babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Activists & Alternative Media v 9/11 Truth Movement? III
March 11, 2010 - 10:26pm
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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
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%).
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.
So Fidel...just to be clear:
Do you consider the following to be bullshit physics?
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.
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.
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?
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
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.