The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#41  Postby cursuswalker » May 06, 2010 10:59 am

8) that squibs are clearly seen emanating tens of metres outwards from floors below the collapse.


Fuck me. Seriously??

You REALLY want to try this one again? Heard of air-pressure?
Image http://www.caerabred.org/

Space Corps Directive 723. 'Terraformers are expressly forbidden from recreating Swindon.'
User avatar
cursuswalker
 
Posts: 3311
Age: 53
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#42  Postby Moridin » May 06, 2010 11:22 am

All of those points have been debunked before, but nice try. Most of your arguments are empirically false, physically impossible, appeals to consequences, ad hoc, argument from motives and so on. But let us have a look, shall we?

1) What evidence is there for this claim? Even if it is true, why is it relevant?
2) What evidence is there for this claim? If they where not commercial planes, what happened to all the passengers in these planes? Did they vanish?
3) What evidence is there for this claim? Even if it is true, it is irrelevant, since a controlled demolition is preceded by lots of visible explosions and sounds, not merely "a flash of light".
4) They did not collapse at free fall acceleration. Saying "close to" is just a way for you to avoid having to accept that the free fall collapse argument is invalid. It was not free fall, and this has been demonstrated over and over. Furthermore, the debris fell faster than the tower, and things cannot fall faster than free fall unless you believe that there was a Mossad agent up there throwing stuff down.
5) No, since the building is constructed as a tube within a tube. This is entirely consistent with falling straight down. Furthermore, the building did not even fall straight down, since the lower parts of the buildings did not even collapse, forcing the material to the sides.
6) No one has claimed that any WTC tower collapsed only due to fire. Remember the damage that was caused by the two planes flying into the buildings and burning yet fuel? WTC7 was severely damaged by falling debris from the towers (on the side that truther movies do not show). Even if no building has ever been brought down by fire alone, no building has ever been hit by a terror attack such as this one, so that argument is invalid.
7) No, brought down with the help of a process called pancaking.
8) Squibs are a result of floors collapsing down, forcing the air out on the sides due to the path of least resistance. In really controlled demolitions, squibs occur before the collapse. Furthermore, the squibs increase as the tower is falling, something that is inconsistent with a controlled demolition..
9) No, there are numerous quotes taken out of context by truthers. The real quotes show something like "it sounded as if something had exploded, but I don't know".
10) No, iron oxide and aluminium has been found. These are components in ordinary building materials. The fact that these also happens to be ingredients of some explosives does not prove that explosives where used. Furthermore, this kind of explosive have very low density, and given that almost 200 tons of explosives would have been needed, would make the explosives fill several floors. How was 200 tons of explosives smuggled in without anyone noticing? Even if you get in a ton a day, that would still take over 200 days.
11) Light poles are constructed to do that. Furthermore, the light poles are too far away to be the result of a missile. If you believe that a missile hit the pentagon, then this missile would have to have zigzagged to know down all of them, but this is impossible. A plane with wings can knock down all these will at the same time flying straight.
12) No, they where certified pilots and had commercial license. The quotes truthers use come before they underwent extensive training. http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_sch ... pouts.html
13) No, a lot of plane debris was found. Here is one of a part of a fuselage. http://www.historycommons.org/events-im ... -21381.jpg, here is part of the engine http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/debris2_engine.jpg Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" (from PM story)
14) What evidence is there for this claim? Even if it was true, why should we care?
15) If it was a missile, paper would have burnt as well...
16) That is what happens when you have a high impact crash. Things fly.
17) Fire and structural damage caused by the collapsing twin towers. It did not fall on its own footprint, it fell to the south. Watch the videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QilSHm0Luj4
18) Which? Why should we care?
19) Yes, the government is ineffective. The Bush administration is one of the most incompetent administrations ever, yet you think that the government was behind it. That is a contradiction.
20) What is the evidence for this? Why should we care? Incompetence is not evidence for a conspiracy.
21) No, even after several months, only a third of the debris was removed, and this debris was recycled, not destroyed. In 2007, the demolition of the surrounding damaged buildings was still ongoing as new construction proceeded on the World Trade Center's replacement.
22) Problem is that government cannot keep secrets. The affair between Clinton and Lewinsky was known only to two people, yet it leaked out. The chance that it would have leaked is huge and not even the most retarded administration would try a stunt like that. In order for your belief to work, you need literally thousands of people who are in on this, and that just doesn't happen in an incompetent administration; it would have leaked.
23) Don't try to explain something with a conspiracy that can be explained by stupidity'/incompetence.
24) The evidence exists, and he has confessed being behind himself. The reason why he has not been formally charged is a technicality (since he cannot be served).
25) Cite your source and the quotes in context
26) Yes, the wars are bad and the justifications for Iraq was mostly fabricated, but this has zero relevance to 9/11. You are making an appeal to motive/consequence, which is a logical fallacy.

Your arguments where of poor quality and does not merit to be taken seriously.
User avatar
Moridin
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#43  Postby Moridin » May 06, 2010 11:25 am

This is what a real controlled demolition looks like...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ[/youtube]

Notice the following

(1) many large bangs and lights occuring in short intervalls before collapse
(2) the squibs before collapse
(3) the building starts to collapse from the bottom, not from the middle/top and down.

This looks nothing like the collapse of the twin towers or WTC 7.
User avatar
Moridin
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#44  Postby Galaxian » May 06, 2010 11:33 am

Jumbo wrote:Just a few things, aviation related that i can be bothered at the moment to mention, that have i'm sure been done to death.
2) That WTC 1 & 2 were hit by non-commercial planes; as evident from the bulky add-on under their fuselage.
The 'bulky add on to the fuselage is not an add on at all.
I'm sure this has been pointed out before but:
United Airlines Flight 175 Was a Boeing 767-200. American Airlines Flight 11 was a Boeing Boeing 767-200ER.
IIRC The 'bulky add on' is simply the contour of the wing meeting the fuselage. Seen from certain angles it shows as being markedly different from the generally cylindrical fuselage cross section.

Why bring in this distraction from the facts? Here is the flight 11 767-223ER:
Image
Where's the bulky wing to fuselage contour? There isn't one...Oh dear, someone saw through your mischief.
Jumbo wrote:
3) That the planes impacting WTC 1 & 2 were preceded milliseconds before impact by a flash of light.
Specular reflections on shiny aircraft are hardly unheard of.

Watch my video very carefully...all 5 of the clips in Part 4 & 5. You're being flippant just to support Bush.
Jumbo wrote:
10) That amateur Cessna trainees with very few hours & little talent ALL managed to direct large jet airliners to bulls-eye hits...except for 1 which was heroically brought down by the passengers.

They aimed at some of the largest and most distinct targets in each area in good weather and hitting them would require using only the primary flight controls (Stick and rudder + Throttle). Detailed knowledge of the aircraft systems wouldn't be needed. Landing and emergency procedures along with instrument flying and navigation (other than simple vfr eyeballing) are what require pilot skill and consume training time.

I've mentioned previously that the US air force wastes too much money training their top-guns. They should take your advice & send them to a Cessna flight center for a few weeks. The Pentagon strike proves it.
Jumbo wrote:
11) That very little plane debris was found at the Pentagon or Pennsylvania, and no bodies or luggage either, contrary to all other land impacts, even into mountainsides.

184 bodies were identified form the pentagon crash site.

BULLSHIT. The plane disappeared, but 184 bodies were identified. The Lord works in mysterious ways! :priest:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment_Sam Nejad

To know who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticize. -Voltaire
User avatar
Galaxian
Banned User
 
Posts: 1307

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#45  Postby Galaxian » May 06, 2010 11:46 am

cursuswalker wrote:
8) that squibs are clearly seen emanating tens of metres outwards from floors below the collapse.
Fuck me. Seriously??
You REALLY want to try this one again? Heard of air-pressure?

No, I have no desire whatsoever to fuck you!
I'm waiting for you to explain
a) How & why squibs were projected the same distance whether at onset of collapse or at termination thereof.
b) How they were ejected at almost supersonic speed by a slow compression which had many exits, such as up through the already broken floors.
c) Why they emanate in the middle 2/3 of the width of the tower, exactly where the central core was.
d) Why they are accompanied by a fire-cracker retort, as confirmed by video & firemen.
e) Why the ejectile is just as wide at the top of building as at the bottom.
f) Why the building disintegrates down into itself, rather than expressing its unstable equilibrium & falling sideways.
I think you have enough to get on with there. There are sooo many instant structural engineers here, eh? :pray:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment_Sam Nejad

To know who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticize. -Voltaire
User avatar
Galaxian
Banned User
 
Posts: 1307

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#46  Postby Jumbo » May 06, 2010 11:56 am

Where's the bulky wing to fuselage contour? There isn't one...Oh dear, someone saw through your mischief.

Visible just ahead of the closest engine and just behind the wing. The lighter coloured area is the part that changes the cross section significantly. Reflections off of this from certain angles give the impression of something being carried beneath a cylindrical fuselage where inf act its just that the fuselage is not cylindrical.

Watch my video very carefully...all 5 of the clips in Part 4 & 5. You're being flippant just to support Bush.

I do not support Bush in any way shape or form.

I've mentioned previously that the US air force wastes too much money training their top-guns. They should take your advice & send them to a Cessna flight center for a few weeks. The Pentagon strike proves it.

As is said navigation and other elements of flight are considerably more taxing. Simply aiming a plane at an object is not technical. USAF pilots have considerable training in such things as landings, takeoffs, aborted takeoffs and landings. Using the aircraft INS is another element they need to know. Using the weapons systems in the aircraft. Other training includes tactical and formation flying, aerial refueling and emergency procedures. The amount of detail in the latter and the training entailed is immense. I regularly read 'Approach' The US Navy flight safety magazine and the technical knowledge required to survive in emergency situations is significant. ATP and military pilots undergo a lot of training because they have to do a lot of things to aviate rather than simply flying the plane. For example if an ATP pilot loses one engine on takeoff and is at say 180kts and climbing through 1000f he need to know immediately what to do. The hijackers had no such concerns.

In comparison however the 9-11 hijackers did not have to take off, they obviously had no need to know how to land. They had good weather and aimed for large targets so they had little need to use the navigation systems and radios. All they had to do was point the nose of the aircraft. That is achieved by simply pushing and pulling on the yoke and using the rudder. This is the kind of thing covered in the first few lessons of flying light aircraft. They probably didn't even need to re trim the aircraft if they were willing to hold the yoke out of the neutral position for any length of time. They just had to hit the large targets somewhere not even in precise points. Thus no finesse flying was needed whatsoever.

BULLSHIT. The plane disappeared, but 184 bodies were identified. The Lord works in mysterious ways!

You are of course ignoring the significant amounts of 767 wreckage found at the site
The Feynman Problem-Solving Algorithm

1. Write down the problem.
2. Think very hard.
3. Write down the answer.
User avatar
Jumbo
 
Posts: 3599
Age: 41
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#47  Postby Moridin » May 06, 2010 11:57 am

Galaxian wrote:
cursuswalker wrote:
8) that squibs are clearly seen emanating tens of metres outwards from floors below the collapse.
Fuck me. Seriously??
You REALLY want to try this one again? Heard of air-pressure?

No, I have no desire whatsoever to fuck you!
I'm waiting for you to explain
a) How & why squibs were projected the same distance whether at onset of collapse or at termination thereof.
b) How they were ejected at almost supersonic speed by a slow compression which had many exits, such as up through the already broken floors.
c) Why they emanate in the middle 2/3 of the width of the tower, exactly where the central core was.
d) Why they are accompanied by a fire-cracker retort, as confirmed by video & firemen.
e) Why the ejectile is just as wide at the top of building as at the bottom.
f) Why the building disintegrates down into itself, rather than expressing its unstable equilibrium & falling sideways.
I think you have enough to get on with there. There are sooo many instant structural engineers here, eh? :pray:


Don't need to be a structural engineer to answer those questions.

a. Path of least resistance.
b. Path of least resistance (it was not a slow compression and up through floors are more resistance than outside)
c. Path of least resistance.
d. Air makes sound when traveling fast, have you ever heard the sound of a whip breaking the sound barrier?
e. because roughly the same amount of air is stored on each floor.
f. due to the unique structure of the building, a tube within a tube.

Your ignorance amuses me.
User avatar
Moridin
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#48  Postby Moridin » May 06, 2010 11:59 am

I do not think anyone supports Bush in the debate between the 9/11 truthers and the rationalists.
User avatar
Moridin
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#49  Postby cursuswalker » May 06, 2010 12:21 pm

Moridin wrote:
Galaxian wrote:
cursuswalker wrote:
8) that squibs are clearly seen emanating tens of metres outwards from floors below the collapse.
Fuck me. Seriously??
You REALLY want to try this one again? Heard of air-pressure?

No, I have no desire whatsoever to fuck you!
I'm waiting for you to explain
a) How & why squibs were projected the same distance whether at onset of collapse or at termination thereof.
b) How they were ejected at almost supersonic speed by a slow compression which had many exits, such as up through the already broken floors.
c) Why they emanate in the middle 2/3 of the width of the tower, exactly where the central core was.
d) Why they are accompanied by a fire-cracker retort, as confirmed by video & firemen.
e) Why the ejectile is just as wide at the top of building as at the bottom.
f) Why the building disintegrates down into itself, rather than expressing its unstable equilibrium & falling sideways.
I think you have enough to get on with there. There are sooo many instant structural engineers here, eh? :pray:


Don't need to be a structural engineer to answer those questions.

a. Path of least resistance.
b. Path of least resistance (it was not a slow compression and up through floors are more resistance than outside)
c. Path of least resistance.
d. Air makes sound when traveling fast, have you ever heard the sound of a whip breaking the sound barrier?
e. because roughly the same amount of air is stored on each floor.
f. due to the unique structure of the building, a tube within a tube.

Your ignorance amuses me.


I think that covered it.
Image http://www.caerabred.org/

Space Corps Directive 723. 'Terraformers are expressly forbidden from recreating Swindon.'
User avatar
cursuswalker
 
Posts: 3311
Age: 53
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#50  Postby PJG » May 06, 2010 12:53 pm

Econ - you may contort and distort the NIST finding as much as you like - what you think is "satisfactory" is, to me, as unsatisfactory as people claiming that proof of the existence of God is the fact that they prayed and their wart disappeared. It is simply your determination to exclude the possibility of anything that does not fit into the "no-demolition" mindset.

First, your suggestion that I feel "emotional" about this topic is absolute projection - since I do not. Of course, I cannot prove that, but I have no emotional need to believe one way or the other - if I did, I expect I would believe one way or the other! ;)

I have never posted on any other 9/11 forum except this one. So I wonder why you have made the assumption that I am somehow desperately seeking verification of my own "beliefs" which, you STILL do not seems to understand. Could THIS be projection too? :dunno:

I may come back to your specific points but do have another look at them yourself.
User avatar
PJG
 
Posts: 204
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#51  Postby Galaxian » May 06, 2010 1:07 pm

Moridin wrote:All of those points have been debunked before, but nice try. Most of your arguments are empirically false, physically impossible, appeals to consequences, ad hoc, argument from motives and so on. But let us have a look, shall we?
GALAXIAN's replies in red
1) What evidence is there for this claim? Even if it is true, why is it relevant?Suspicion & noticing convenient 'coincidences' is not your forte, is it?
2) What evidence is there for this claim? If they where not commercial planes, what happened to all the passengers in these planes? Did they vanish?What happened to all the passengers...duh...they diverted to Hawaii? Try 3 guesses.
3) What evidence is there for this claim? watch the video Part 4 & 5 posted belowEven if it is true, it is irrelevant, since a controlled demolition is preceded by lots of visible explosions and sounds, not merely "a flash of light".You're not in the least curious? Or just running an agenda here?
4) They did not collapse at free fall acceleration. Saying "close to" is just a way for you to avoid having to accept that the free fall collapse argument is invalid. It was not free fall, and this has been demonstrated over and over. Furthermore, the debris fell faster than the tower, and things cannot fall faster than free fall unless you believe that there was a Mossad agent up there throwing stuff down.Don't be supercilious. I have ALWAYS said close to freefall. I reckon a few seconds fulfils that criteria. Now go away & do the potential vs kinetic energy calculation for freefall compared to the few seconds more. The calculated time is over 40 seconds, it is NOT 14 seconds.
5) No, since the building is constructed as a tube within a tube. This is entirely consistent with falling straight down.You would know, would you? Or were you assured that it is so? Have you done the Euler Crippling Load calculation for the massive central core? What about the beginning of collapse where the top is leaning at 15 degrees & rotating? What happened to the eccentric load, the moment & angular momentum? Furthermore, the building did not even fall straight downseriously??? You mean there was a debris pile., since the lower parts of the buildings did not even collapse, forcing the material to the sides.
6) No one has claimed that any WTC tower collapsed only due to fire. Remember the damage that was caused by the two planes flying into the buildings and burning yet fuel? What is your agenda? Who are your handlers? Even NIST admitted that the fuel fire was over within a few minutes at most...look at the videos of the fireball if you doubt it.WTC7 was severely damaged by falling debris from the towers No it wasn't, & certainly no more than the closer WTC buildings which didn't come down.(on the side that truther movies do not show). Even if no building has ever been brought down by fire alone, no building has ever been hit by a terror attack such as this one, so that argument is invalid.
7) No, brought down with the help of a process called pancaking Track down my posts on RDF & here, & be grateful that you have my expertise to guide you. The floors were flimsy 100mm (4 inches) light concrete, sitting on lightweight trusses only 300mm (1 foot) high. The trusses were fixed at the inner end on tiny cleats with a couple of M16 grade 8.8 (5/8 inch) bolts: the sort you can buy at a local hardware store. The inner core was 47 cross braced columns, many of them box girders of about 1m x 0.5m & 100mm (or more) thickness. Slenderness ratio less than 15. Well able to stand alone. The fall of the floor would be like knocking a toothpick our of the fist of a heavyweight boxer: He doesn't collapse in a smoldering heap.
8) Squibs are a result of floors collapsing down, forcing the air out on the sides due to the path of least resistance. In really controlled demolitions, squibs occur before the collapse. Furthermore, the squibs increase as the tower is falling, something that is inconsistent with a controlled demolition..Some squibs can be seen at onset of collapse. The squibs are too forceful for air-compression. The air compression would simply exit through the broken floor above it (path of least resistance), etc, see my post above.
9) No, there are numerous quotes taken out of context by truthers. The real quotes show something like "it sounded as if something had exploded, but I don't know"BULLSHIT.
10) No, iron oxide and aluminum has been found. These are components in ordinary building materials. The fact that these also happens to be ingredients of some explosives does not prove that explosives where used. Furthermore, this kind of explosive have very low density, and given that almost 200 tons of explosives would have been needed, would make the explosives fill several floors. How was 200 tons of explosives smuggled in without anyone noticing? Even if you get in a ton a day, that would still take over 200 days.Read PJG's posts instead of pissing on them. Go to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I never mentioned 200 tons. In any event work crews had full access to the buildings, especially during evenings & weekends.
11) Light poles are constructed to do that. Furthermore, the light poles are too far away to be the result of a missile. If you believe that a missile hit the pentagon, then this missile would have to have zigzagged to know down all of them, but this is impossible. A plane with wings can knock down all these will at the same time flying straight.The plane (if it was that) didn't even go South of the Citco service station. It passed North of the gas station as confirmed by witness (including police) and flight path data. The light poles could have been pulled over the previous night. Light poles are designed to collapse by a vehicle impact not a 400+mph plane strike; that totally mangles & shears them.
12) No, they where certified pilots and had commercial license. The quotes truthers use come before they underwent extensive training. http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_sch ... pouts.htmlBULLSHIT. So the instructors were interviewed before 9/11?
13) No, a lot of plane debris was found. Here is one of a part of a fuselage. http://www.historycommons.org/events-im ... -21381.jpg, here is part of the engine http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/debris2_engine.jpg Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" BULLSHIT. Use the actual photographic evidence, not planted stooges saying whatever they have to say. The videos & photos clearly show bugger all debris. The few pieces are virtually all light handling size. The lawn is unscathed, the cables reels unscathed, the Pentagon with a mere 5m (16 foot) hole, 4 double layers of R/C penetrated by a tin can; a job only a penetrator cruise missile can do, & so forth. (from PM story)
14) What evidence is there for this claim? Even if it was true, why should we care?Again, why should you care about ANYTHING that's contrary to the delusional official clap-trap? See the photos & videos & reporter comments at the scene...try to find them yourself...it's easy if you're sincere.
15) If it was a missile, paper would have burnt as well...Not so. Explosives are used to put out fires, not to start them. That's why you need a particular type: incendiaries, napalm, or phosphorus bombs to start a fire. No one has claimed those.
16) That is what happens when you have a high impact crash. Things fly.No you're being jovial, eh? Are you taking the piss? For example, a steel & titanium engine half a mile BEHIND the crash site?
17) Fire and structural damage caused by the collapsing twin towers. It did not fall on its own footprint, it fell to the south. I've seen all the videos. A slight debris spread is not falling sideways. Furthermore that building has a very large footprint relative to its height, & it is impossible for it to fall cleanly unaided. Watch the videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QilSHm0Luj4
18) Which? Why should we care?Why should we care about your witnesses? The virtuous select?
19) Yes, the government is ineffective. The Bush administration is one of the most incompetent administrations ever, yet you think that the government was behind it. That is a contradiction.Where did I ever say that the government, especially Bush, was behind it. Bush was manipulated by his puppet masters. Never ascribe to incompetence what can easily be explained by malevolence.
20) What is the evidence for this? Again; you really must do some research. Watch the NIST public presentations, & how they are forced to back-track but try not to admit that they've done so.Why should we care? Incompetence is not evidence for a conspiracy.
21) No, even after several months, only a third of the debris was removed, and this debris was [u]recycled[/u, not destroyed Oh, you are funny!. In 2007, the demolition of the surrounding damaged buildings was still ongoing as new construction proceeded on the World Trade Center's replacement.The debris was a crime scene evidence. It would have been EASY to truck it to a field for forensic examination. Were they so short of cash that the scrap steel was worth their criminal destruction of evidence?
22) Problem is that government cannot keep secrets. The affair between Clinton and Lewinsky was known only to two people, yet it leaked out. The chance that it would have leaked is huge and not even the most retarded administration would try a stunt like that. In order for your belief to work, you need literally thousands of people who are in on this, and that just doesn't happen in an incompetent administration; it would have leaked.Aren't you & some others on this & similar forums "in on it" willy nilly, by accident or design? Isn't the gullibility of the masses what the top echelon have gambled on? Read some Nazi era propaganda manuals; they can be traced on Google.
23) Don't try to explain something with a conspiracy that can be explained by stupidity'/incompetence.No.Don't try to whitewash something with stupidity'/incompetence that can be rationally best be explained by a conspiracy.
24) The evidence exists, and he has confessed being behind himself No he hasn't. You seen the forged videos produced at the time of/after his death?. The reason why he has not been formally charged is a technicality (since he cannot be served).BULLSHIT. Ever heard of interpol? Even the Taliban agreed to hand him over if they were supplied with the extradition requirements, which is a legal absolute.
25) Cite your source and the quotes in contextNow you're being frivolous. Watch any of scores of videos that show Silversteins admission, Bush's claim that he saw the first impact while at the school, Rumsfeld's admission of the shooting down, Giuliani's admission that he was told of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 before it happened, The BBC broadcast stating that WTC 7 had collapsed while the reporter was standing in front of it, still standing.
26) Yes, the wars are bad and the justifications for Iraq was mostly fabricated, but this has zero relevance to 9/11. You are making an appeal to motive/consequence, which is a logical fallacy.So, the Bush administration were crooked liars in everything...except 9/11. You're too funny for words.
27) Nothing to say about why no one has been brought to justice for Afghanistan, Iraq, treason, torture, war crimes?
Your arguments where of poor quality and does not merit to be taken seriously.

No, your 'arguments' are the usual arm-waving, new-age instant-expert apologia. Learn some humility :book:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment_Sam Nejad

To know who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticize. -Voltaire
User avatar
Galaxian
Banned User
 
Posts: 1307

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#52  Postby aspire1670 » May 06, 2010 1:21 pm

Galaxian wrote:
Moridin wrote:All of those points have been debunked before, but nice try. Most of your arguments are empirically false, physically impossible, appeals to consequences, ad hoc, argument from motives and so on. But let us have a look, shall we?
GALAXIAN's replies in red
1) What evidence is there for this claim? Even if it is true, why is it relevant?Suspicion & noticing convenient 'coincidences' is not your forte, is it?
2) What evidence is there for this claim? If they where not commercial planes, what happened to all the passengers in these planes? Did they vanish?What happened to all the passengers...duh...they diverted to Hawaii? Try 3 guesses.
3) What evidence is there for this claim? watch the video Part 4 & 5 posted belowEven if it is true, it is irrelevant, since a controlled demolition is preceded by lots of visible explosions and sounds, not merely "a flash of light".You're not in the least curious? Or just running an agenda here?
4) They did not collapse at free fall acceleration. Saying "close to" is just a way for you to avoid having to accept that the free fall collapse argument is invalid. It was not free fall, and this has been demonstrated over and over. Furthermore, the debris fell faster than the tower, and things cannot fall faster than free fall unless you believe that there was a Mossad agent up there throwing stuff down.Don't be supercilious. I have ALWAYS said close to freefall. I reckon a few seconds fulfils that criteria. Now go away & do the potential vs kinetic energy calculation for freefall compared to the few seconds more. The calculated time is over 40 seconds, it is NOT 14 seconds.
5) No, since the building is constructed as a tube within a tube. This is entirely consistent with falling straight down.You would know, would you? Or were you assured that it is so? Have you done the Euler Crippling Load calculation for the massive central core? What about the beginning of collapse where the top is leaning at 15 degrees & rotating? What happened to the eccentric load, the moment & angular momentum? Furthermore, the building did not even fall straight downseriously??? You mean there was a debris pile., since the lower parts of the buildings did not even collapse, forcing the material to the sides.
6) No one has claimed that any WTC tower collapsed only due to fire. Remember the damage that was caused by the two planes flying into the buildings and burning yet fuel? What is your agenda? Who are your handlers? Even NIST admitted that the fuel fire was over within a few minutes at most...look at the videos of the fireball if you doubt it.WTC7 was severely damaged by falling debris from the towers No it wasn't, & certainly no more than the closer WTC buildings which didn't come down.(on the side that truther movies do not show). Even if no building has ever been brought down by fire alone, no building has ever been hit by a terror attack such as this one, so that argument is invalid.
7) No, brought down with the help of a process called pancaking Track down my posts on RDF & here, & be grateful that you have my expertise to guide you. The floors were flimsy 100mm (4 inches) light concrete, sitting on lightweight trusses only 300mm (1 foot) high. The trusses were fixed at the inner end on tiny cleats with a couple of M16 grade 8.8 (5/8 inch) bolts: the sort you can buy at a local hardware store. The inner core was 47 cross braced columns, many of them box girders of about 1m x 0.5m & 100mm (or more) thickness. Slenderness ratio less than 15. Well able to stand alone. The fall of the floor would be like knocking a toothpick our of the fist of a heavyweight boxer: He doesn't collapse in a smoldering heap.
8) Squibs are a result of floors collapsing down, forcing the air out on the sides due to the path of least resistance. In really controlled demolitions, squibs occur before the collapse. Furthermore, the squibs increase as the tower is falling, something that is inconsistent with a controlled demolition..Some squibs can be seen at onset of collapse. The squibs are too forceful for air-compression. The air compression would simply exit through the broken floor above it (path of least resistance), etc, see my post above.
9) No, there are numerous quotes taken out of context by truthers. The real quotes show something like "it sounded as if something had exploded, but I don't know"BULLSHIT.
10) No, iron oxide and aluminum has been found. These are components in ordinary building materials. The fact that these also happens to be ingredients of some explosives does not prove that explosives where used. Furthermore, this kind of explosive have very low density, and given that almost 200 tons of explosives would have been needed, would make the explosives fill several floors. How was 200 tons of explosives smuggled in without anyone noticing? Even if you get in a ton a day, that would still take over 200 days.Read PJG's posts instead of pissing on them. Go to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I never mentioned 200 tons. In any event work crews had full access to the buildings, especially during evenings & weekends.
11) Light poles are constructed to do that. Furthermore, the light poles are too far away to be the result of a missile. If you believe that a missile hit the pentagon, then this missile would have to have zigzagged to know down all of them, but this is impossible. A plane with wings can knock down all these will at the same time flying straight.The plane (if it was that) didn't even go South of the Citco service station. It passed North of the gas station as confirmed by witness (including police) and flight path data. The light poles could have been pulled over the previous night. Light poles are designed to collapse by a vehicle impact not a 400+mph plane strike; that totally mangles & shears them.
12) No, they where certified pilots and had commercial license. The quotes truthers use come before they underwent extensive training. http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_sch ... pouts.htmlBULLSHIT. So the instructors were interviewed before 9/11?
13) No, a lot of plane debris was found. Here is one of a part of a fuselage. http://www.historycommons.org/events-im ... -21381.jpg, here is part of the engine http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/debris2_engine.jpg Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" BULLSHIT. Use the actual photographic evidence, not planted stooges saying whatever they have to say. The videos & photos clearly show bugger all debris. The few pieces are virtually all light handling size. The lawn is unscathed, the cables reels unscathed, the Pentagon with a mere 5m (16 foot) hole, 4 double layers of R/C penetrated by a tin can; a job only a penetrator cruise missile can do, & so forth. (from PM story)
14) What evidence is there for this claim? Even if it was true, why should we care?Again, why should you care about ANYTHING that's contrary to the delusional official clap-trap? See the photos & videos & reporter comments at the scene...try to find them yourself...it's easy if you're sincere.
15) If it was a missile, paper would have burnt as well...Not so. Explosives are used to put out fires, not to start them. That's why you need a particular type: incendiaries, napalm, or phosphorus bombs to start a fire. No one has claimed those.
16) That is what happens when you have a high impact crash. Things fly.No you're being jovial, eh? Are you taking the piss? For example, a steel & titanium engine half a mile BEHIND the crash site?
17) Fire and structural damage caused by the collapsing twin towers. It did not fall on its own footprint, it fell to the south. I've seen all the videos. A slight debris spread is not falling sideways. Furthermore that building has a very large footprint relative to its height, & it is impossible for it to fall cleanly unaided. Watch the videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QilSHm0Luj4
18) Which? Why should we care?Why should we care about your witnesses? The virtuous select?
19) Yes, the government is ineffective. The Bush administration is one of the most incompetent administrations ever, yet you think that the government was behind it. That is a contradiction.Where did I ever say that the government, especially Bush, was behind it. Bush was manipulated by his puppet masters. Never ascribe to incompetence what can easily be explained by malevolence.
20) What is the evidence for this? Again; you really must do some research. Watch the NIST public presentations, & how they are forced to back-track but try not to admit that they've done so.Why should we care? Incompetence is not evidence for a conspiracy.
21) No, even after several months, only a third of the debris was removed, and this debris was [u]recycled[/u, not destroyed Oh, you are funny!. In 2007, the demolition of the surrounding damaged buildings was still ongoing as new construction proceeded on the World Trade Center's replacement.The debris was a crime scene evidence. It would have been EASY to truck it to a field for forensic examination. Were they so short of cash that the scrap steel was worth their criminal destruction of evidence?
22) Problem is that government cannot keep secrets. The affair between Clinton and Lewinsky was known only to two people, yet it leaked out. The chance that it would have leaked is huge and not even the most retarded administration would try a stunt like that. In order for your belief to work, you need literally thousands of people who are in on this, and that just doesn't happen in an incompetent administration; it would have leaked.Aren't you & some others on this & similar forums "in on it" willy nilly, by accident or design? Isn't the gullibility of the masses what the top echelon have gambled on? Read some Nazi era propaganda manuals; they can be traced on Google.
23) Don't try to explain something with a conspiracy that can be explained by stupidity'/incompetence.No.Don't try to whitewash something with stupidity'/incompetence that can be rationally best be explained by a conspiracy.
24) The evidence exists, and he has confessed being behind himself No he hasn't. You seen the forged videos produced at the time of/after his death?. The reason why he has not been formally charged is a technicality (since he cannot be served).BULLSHIT. Ever heard of interpol? Even the Taliban agreed to hand him over if they were supplied with the extradition requirements, which is a legal absolute.
25) Cite your source and the quotes in contextNow you're being frivolous. Watch any of scores of videos that show Silversteins admission, Bush's claim that he saw the first impact while at the school, Rumsfeld's admission of the shooting down, Giuliani's admission that he was told of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 before it happened, The BBC broadcast stating that WTC 7 had collapsed while the reporter was standing in front of it, still standing.
26) Yes, the wars are bad and the justifications for Iraq was mostly fabricated, but this has zero relevance to 9/11. You are making an appeal to motive/consequence, which is a logical fallacy.So, the Bush administration were crooked liars in everything...except 9/11. You're too funny for words.
27) Nothing to say about why no one has been brought to justice for Afghanistan, Iraq, treason, torture, war crimes?
Your arguments where of poor quality and does not merit to be taken seriously.

No, your 'arguments' are the usual arm-waving, new-age instant-expert apologia. Learn some humility :book:


Bolded for the irony.
psikeyhackr wrote: Physics is not rhetorical pseudo-logic crap.

I removed this signature at the request of another member.
aspire1670
 
Posts: 1454
Age: 71
Male

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#53  Postby PJG » May 06, 2010 1:51 pm

econ41 wrote:"...would be a satisfactory answer to the question of the cause of the microspheres" - the satisfactory answer is that there is no evidence of any incendiary being used to assist the collapses .


None has been looked for so quoting NIST is "misleading".

econ41 wrote:AND the logistic/security aspects of any potential use make such use impossible

Not impossible – look up “Citicorp Centre”… again!

econ41 wrote:using that term in the normal meaning for communication with lay persons THEREFORE the microspheres, if they are representative which is unproven, are anomalous


Representative AND anomalous? :shock: What evidence do you have that they are anomalous? “They MUST be because I say so”, doesn’t count!

econ41 wrote:"...verification that the samples to date were anomalies..." - already done under the previous. The microspheres are irrelevant whether or not their presence as representative samples can be verified.

Do you understand what this even means?

econ41 wrote:"...an explanation of the cause of them if the samples were representative as to how limited ordinary office fires and gravitational collapse could account for them..." - simply reveals the bias as to which way you want the answers to fall.

What bias are you talking about? Projection AGAIN?

econ41 wrote:
Taking the core bit "...how limited ordinary office fires and gravitational collapse..." - strawman false premise. Remember you allowed the question to be limited to "...the collapse of the buildings..." meaning WTC1, WTC2 & WTC7 to be sure you cannot misrepresent the next statement. Your premise is false hence "strawman" The collapses of those buildings did not involve "..ordinary office fires..." Since your premise is false the bits standing on it fail also.

In what way were the office fires anything other than “ordinary” by the time the buildings – yes, all three, fell? Bearing in mind that the load had been redistributed following the crashes (1 & 2) and that NIST excludes collateral damage in WTC7 and the jet fuel (in 1 & 2) would have all been burnt off or evaporated within minutes – long before the collapses. What input of energy, other than the combustion material within the buildings are you suggesting made the fires "extraordinary"? The fires in 1 and 2 were confined to the upper floors - with the majority of both buildings being underneath the fire zone. They burned for less than an hour and an hour and a half. A generous estimate puts the fires in WTC7 at 25% of the building being affected.

econ41 wrote:"...collapse could account for them..." - straight forward false logic. The microspheres evidence, if it is valid, is anomalous. It could be caused by anything. You cannot link its causality to the collapse (without doing some real work of explanation.)

This is so incredible, I hardly know whether to go there. Do you understand what you are saying here?
User avatar
PJG
 
Posts: 204
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#54  Postby Galaxian » May 06, 2010 2:00 pm

Here's one of the best analyses of visual evidence of 9/11. This is for the lurkers, not the children:
Part 1: Introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aECYD1sfAV4
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aECYD1sfAV4[/youtube]

Part 2 & 3: Pentagon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys9quilme1Q
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys9quilme1Q[/youtube]

(P.3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuyJ0cA5u_o

Part 4, 5 & 6: WTC 1, 2, 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR_1cg95XHA
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR_1cg95XHA[/youtube]

(P.5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlRF8jY1qOQ
(P.6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej4F6FS_owk

Part 7: Summary & conclusion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjXyPhDUAEc

Part 8: Appendix & epilogue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N6IpfvTylc
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N6IpfvTylc[/youtube]
Adult advisory warning recommended! Not for the faint-hearted. Contains disturbing images for sheeple. :holysheep:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment_Sam Nejad

To know who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticize. -Voltaire
User avatar
Galaxian
Banned User
 
Posts: 1307

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#55  Postby BlackBart » May 06, 2010 2:36 pm

You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12152
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#56  Postby econ41 » May 06, 2010 3:46 pm

PJG wrote:...
econ41 wrote:
econ41 wrote:"...would be a satisfactory answer to the question of the cause of the microspheres" - the satisfactory answer is that there is no evidence of any incendiary being used to assist the collapses .


None has been looked for so quoting NIST is "misleading". ..
Once again the outright untrue assertion. ( One of your three standard debating tricks BTW - making a global claim improperly resting on a specific example. In this case where the specific example is also false.) The evidence is available from many sources and has been examined by many people. That includes the masses of evidence which you choose to ignore because it does not fit your preconceived outcome that NIST is wrong. BUT the conclusion, in this case my conclusion but representative of many others, is not based on NIST. My conclusions, as I have made clear in this thread and consistently for the past 2.5 years on the Internet, are based on my assessment of the evidence. Many other professionals assess the same evidence and reach the same conclusions. And once again my statement made here is not based on NIST. Yes it is true that NIST got it right so our conclusions align but that does not support your false claim that I somehow rely on NIST.

{Several more of the same sort of mendacious crap.}

Finally:
"...collapse could account for them..." - straight forward false logic. The microspheres evidence, if it is valid, is anomalous. It could be caused by anything. You cannot link its causality to the collapse (without doing some real work of explanation.)

This is so incredible, I hardly know whether to go there. Do you understand what you are saying here?

There you go again. When beaten by clear logic you pull the dismissive comment card out of the pack. And this one fails logic 101 whether it is WTC 9/11 or fruit falling of a fruit tree. You cannot validly claim causality based on nothing more than two events occurring in the same location and possible similar times.

So, in summary, we have proof for the umpteenth time that your version of "satisfactory" aint normal usage of the English language. And this time assisted by your allowing focus to be on the mechanism of collapse.

I remain convinced that you will never be satisfied by simple accurate explanations and use of valid logic.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#57  Postby Moridin » May 06, 2010 4:13 pm

Galaxian wrote:No, your 'arguments' are the usual arm-waving, new-age instant-expert apologia. Learn some humility :book:


New age? Humility? Oh the irony. By the way, most of your so called "rebuttals" did not even address my arguments.
User avatar
Moridin
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 810
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#58  Postby econ41 » May 06, 2010 4:14 pm


:grin: :grin:

Dealt short shrift over there I see.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#59  Postby BlackBart » May 06, 2010 4:20 pm

econ41 wrote:

:grin: :grin:

Dealt short shrift over there I see.


Yep. Sheep can be vicious buggers.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12152
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#60  Postby econ41 » May 06, 2010 4:26 pm

BlackBart wrote:
econ41 wrote:

:grin: :grin:

Dealt short shrift over there I see.


Yep. Sheep can be vicious buggers.


First time the topic has been raised on rationalia AFAIK - it is probably off their mainstream interest. My prediction is that, after the initial burst of interest, the residents over there will simply ignore. It's a smaller community and in many ways more selective in what they bother to respond to.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest