it, the problem is proving it which the truth movement has been unable to do, or even come close to doing so. They even make shit up in order to sell their "proof".

 

Quote:
You conveniently removed my example of Lee Harvey Oswald.[
What's he got to do with this..Oh wait, circumstantial evidence from 40 odd years ago, gotcha.

 

 

 

But you said

 

Quote:
according to the FBI, he is no longer a suspect.

 

Which you grabbed from that Idaho headline. Curious, your link doesn't say he's no longer a suspect. Do you take this to be evidence of some sort that this was an inside job, the fact that they don't have any hard evidence, save his confession. Anyways who cares, bin laden didn't do much of anything save maybe kick in some funds.

 

Quote:
No, we don't know.

 

What? the fact that the Mujahideen were funded by the Americans as part of a proxy war against the former USSR is not known ?

 

 

Debunking the debunkers ???? Not even close. This is just typical truther stuff that was debunked long ago, the title of the clip is just propaganda.

contrarianna

The explosive cutting charges were hidden in the icebox, right beside the Judy Wood's GPS target for her proven Energy Beam Weapon from Space theory
...but first they had to remove the strawberries....

Ah, the strawberries,
that's where I had them.
                     
I proved with geometric logic that a
duplicate key to the icebox existed.  
                  
I could have produced that key. They
were protecting some officer ...
                 
Naturally, I can only cover
these things from memory.
                  
If I've left anything out,
just ask me specific questions -
                  
- and I'll be glad to answer them
one by one.

  
                  
- No further questions, sir.
- The court is closed.

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:
Incoherent ravings aside, is there room in your theory to explain why Dubya and his fellow conspirators didn't just bomb the buildings; or why they had to use aircraft or hologram images of aircraft?

Who knows really? Perhaps it was for full terror effect. The luftwaffe's Stuka dive bombers had these noisy rattling engines that sounded horrific to those who were aerial bombed at the time. The high pitched whine of a stuka engine was a tool of terror all by itself. There were experts in terrorizing large numbers of people in the 1930s and 40s, and many of them went to work for western governments after the war.

What's more spectacular than kamikazes  crashing planes into national monuments a la Pearl Harbor? Surely they wanted a Pearl Harbor reaction from ordinary Americans and not a repeat of 1993. Because in 1993, several of the accused WTC bombers were also involved in sending CIA aid and weapons to noneother than Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and other Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan. Embedded bureaucrats and war hawks in US government have terrorized Americans with covert operations of their own design. And the obvious motive for this is increasingly bloated budgets for Keynesian-militarism in America. What is the most common motive in any murder case? Nine times out of ten, going to war is about a resource grab or strategizing for an even larger resource grab down the road. Truth deniers seem to want us to believe that the elites in a country whose economy is largely based on war were not dreaming of war when 9/11 happened, Since the end of cold war, the warmongers have run out of legitimate enemies to justify obscene spending on all things military. Gore Vidal wrote that the Soviets stabbed them in the back with ceding the cold war.

 

Fidel

Of course, port authorities in cities around the world will realize now how foolish they've been to spend oodles of money on demolition contractors. After 9/11 it's obvious that a few well placed fires fueled by office furniture and jet fuel should be enough to bring down the largest steel frame buildings. There should be no need for cutter charges on every floor. How wasteful and inefficient. Charges placed beneath just the top 15 or so floors should do the trick.  They could save a lot of money by hiring a firebug or two.

mmphosis

Salsa wrote:

mmphosis wrote:
What I am saying is that 911 was an inside job.  Look into what was happening prior to 9/11.  There was lots of motivation for an inside job:   a lame-duck president, the stock market crashing, threats by US military people to bomb Afghanistan into oblivion, calls for a "Pearl Harbor" like event to catalyze the actions that were taken after 911 and in the name of 911.  911 was a self-inflicted staged event.

Yes, you and the truth movement are saying it, the problem is proving it which the truth movement has been unable to do, or even come close to doing so. They even make shit up in order to sell their "proof".

I don't think that either one of us can prove anything one way or the other.  Neither one of us has hard evidence.  I am guessing that you are convinced of the official conspiracy theory, while I on the other hand have got questions, lots of questions. To me, way too many things don't add up in the official conspiracy theory.  And, the pseudo physics is just wrong.  I am looking at history, motive and the event itself.  Follow the money, and I think things do add up to an inside job.

Salsa wrote:

mmphosis wrote:
You conveniently removed my example of Lee Harvey Oswald.
What's he got to do with this..Oh wait, circumstantial evidence from 40 odd years ago, gotcha.

If you wanted to assassinate someone, you might hire or convince someone else to do it for you and then conveniently the someone else dies so that the assassination doesn't get connected back to you.  Oswald won't talk, and neither will the supposed 911 hijackers.  Yup, 40 odd years later, and we may still be babbling about this.

Salsa wrote:

But you said

Quote:
according to the FBI, he is no longer a suspect.

Which you grabbed from that Idaho headline. Curious, your link doesn't say he's no longer a suspect. Do you take this to be evidence of some sort that this was an inside job, the fact that they don't have any hard evidence, save his confession. Anyways who cares, bin laden didn't do much of anything save maybe kick in some funds.

Which goes back to what I originally stated:  If you are asking "Who did it?"  I don't know.  And, I am pretty sure that you don't know who did it either. As for "anyways who cares", we might remind ourselves that 141 Canadian soldiers have be slain in Afghanistan.

Salsa wrote:
mmphosis wrote:
No, we don't know.

What? the fact that the Mujahideen were funded by the Americans as part of a proxy war against the former USSR is not known ?

We don't know that anyone from Afghanistan made 911 happen.

Salsa wrote:

Debunking the debunkers ???? Not even close. This is just typical truther stuff that was debunked long ago, the title of the clip is just propaganda.

Show me where each of the items discussed in the video are debunked, specifically the items related to this thread:  the physics of the towers internal structure being pulverized, so that the towers could collapse demolition style into their own footprint.

Fidel

Salsa wrote:
Anyways who cares, bin laden didn't do much of anything save maybe kick in some funds.

Uh-uh, the 9/11 Commission report concluded that it is not important to discover who funded 9/11. Not even if it leads to extensions of the American CIA in Pakistan's army intelligence  the ISI - the CIA's long-time cold war allies who control Al-CIA'da, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and funelling money and weapons to terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15149]Who was Osama bin Laden?[/url]

Quote:
The myth of the "outside enemy" and the threat of "Islamic terrorists" was the cornerstone of the Bush adminstration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America.

Without an "outside enemy", there could be no "war on terrorism". The entire national security agenda would collapse "like a deck of cards". The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.

It was consequently crucial for the development of a coherent antiwar and civil rights movement, to reveal the nature of Al Qaeda and its evolving relationship to successive US adminstrations. Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet-Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: "he turned against us".

After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive "outside enemy" had been fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".

Al-Qa'eda = Al-CIA'da

Salsa

mmphosis wrote:
I don't think that either one of us can prove anything one way or the other

 

Not good enough, the truth movement is the one whose hurling accusations and it's up to them to prove those accusations and prove them properly, not by cherry picking quotes, using pseudoscience, using misdirection and outright making things up. The CD scenario is a product of the TM and even though most truthers are politically motivated, which is understandable they crossed the line into science and engineering. There's nothing political about how buildings fall down but the TM has embraced the CD idea and they have to live with it. This is why it's so important for the TM to get their claims properly peer reviewed rather than faking it by publishing on vanity press that looks like a legitimate journal eg. Bentham Open. the Tm may be able to fool people who haven't made any study into the events of 911 with their tricks but those aren't the people they need to convince.

 

Quote:
while I on the other hand have got questions, lots of questions

 

Yes, you do so do I, but the difference between you and I is....I go looking for the answers and don't reject them out of hand when I find them, like the TM does. The TM has , HAS to bolster the CD theory with all they can, including the above mentioned pseudoscience, misdirection and lies simply because they have so much invested in the CD theory that to abandon it in favour of the more plausible LiHOP would certainly look like an admission of total failure.

 

So they go on, and on, and on, hoping to raise enough doubt and prey on peoples general lack of knowledge of building design and construction in order to try and raise enough doubt in the hopes that the "explanation" that they offer would see, like the only plausible one. It's a trick.

 

It would also help the TM if their proponents wouldn't go beaking off in the media saying ridiculous things, like the passengers on the plane were paid off, ( Griscolm ) or space weapons ( Wood ) or try to frame their discussions of the collapse as anything but a mass vs structure problem. I tried to illustrate that last part with the concrete block balanced on a styrofoam cup idea, but the TM would have none of that, they're convinced things had to happen according to official TM doctrine.

 

Quote:
If you wanted to assassinate someone, you might hire or convince someone else to do it for you

 

Was oswald on a suicide mission ? See what i mean by misdirection ?

 

Quote:
Show me where each of the items discussed in the video are debunked

 

That's asking a lot. Do you want me to go and find photos of pancaked floors post WTC ! and @ collapse ? I can do that, but so can you. This is what I mean by do your own research rather than just gobbling up TM pablum. Those pictures exist and the "no pancaking" thing has already been debunked.

 

That video goes straight from the alleged temperature of the fires, to the conditions in the rubble five days later completely ignoring the fact that there were six floors of parking under the towers, full of cars and fuel and tries to imply that the temp of the fires somehow maxed out at a temperature not hot enough to cause those sorts of conditions. Classic misdirection.

 

Why would steel columns being bent necessitate the use of thermite ? Steel doesn't bend when it's cold ?

 

That's just the first minute or so. Nothing that's been debunked, has been undebunked by that video.

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Wow. It's SO much easier to just mock attempts at explanation instead of comiong up with ones yourself.

 

Mocking I can do. Structural physics? Metallurgy? Architectural standards? None of us is an expert in these.

 

Watching total laypersons "analyzing" 9/11 a decade later, based on YouTube videos, is like watching a bunch of cavemen try to work a Blackberry. It's simultaneously hilarious, and also a bit depressing, to watch people who don't know shit from shoepolish about any of these things not only pronouncing, but then building on that for the next pronouncement until they arrive at the unassailable conclusion that "it MUST have been energy beams!!!".

prisonernumberone prisonernumberone's picture

There are no photos of pancaked floors from either of the two towers. There are photos of pancaked floors from WTC 7.  It is nice to see additional babblers waking up and ignoring the name calling which initially bullies "reasonable" people.

At some point the understanding that hundred story steel and concrete buildings do not disappear because of office fires will be self evident. This supposes, of course, that the primary evidence is examined.

Perhaps some day the obscurantists for the crooks and war criminals involved will be too ashamed (and scared) to be trolls for their psychopathic idols who are responsible  for the impoverishment of us all, the death of millions and the poisoning of the planet.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam6.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY

 

cheers

bc

 

 

Snert Snert's picture

Thank you for that first link.  That's friggin' AWESOME.

al-Qa'bong

Another oddity in these discussions is how the Truthees, while deriding others' ignorance of physics, seem troubled by the towers having collapsed straight down, as if the buildings should have tipped over sideways, or at least have fallen at an angle.

Snert Snert's picture

That little bit of backwardness used to be my favourite Truthism, until I found out about Star Warz Beam Lady.  Now I want to carve a statue of her with laser beams of truth coming out of her eyes.

 

Quote:
Perhaps some day the obscurantists for the crooks and war criminals involved will be too ashamed (and scared) to be trolls for their psychopathic idols who are responsible  for the impoverishment of us all, the death of millions and the poisoning of the planet.

 

To paraphrase Martin Mull: "they say the average family has 2.4 kids. Nice to see a few of the .4's out tonight".

 

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Another oddity in these discussions is how the Truthees, while deriding others' ignorance of physics, seem troubled by the towers having collapsed straight down, as if the buildings should have tipped over sideways, or at least have fallen at an angle.

Some of the videos do show the upper block of the towers tilting at a large angle. And according to David Griscom, a former research physicist for DARPA, every degree that the upper floors tilted from zero degrees horizontal should have decreased the total magnitude of downward force applied to the lower block on initial impact, and decreased to a force on impact that was far less than the steel frame should have been capable of withstanding. I must admit that not all of Griscom's calculations are there in his essay, and I doubt I would comprehend them myself. Very many truthers do accept the word of independent experts for truth at face value I imagine. And I think if anything is true, truthers tend to be more open to both sides of the story and are very knowledgable about 9/11 in general compared to the average person who accepts the official conspiracy theory without question. I am impressed with how much babblers for 9/11 truth understand about 9/11 and are able to discuss it with others in detail. And people like Jas and other truthers in this thread tend to have a high tolerance for derogatory remarks from the other side, which is a poor substitute for truth and genuine curiosity I find.

Salsa

prisonernumberone wrote:
 It is nice to see additional babblers waking up and ignoring the name calling which initially bullies "reasonable" people.

 

You mean like this?

 

prisonernumberone wrote:
Perhaps some day the obscurantists for the crooks and war criminals involved will be too ashamed (and scared) to be trolls for their psychopathic idols who are responsible  for the impoverishment of us all, the death of millions and the poisoning of the planet.

 

Bolding mine.

 

Pot, Kettle, Black

al-Qa'bong


Quote:
Perhaps some day the obscurantists for the crooks and war criminals involved will be too ashamed (and scared) to be trolls for their psychopathic idols who are responsible  for the impoverishment of us all, the death of millions and the poisoning of the planet.

Now there's another thing.  Just because we take the law of gravity at face value we're somehow pro-Bush?  I suppose that notion is consistent with the logic expressed by Truthists, but come on.  I can't speak for others, but I have written elsewhere on babble that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Perle and Wolfowitz should suffer the same fate as those hanged at Nuremberg.

A_J

Snert wrote:

Actually, they're right.  I reproduced the events of the day using a fairly accurate scale model of a WTC building (a Cap'n Crunch box, with 2,973 pieces of cereal, for authenticity) and a substitute 767 (my index finger) and sure enough, when the "767" hit "WTC1" just a little bit above the Cap'n's hat, it did NOT collapse into its own footprint but in fact toppled onto the placemat. 

The only question left is whether George W. Bush personally assisted the Soggies with their attack, or merely knew about it before hand and let it happen.

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:
Now there's another thing.  Just because we take the law of gravity at face value...

It's still truth denialists and dubya's government climate change deniers versus Newton and William of Ockham. Back on the other side of the line.

 

al-Qa'bong wrote:
I can't speak for others, but I have written elsewhere on babble that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Perle and Wolfowitz should suffer the same fate as those hanged at Nuremberg.

Good-good, and so what's one more criminal charge then eh?

The problem with 9/11 is that both bipartisan war parties are guilty of:

1. having created "al-Qa'eda"

2. waging a phony war on terror as a result of the false flag op on 9/11

And in Ottawa, both bipartisan colonial administrative parties fell hook line and sinker for 9/11 and donated Canadian troops to an imperial military occupation as a result.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
It's still truth denialists and dubya's government climate change deniers versus Newton and William of Ockham.

 

Perhaps we should refer to Judy Wood's imaginary energy beam as "Occam's Laser". I mean, surely hers is the most simple and elegant hypothesis for what happened. The government decided to murder 3000 of its own citizens by destroying giant buildings with top secret laser beams.

 

William would be in the tub, using his eponymous razor to open a vein, if he could see the laughably ludicrous hypotheses carefully crafted to point to Bush as the mastermind. That's right, William, apparently the government couldn't just blow up the building. They planted charges in the building, shot at it with laser beams from the future, and projected huge holograms of 767s hitting the buildings to throw everyone but those dogged truthers off the trail! It's just so obvious!

prisonernumberone prisonernumberone's picture

the reason not to wrestle with a pig is because you get dirty and the pig kinda likes it

Wink

Fidel
al-Qa'bong

Fidel

Bow before your god and Prescott Bush's genetic baggage

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/Capture-33.gif[/IMG]

Prescott Bush's pal Adolf was the biggest liar of the last century. And,

[url=http://www.teach-online.de/dateien/hpp/Peter-Gloede/bush/lies.htm]The Bush-Cheney gang are the BIGGEST LIARS of the 21st century thus far[/url]

HeywoodFloyd

Snert wrote:

Quote:
It's still truth denialists and dubya's government climate change deniers versus Newton and William of Ockham.

 

Perhaps we should refer to Judy Wood's imaginary energy beam as "Occam's Laser".

AWESOME. Occam's Laser describes perfectly the toofer movement. From now on, that's what I'm using.

Fidel

Another thread trashed by morans.

al-Qa'bong

 

 

.

Fidel

Salsa wrote:
Can you prove that he's no longer a suspect. With something revalent I mean like a quote from the FBI saying they no longer suspect OBL, not something lame like pointing out that 911 isn't listed on OBL's FBI wanted poster.

Quote:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act." - Osama bin Laden, September 28, 2001

[url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16701]Welcome to Orwell’s World 2010[/url] Inverted lies that “passed into history and became truth"  Pilger

Quote:
In Oceania, truth and lies are indivisible. According to Obama, the American attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was authorised by the United Nations Security Council. There was no UN authority. He said the “the world” supported the invasion in the wake of 9/11 when, in truth, all but three of 37 countries surveyed by Gallup expressed overwhelming opposition. He said that America invaded Afghanistan “only after the Taliban refused to turn over [Osama] bin Laden”. In 2001, the Taliban tried three times to hand over bin Laden for trial, reported Pakistan’s military regime, and were ignored.

[url=‘Al-Qaeda"> is a U.S.-sponsored Intelligence Asset used to Justify War in the Middle East: Interview with Michel Chossudovsky[/url] The Use of 9/11 as a Pretext to Wage War

Quote:
So it begs the question: if al-Qaeda were, according to the Bush administration, to have played a role in 9/11, then we would have to investigate the relationship between al-Qaeda and the U.S. intelligence apparatus.

The evidence confirms that al-Qaeda did not play a role in 9/11. But in fact, that in itself is a red herring, because al-Qaeda is a U.S.-sponsored intelligence asset...

mmphosis

Salsa wrote:

Not good enough, the truth movement is the one whose hurling accusations and it's up to them to prove those accusations and prove them properly, not by cherry picking quotes, using pseudoscience, using misdirection and outright making things up. The CD scenario is a product of the TM and even though most truthers are politically motivated, which is understandable they crossed the line into science and engineering. There's nothing political about how buildings fall down but the TM has embraced the CD idea and they have to live with it. This is why it's so important for the TM to get their claims properly peer reviewed rather than faking it by publishing on vanity press that looks like a legitimate journal eg. Bentham Open. the Tm may be able to fool people who haven't made any study into the events of 911 with their tricks but those aren't the people they need to convince.

You are assuming that I am in the "truth movement" and that I believe in CD (Controlled Demolition) Theory.  I have nothing to to do with either and I have nothing to prove.

I used to believe the video of two planes crashing into two building and two buildings collapsing demolition style into their footprints.  I fell hook line and sinker for 9/11.  Now, I no longer believe the story that was fed to me by the msm.  You and I may go back forth arguing as to whether the styrofoam cup is on top or underneath the concrete block, but that doesn't change anything.  What does change things, is when I merely mention to people that three buildings collapsed demolition style in New York City on September 11, 2001.

Salsa wrote:
Was oswald on a suicide mission ? See what i mean by misdirection ?

I don't know what oswald was on, but yes, I see what you mean.  Back and to the left.

Salsa wrote:
That's asking a lot. Do you want me to go and find photos of pancaked floors post WTC ! and @ collapse ? I can do that, but so can you.

I think we're both each asking a lot of each other to prove something that neither one us can definitely prove one way or the other.

Salsa wrote:
This is what I mean by do your own research rather than just gobbling up TM pablum.

I agree with you, and this is what I mean by do your own research rather than just gobbling up MSM pablum.

Salsa wrote:
Those pictures exist and the "no pancaking" thing has already been debunked.

 

Collapse of the World Trade Center

FEMA developed an early explanation of the collapses, which had come to be known as the "pancake" theory. It was defended by Thomas Eagar and popularized by PBS.[40] According to this explanation, when the connections between the floor trusses and the columns broke, the detached floors fell down one on top of the other, quickly exceeding the load that any one floor was designed to carry.[41] A number of self-published accounts by structural engineers suggested that a combination of factors led to the collapse, but most suggested a version of pancake collapse.[18][42]

As in the theory which is currently accepted, the fires were taken to be the key to the collapses. Thomas Eagar, an MIT materials professor, had described the fires as "the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse".[41] This is because the fires were originally said to have "melted" the floors and columns. As Eagar said, "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and would have served mainly to ignite very large, but not unusually hot, hydrocarbon fires. This led Eagar, FEMA and others to focus on what appeared to be the weakest point of the structures, namely, the points at which the floors were attached to the building frame. Once these connections failed, the pancake collapse could initiate.[43][44] The NIST report, however, would ultimately vindicate the floor connections; indeed, the collapse mechanism depends on the strength of these connections as the floors pulled the outer walls in.

NIST report


The outer shell of the South Tower (tower 2) of the WTC is still standing at right. The 22 story Marriott Hotel in the foreground was crushed when the adjacent tower collapsed.

After the FEMA report had been published, and following pressure from technical experts, industry leaders and families of victims, the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a three-year, $24 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures.[45] The study included in-house technical expertise, along with assistance from several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil EngineersSociety of Fire Protection EngineersNational Fire Protection AssociationAmerican Institute of Steel ConstructionSimpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York.

The scope of the NIST investigation was focused on identifying "the sequence of events" that triggered the collapse, and did not include detailed analysis of the collapse mechanism itself (after the point at which events made the collapse inevitable).[46][47] In line with the concerns of most engineers, NIST focused on the airplane impacts and the spread and effects of the fires, modeling these using the software program Fire Dynamics Simulator. NIST developed several highly detailed structural models for specific sub-systems such as the floor trusses as well as a global model of the towers as a whole which is less detailed. These models are static or quasi-static, including deformation but not the motion of structural elements after rupture as would dynamic models. So, the NIST models are useful for determining how the collapse was triggered, but do not shed light on events after that point.

James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, called the spoliation of the steel "a gross error" that NIST should have openly criticized.[48] He also noted that the report lacked a timeline and physical evidence to support its conclusions.[49] Some engineers have suggested that understanding of the collapse mechanism could be improved by developing an animated sequence of the collapses based on a global dynamic model, and comparing it with the video evidence of the actual collapses. In October 2005, theNew Civil Engineer reported criticism of NIST's computer modeling. Colin Bailey at the University of Manchester and Rober Plank at the University of Sheffield called on NIST to produce computer visualizations of the collapses in order to compare the collapse models with observed events.[50]

Reliving 9/11, With Fire as Teacher

"It all goes to show what investigators are up against in the most complex analysis of a building failure ever carried out, said Dr. Sunder, the leader of the investigation. One possible outcome is that several different plausible explanations for the collapse could emerge, he said."

Salsa wrote:
That video goes straight from the alleged temperature of the fires, to the conditions in the rubble five days later completely ignoring the fact that there were six floors of parking under the towers, full of cars and fuel and tries to imply that the temp of the fires somehow maxed out at a temperature not hot enough to cause those sorts of conditions. Classic misdirection.

The video from the MSM goes straight from two planes crashing into two towers, to two towers collapsing demolition style into their footprint.  Classic misdirection.

Salsa wrote:
Why would steel columns being bent necessitate the use of thermite?

Thermite is only one possibility of many.  I am not suggesting any.

Salsa wrote:
Steel doesn't bend when it's cold?

Yes, you are right.  Steel may bend when it's cold.

What about the crews seen going into the unlocked WTC prior to 9/11?

What about the three towers collapsing demolition style into their footprint?  How does this happen?

HeywoodFloyd

mmphosis wrote:

NIST report


The outer shell of the South Tower (tower 2) of the WTC is still standing at right. The 22 story Marriott Hotel in the foreground was crushed when the adjacent tower collapsed.

 

What about the three towers collapsing demolition style into their footprint?  How does this happen?

Your own quote shows that the towers did not collapse into their own footprint, else how was the Marriott hotel crushed by debris?

mmphosis

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Your own quote shows that the towers did not collapse into their own footprint, else how was the Marriott hotel crushed by debris?

The quote is from Wikipedia.  I'll leave you to come to your own conclusions.

HeywoodFloyd

I conclude the buildings did not fall into their own footprints. The information you presented bolsters that conclusion.

Fidel

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

I conclude the buildings did not fall into their own footprints. The information you presented bolsters that conclusion.

Could a professional demo crew have done a better job?

 

Salsa

Fidel wrote:
Quote:"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act." - Osama bin Laden, September 28, 2001

 

Come on Fidel, you can do better than that lame quote. What you're *supposed* to do here is attack the authenticity of the confession tapes that came later than that quote. Hint; Use David Ray Griffin. Then one of us is supposed to raise the chain of evidence issue and use this as a reason as to why OBL wasn't indited for 911 and give that as the reason that 911 doesn't appear on OBL's FBI wanted poster. Then I point out that it was the Clinton administration that liked to indite terrorists while the Bush administration like to bomb them. Then you post a funny picture of Bush, go off about neo cons and Bushites. Easy Peasy.

 

Quote:
the Taliban tried three times to hand over bin Laden for trial, reported Pakistan's military regime, and were ignored.

 

Now you know there's a problem with this claim, don't you ? It's directly related to what I wrote above, there were conditions attached to that hand over, conditions you as well as the FBI CIA and whoever else, knew they couldn't meet. Why did you leave that part out ? Also, as you're well aware, since you quoted it on a previous thread chunk, the USA, beg your pardon the USSA planned on bombing the shit out of Afghanistan even before 911, which moots the whole handing over OBL issue anyways. Unless, for some reason, you suspect the Bush administration would suddenly change their minds.

Salsa

mmophsis wrote:
You are assuming that I am in the "truth movement" and that I believe in CD (Controlled Demolition) Theory.  I have nothing to to do with either and I have nothing to prove.

I used to believe the video of two planes crashing into two building and two buildings collapsing demolition style into their footprints.  I fell hook line and sinker for 9/11.  Now, I no longer believe the story that was fed to me by the msm.  You and I may go back forth arguing as to whether the styrofoam cup is on top or underneath the concrete block, but that doesn't change anything.  What does change things, is when I merely mention to people that three buildings collapsed demolition style in New York City on September 11, 2001.

 

So you're not a truther, you're "just asking questions" yet you post nonsensical truther videos like the one above. The one that implies there was no delay between the impacts and the tower(s) coming down. Yo do know that video is a fake don't you/ You do know that there was about an hour of burning time before collapse ? So why are you posting it ?

 

It's my analogy, I get to say where the styrofoam cup is, If you don't like it we can use a hammer and a dinner plate. I can rest a hammer on top of a dinner plate and the plate won't break but if I drop that hammer from a few inches height...you get the picture. It's a simple device to try and explain the difference between static and dynamic loading, an issue the TM seems to have trouble with...big trouble.

 

Quote:
The video from the MSM goes straight from two planes crashing into two towers, to two towers collapsing demolition style into their footprint.  Classic misdirection.

 

Just BTDT

 

Quote:
out the crews seen going into the unlocked WTC prior to 9/11?

 

What crews, who says ? Do you have any idea how much time and effort it takes to wire up a building for a controlled demoolition ? It's not just a matter of duct taping a couple of bombs to a couple of supports, it takes, weeks, months even and there's a heck of a lot of pre weakening the structure by cutting through the supports with torches before placing the charges ? Also, why isn't thermite used in building demolitions today ? Why is it still torches and shaped charges rather than *nano-thermite*.

Fidel

Salsa wrote:
Come on Fidel, you can do better than that lame quote.

Osama bin Laden is dead. Before she was murdered, Benazir Bhutto told David Frost that she knew who probably murdered him. OBL is just a bogeyman now for the warmongering plutocrats to trot out infront of gullible Americans who still believe this outrageous lie. Deniers like to joke about OBL, too, and they don't realize the yoke's on them. They secretly believe that OBL and Al-CIA'duh done it.

OBL is a myth. He is a kind of 9/11 Jesus duh Gladio for the gullible and incredibly naive. They can't produce any legal evidence whatsoever that OBL or any of the other 9/11 patsies "masterminded" 9/11. The bipartisan liars for war parties have actually protected a number of their superstars of 9/11 terrorism from justice for a long time running.

 

Salsa wrote:
Now you know there's a problem with this claim, don't you ? It's directly related to what I wrote above, there were conditions attached to that hand over, conditions you as well as the FBI CIA and whoever else, knew they couldn't meet. Why did you leave that part out ? Also, as you're well aware, since you quoted it on a previous thread chunk, the USA, beg your pardon the USSA planned on bombing the shit out of Afghanistan even before 911, which moots the whole handing over OBL issue anyways. Unless, for some reason, you suspect the Bush administration would suddenly change their minds.

Well youve just answered your own question. Is OBL even wanted for 9/11? Apparently not. Would the US-backed military dictatorship have lied about their extended Islamic warrior wing, the Taliban and their offer to handover OBL three times?

Taliban offered to give up OBL the first time if US hawks could produce evidence of OBL's involvement in 9/11. There was no proof produced by anyone then or today.

Once the bombing started, the Taliban offered to give up OBL to a third party neutral country, and a third time they offered to give up OBL WITHOUT evidence of 9/11 guilt.

US hawks have no interest whatosoever in capturing their own bogeyman, Osama bin Laden.

Americans have been lied to by war criminals on a constant basis.

Quote:
''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' - [url=">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?_r=4&ex=125566560..."A senior Bush advisor"[/url]

Vicious empires don't deal in truth. And our equally vicious toadies in Ottawa don't ask questions. For our obedient lap poodles in Ottawa, it's trust and obey always.

Salsa

So a myth got murdered....wow.

Two men say their Jesus, one of them must be wrong.

Pages

Topic locked