The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2161  Postby uke2se » Nov 18, 2010 11:51 pm

Patriots4Truth wrote:
You didn't once try to explain the link. If you are not aware, it consists of humongous amounts of techno-babble that could easily fly over people's heads. Technobabble can be used dishonestly to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation. I expect more honesty in a debate.


You got honesty. I gave you a link to a post which you checked with other people and found to be a good representation of the truth. What I take offense to is your claim that you were doing my job for me. You weren't. You were simply fact checking what I provided for your own sake. I already knew what I posted was a good representation of the truth, as I had already fact checked it. I don't claim to understand all the technical jargon myself, but that isn't relevant. What is relevant is that you did exactly what could be expected of you, and so did I. Please don't accuse me of laziness in the future.

Patriots4Truth wrote:
It sure looks like Nist plays dumb (maybe "forced to admit freefall" is too strong of wording): part 1, part 2, part 3


NIST made a few drafts before releasing their final report. The data never changed. What did change after the report draft was opened up for public comment was an extra comment about the partial free-fall of WTC 7, due to a comment by Chandler. The reason it was left out at first was because NIST deemed it irrelevant. To indulge the 9/11 conspiracists, and the people who would be prone to be affected by said people - in the interest of openness - , NIST included a reference to the irrelevant partial free-fall in their final report.

There was no coercion on Chandler's part. It was simply an act of kindness by NIST. 9/11 conspiracists of course jumped on this as a major victory for their "movement".
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2162  Postby econ41 » Nov 19, 2010 12:06 am

@Patriots4Truth.
I see some real progress in this post so I will just make a couple of comments. (EDIT: Well maybe "a few comments" :naughty2: )
Patriots4Truth wrote:...And while I was researching uke2se's link I've been trying to get some more professional-type opinions of econ41's global collapse theory because he has been avoiding to do so himself...
I find that statement astonishing given the number of posts I have made on the theme "lets discuss this" BUT "...limit it to either my claims or yours"

Patriots4Truth wrote:...evidence in me repeatedly asking him if he has any desire to do so...
:scratch: I know my memory seems to be suffering the symptoms of advancing age but my vision, reading and comprehension must also be affected. I cannot recall one instance of "asking". Maybe it was phrased in different language. However... let's progress. (For the record I am and always have been available to help anyone "walk through" my understanding of the WTC1 and 2 collapses. Preferably by discussing the global collapse first because it is simpler, then progressing to the initial collapse - that is "progression" and "initiation" in the language the members of "the911forum" prefer. I would tag WTC 7 on the end of that process.)

Patriots4Truth wrote:...Fortunately for him, his global collapse theory seems to hold up so far...
It is not a matter of "fortunately" - it just happens to be right for the lay audiences it is targeted at. I do not include lots of maths - they add nothing even if they look impressive. And it is so easy to include so much impressive looking maths that you/we/they whoever reads can lose track of the fact that the base premises are wrong. That is Szamboti. And I recall my very first post on the internet 13/14 November 2007 where I made this introductory comment in the second paragraph:
me on RDNet wrote:...The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong...

Patriots4Truth wrote:...(there hasn't been much discussion about it yet because they want me to point out what specifically they should discuss)....
...which, no surprise, is exactly the track I have attempted to follow.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...econ41, I apologize if you didn't want me to share your posts/theory but you know that I've been wanting to see what techies have to say about about it....
Not a problem other than the predictable responses - Darkwing will misunderstand something, Sander0 will coach/correct and femr2 will probably want more detail. :dance: but
Patriots4Truth wrote:...with exception to the 2.25 seconds of freefall that Nist was forced to admit after Chandler confronted them about it....
...your truther bias and indoctrination showing there patriots. Remember that professional engineers and physicists do not give the mystique to free fall that truthers have erected. That is the myth that somehow "free fall" == "demolition". i.e. that free fall always means demolition and cannot arise from non-demolition causes. As I and others have said repeatedly that truther premise is false. So NIST gave little prominence to free fall in their draft reports, expanded on it obviously to address truther concerns AND the thanks they get is truther misrepresentation about "forced to admit" "forced" for doing a bit of PR and "admit" as if it was something hidden. Bloody ridiculous.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...Now I wouldn't of had to go on for several posts about these things if debunkers had explained themselves clearly in the first place....
...er...no comment.
Patriots4Truth wrote:... Also, econ41's global collapse theory has yet to be entirely debated over there. If it's mostly ROOSD then it will probably hold up as a feasible theory...
It will hold up because it is correct. And it was first published 2007/8 way ahead of Major_Tom. I don't see it "holding up" actually because the brains over their are techo detail types and not persons dedicated to explaining technical matters to a non-technical layperson audience. Not that there is anything technically wrong with my explanation. But the writing is not geared for academic or theoretical engineers.

Patriots4Truth wrote:...Tony Szamboti has been proven wrong - most visible by femr2's post from the the first freeforums link I posted....
your reliance on certain "authority figures" shows that you are progressing in your understanding. Nevertheless you have been told on multiple occasions that Tony Szamboti was wrong and exactly why and where he was wrong. The fact that you accept something when "truther friendly" femr2 says something but reject it or don't even acknowledge when I tell you the precise same thing is something we may need to work through.

You have migrated your progressing your critique of my explanations to another forum where femr2 among others has asked you to define what your questions are. I cannot help but observe that it would have been far simpler to ask me the questions here. Still, if the roundabout technique suits you go for it. :scratch: :scratch:

Patriots4Truth wrote:... Also, I think it's worth noting that femr2 doesn't believe a "big jolt" is expected (what is expected though? I'll have to ask him)...
neither do I expect a big jolt. AND I have several times explained why. And I have told you what there will be - multiple little jolts. AND why there will be multiple little jolts. And you partly accepted that but wanted to include "medium sized jolts" which I agreed to. So now femr2 is agreeing with me you can accept it. OK. :scratch:
Patriots4Truth wrote:...I tend to trust femr2. Tony Szamboti has almost entirely lost my trust (he should of researched "no measurable deceleration" better). David Chandler is off and on...
...I don't think he will but femr2 could baffle you with science. Szamboti cannot be relied on. Nor Chandler. And recall my cautionary note in a recent post - neither Szamboti nor Chandler has ever suggested how demolition could be achieved. All they have tried to do is show that some demolition was indicated by collapse data. And they both got that bit wrong..
Patriots4Truth wrote:...I'll let the debunkers celebrate these victories....
A pity you see it as "war" with "victories". I cannot speak for others here but my aim is to explain some fairly straight forward bits of engineering so that people coming here can understand.
Patriots4Truth wrote:.. But next time I would prefer if I didn't have to do all the work for them
That is both misplaced and wishful thinking. Even for someone like myself, essentially offering a teaching or explaining service, I cannot know which answers to give if you persistently refuse to engage in discussion. Even now you have not asked me or your trusted experts anything specific about my explanation. Until you do so the ball is firmly in your court.

For those of us who take the harder line of "scientific method" the burden is still yours. I have taken that line also on occasion. Either prove my hypothesis wrong OR post your own. The door has always been open down those two tracks, the track of competing hypotheses OR the track of interactive discussion and explanation. You have chosen to go by alternate paths - the standard truther tracks of debating bits of technical claims bereft of any context. Sorry I don't play those games. The discussion of thermXte as a demolition tool for WTC is a waste of time unless there is a plausible explanation of how it was or could have been used in demolition.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2163  Postby Patriots4Truth » Nov 19, 2010 3:10 am

econ41 wrote:@Patriots4Truth.
I see some real progress in this post so I will just make a couple of comments.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...And while I was researching uke2se's link I've been trying to get some more professional-type opinions of econ41's global collapse theory because he has been avoiding to do so himself...
I find that statement astonishing given the number of posts I have made on the theme "lets discuss this" BUT "...limit it to either my claims or yours"
and how many times did I ask you discuss physics with a physicist (remember the "physician" misspelling that got someone loling) . "do you have any desire to have your theory fact checked". lots of posts of that nature

I do not know how to interpret some of your claims and you make physics claims without citing references.
econ41 wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:...evidence in me repeatedly asking him if he has any desire to do so...
:scratch: I know my memory seems to be suffering the symptoms of advancing age but my vision, reading and comprehension must also be affected. I cannot recall one instance of "asking". Maybe it was phrased in different language. However... let's progress. (For the record I am and always have been available to help anyone "walk through" my understanding of the WTC1 and 2 collapses. Preferably by discussing the global collapse first because it is simpler, then progressing to the initial collapse - that is "progression" and "initiation" in the language the members of "the911forum" prefer. I would tag WTC 7 on the end of that process.)
Lots of components of physics arguments are hard for me to fathom without experience... who's to say which physics argument is best? The answer is to get some professionals critiques
econ41 wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:...Fortunately for him, his global collapse theory seems to hold up so far...
It is not a matter of "fortunately" - it just happens to be right for the lay audiences it is targeted at. I do not include lots of maths - they add nothing even if they look impressive. And it is so easy to include so much impressive looking maths that you/we/they whoever reads can lose track of the fact that the base premises are wrong. That is Szamboti. And I recall my very first post on the internet 13/14 November 2007 where I made this introductory comment in the second paragraph:
me on RDNet wrote:...The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong...
In the future I will seek out all the references for both you and Szamboti's base premises
econ41 wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:...(there hasn't been much discussion about it yet because they want me to point out what specifically they should discuss)....
...which, no surprise, is exactly the track I have attempted to follow.
I stand by the conclusion that I need more than just you explaining your theories. Scientific critique is important in verifying theories like yours.
econ41 wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:...econ41, I apologize if you didn't want me to share your posts/theory but you know that I've been wanting to see what techies have to say about about it....
Not a problem other than the predictable responses - Darkwing will misunderstand something, Sander0 will coach/correct and femr2 will probably want more detail. :dance: but
Also, having read much of the forums I realize Sander0 comes off more "debunker friendly" than an independent.
econ41 wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:...with exception to the 2.25 seconds of freefall that Nist was forced to admit after Chandler confronted them about it....
...your truther bias and indoctrination showing there patriots. Remember that professional engineers and physicists do not give the mystique to free fall that truthers have erected. That is the myth that somehow "free fall" == "demolition". i.e. that free fall always means demolition and cannot arise from non-demolition causes. As I and others have said repeatedly that truther premise is false. So NIST gave little prominence to free fall in their draft reports, expanded on it obviously to address truther concerns AND the thanks they get is truther misrepresentation about "forced to admit" "forced" for doing a bit of PR and "admit" as if it was something hidden. Bloody ridiculous.
I never said free-fall necessarily means demolition in my book, although it would be nice if Nist showed us all their data backing up their claim that one column failure caused all the other columns to give out leading to the 2.25 seconds of freefall.

Plus I will still argue that Nist played dumb during the process of adding "free fall" to their conclusions -as seen by actual footage of key members of Nist acting dumb. (the part 1 2 3 in a recent post of mine)
econ41 wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:... Also, econ41's global collapse theory has yet to be entirely debated over there. If it's mostly ROOSD then it will probably hold up as a feasible theory...
It will hold up because it is correct. And it was first published 2007/8 way ahead of Major_Tom. I don't see it "holding up" actually because the brains over their are techo detail types and not persons dedicated to explaining technical matters to a non-technical layperson audience. Not that there is anything technically wrong with my explanation. But the writing is not geared for academic or theoretical engineers.
The black and white nature of your writing designed for simpletons is actually a turnoff. Stuff like either/or lists, "if not this then it must be this", "it is not this"...

I think it's a turnoff because it makes you appear one-sided when you present things in black and white and when you don't cite any sources. It just leaves people having to assume your assumptions - get me? Maybe some of your assumptions are easier for you to assume than it is for other people to assume.
econ41 wrote:
Patriots4Truth wrote:...Tony Szamboti has been proven wrong - most visible by femr2's post from the the first freeforums link I posted....
your reliance on certain "authority figures" shows that you are progressing in your understanding (are you trying to come off as belittling?). Nevertheless you have been told on multiple occasions that Tony Szamboti was wrong and exactly why and where he was wrong. The fact that you accept something when "truther friendly" femr2 says something but reject it or don't even acknowledge when I tell you the precise same thing is something we may need to work through.
The same goes to you admitting that Sander0 is the "coach/correct" guy. Your words. :dance:
econ41 wrote: neither do I expect a big jolt. AND I have several times explained why. And I have told you what there will be - multiple little jolts. AND why there will be multiple little jolts.
Your certainty is a bit alarming; even if you have some people on your side. I agree that there is more logic to suggest tons of minjolts being the best explanation for a natural collapse but theoretically there could be a big jolt and mini-jolts...
econ41 wrote:And you partly accepted that but wanted to include "medium sized jolts" which I agreed to. So now femr2 is agreeing with me you can accept it. OK. :scratch:
I am leaning towards minijolts but I can't entirely say that there wouldn't be a big jolt. MacQueen and Tsamboti's theory is viable - just more unlikely when I consider femr2 list. I admit that I do not trust you as much as femr2
econ41 wrote: ...I don't think he will but femr2 could baffle you with science (your little jab at femr2 is showing of your debunker "bias and indoctrination" - this is more clear in other posts you have made though). Szamboti cannot be relied on. Nor Chandler. And recall my cautionary note in a recent post - neither Szamboti nor Chandler has ever suggested how demolition could be achieved. All they have tried to do is show that some demolition was indicated by collapse data. And they both got that bit wrong..
I do not dwell on how people would get explosives in the buildings. If they can get it on a plane they can get it in a building. What's more important to me is characteristics of collapse due to explosion and explosion testimony/evidence.
econ41 wrote: A pity you see it as "war" with "victories". I cannot speak for others here but my aim is to explain some fairly straight forward bits of engineering so that people coming here can understand.
It should be of your best interest (or anyone's) to not ever claim victory and act all snobby and whatnot. Randi/JREF is like a warzone with victory points as evidence by gloating and stundies etc... Many, many debates about 9/11 conspiracy on the internet are often seen as warlike - the way people go at each other. I've seen "war" and "victories" in the way people treat each other and I agree that it's a pity that people treat each other this way
econ41 wrote: That is both misplaced and wishful thinking. Even for someone like myself, essentially offering a teaching or explaining service, I cannot know which answers to give if you persistently refuse to engage in discussion. Even now you have not asked me or your trusted experts anything specific about my explanation. Until you do so the ball is firmly in your court.
well you and uke2se both wrote something like "there may have been free fall acceleration". This is a subject that both of you refused to research for yourselves. A refusal not unlike how you say I refuse to engage in discussion with you... and I've repeatedly told you why I wouldn't be able to discuss a bunch of physics stuff very well. But now you have a link at the 9/11 freeforums for you to discuss your theory with more experienced people - assuming that you actually want a good discussion - I am not sure you do because I've asked before if you have any desire to have that discussion with more experienced people and I believe you didn't answer me.
User avatar
Patriots4Truth
 
Posts: 169

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2164  Postby econ41 » Nov 19, 2010 8:02 am

@Patriots.

Thanks for your candid comments. My responses to your first few points follow.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...I do not know how to interpret some of your claims and you make physics claims without citing references....
Both points understood. The situation is that I am operating in "let me explain it" mode whereas you are looking for the "fully explained with references" sort of scientific mode. So my way of posting is that I deliberately make a lot of bold claims fully expecting to back them up with more detail if needed/not understood. And I nearly always write for the lay person genuine sceptic enquirer whilst also trying to address what was in some recent post.

My physics will usually be accurate. ( I'm tempted to guarantee "always" - another "bold claim" :naughty2: ) There are two reasons why it is accurate, beyond the obvious fact of basic professional competence. The first is that I write to ensure accuracy by the simple technique of not trying to go too far with details. The second is that, where possible, I will reduce the level of physics to the level where common sense can make the decision without needing physics skills. I will give an example a bit later. There have been occasions when I have seemed to get it wrong because I made an error of terminology which created ambiguity of meaning leading to genuine wrong interpretations. (reference available to a recent post sequence on another forum if you want to follow it through.)

Also I will take short cuts because I have lived with this topic and specifically this thread in its various iterations for 4+ years. So all the key questions answered previously but not readily accessible now. So I need to be more fulsome. However when posting for known truthers - not yourself at this stage of our discussions because your recent posts show genuine scepticism - but posting for truthers I usually lock and bar every door in the logic which tends to make for lengthy pedantic posts. Not conducive to "explanation".
Patriots4Truth wrote:...Lots of components of physics arguments are hard for me to fathom without experience... who's to say which physics argument is best? The answer is to get some professionals critiques...
Which puts us at cross purposes. I am explaining. And in that mode I will get the physics right. So the "gap" that needs bridging is in your understanding. If you don't get it first time round I try again. The "gap" I see is one of lack of understanding. So it is not a question of "is he right?" rather "what does he mean?" In contrast you do not trust me to present basic physics accurately. Why? Do you think I don't understand the physics? Do you think I would lie? I am not an obsessed truther to whom lying is normal conduct. I am a professional engineer and hold to values where lying is not an option. It would never enter my mind to deliberately mislead.
Patriots4Truth wrote:... I stand by the conclusion that I need more than just you explaining your theories. Scientific critique is important in verifying theories like yours.
No problem but they are two different aspects. Your choices include "I will trust femr2 without understanding" OR "I will trust femr2 to say it's OK but listen to econ41 for explanation so I can understand..." OR "I will trust femr2 for saying it is OK and for explaining..." OR.... - multiple variants on that theme. I doubt the last one is viable but.... It is your call.

More to follow - work intervenes. Let me finish this post with an example of reducing the explanation to where common sense is all that is needed. It will also illustrate why I prefer to explain the "global collapse" of either of the "Twin Towers" first. It is much simpler than the two that follow.

Let's look only at the starting point. That is the moment in time when the "top block" has started to fall. It is moving downwards in what I call the "initial collapse" and at the final stage of what your colleagues on the911forum call "initiation". I make this claim in two parts:
  • All of the columns in the impact and damage zone, the columns holding up the top block have failed. AND
  • The proof that they have failed lies in the fact that the top block is moving.

Now we can "calibrate" my communication with you and yours with me. there is no physics in the sense of numbers and equations in what I just posted. Can you accept as fact that all the columns have failed"? AND that the proof is that the "top block" is falling. Nothing more, nothing less. I know you seem to express distrust of logical sequences which focus to yes/no answers. We may need to work through that.

If you cannot at this stage accept those two parts of a claim I can go one level deeper.

Your call.

I will address the remainder of your post as soon as I get the necessary time.

Eric C
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2165  Postby econ41 » Nov 19, 2010 9:37 am

@Patriots.

"PART TWO"
I will limit myself to brief responses to your points. (EDIT PS Well the road to good intentions is paved or whatever the quotation is..... :nono: I did get carried away :whistle: )
Patriots4Truth wrote:...Also, having read much of the forums I realize Sander0 comes off more "debunker friendly" than an independent...
I have not formed any viewpoint. I prefer to judge what is said rather than who says it.
Patriots4Truth wrote:... I never said free-fall necessarily means demolition in my book, although it would be nice if Nist showed us all their data backing up their claim that one column failure caused all the other columns to give out leading to the 2.25 seconds of freefall.
From my position I only look to NIST for a plausible explanation. Reasons in recent posts.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...Plus I will still argue that Nist played dumb during the process of adding "free fall" to their conclusions -as seen by actual footage of key members of Nist acting dumb. (the part 1 2 3 in a recent post of mine)..
It is your choice. The point I would make is "why do you bother?" because I am not committed to the truther myth that "freefall" == "demolition". Check your own reasons for seeing it as somehow important. I don't see how it can be important if you don't hold with freefall == demolition.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...The black and white nature of your writing designed for simpletons is actually a turnoff. Stuff like either/or lists, "if not this then it must be this", "it is not this"...
Two points.
  1. first I cannot win if writing for persons you call simpletons is still beyond their understanding. If you check thread history the two recent targets for my simple writing have both chosen to ignore what I said. You in your "truther mode" which you are now moving away from. And Miragememories who clearly will employ any diversion he can to avoid addressing the crux of any legitimate post; AND
  2. second we are after all supposed to be discussing things towards reaching conclusions or agreements. And the essence of that is a process of convergent logic which leads to EITHER a binary decision point "yes/no" or 'black/white" decisions e.g. "I agree" or "I do not agree because..." OR an analog decision point e.g. "a bar of x size loaded by yyy will fail if the stress exceeds zzz"
Patriots4Truth wrote:...I think it's a turnoff because it makes you appear one-sided when you present things in black and white and when you don't cite any sources. It just leaves people having to assume your assumptions - get me? ...
Sure I understand the position you hold BUT there are many different viewpoints and I cannot cater for all of them in every post.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...Maybe some of your assumptions are easier for you to assume than it is for other people to assume....
Sure BUT all of my claims are framed in a context which says "if you want proof or more details or more explanation ask". And I usually put that disclaimer explicitly. Then and conversely, it becomes tedious putting all the disclaimers in for the average truther who has no intention of reading OR understanding OR accepting anything which disturbs his (her) mindset. And don't discount or deny the massive upwards step in credibility your recent posts have given you.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...The same goes to you admitting that Sander0 is the "coach/correct" guy. Your words. :dance: ...
That is an attempt at a cheap shot based on a false analogy. Can you see why?
Patriots4Truth wrote:...Your certainty is a bit alarming; even if you have some people on your side...
It is now 2010 and just over nine years since 9/11. There is no reasonable doubt about the big technical questions viz no demolition at WTC; it was that plane at the Pentagon and the plane was not shot down at Shanksville. Those claiming otherwise have had nine years to make a case and have spectacularly failed to do so. Fact. Undeniable fact. So what we see now is the rare genuine sceptic saying "I don't quite see how" or similar. And a massive number of locked in place truthers still parroting the same untruths long after the point where any reasonable person must know that they are untruths. So you see the polarised hate fests that dominate JREF. Game playing. Nothing new on the table for years and what is on the table rebutted every way towards Christmas. And the "debate" only about trivialities because the material brought to debate is by truthers who only have trivialities. The "debunker" side only responding to what the "truthers" post and they only post crap.

Now what I have just posted is the global view - most sane people who think about 9/11 conspiracies. Whether you like it or not the reality is that anyone disputing those three big technical facts as a lot of hard work to do.
Patriots4Truth wrote:... I agree that there is more logic to suggest tons of minjolts being the best explanation for a natural collapse...
Agreed but why follow with this:
Patriots4Truth wrote:... but theoretically there could be a big jolt and mini-jolts...
...an unnecessary truism when you know that the evidence from both sides of the fence says "no big jolt". So either prove that there was a big jolt OR stop hanging in there in the vain hope that somebody will prove it. It is a lost cause - don't waste energy on it.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...I am leaning towards minijolts but I can't entirely say that there wouldn't be a big jolt. MacQueen and Tsamboti's theory is viable - just more unlikely when I consider femr2 list. I admit that I do not trust you as much as femr2
you are still looking for authority figures. I don't give a shit that you don't trust me and do trust femr2. Trust yourself. I have already given you a far clearer explanation of why "mini jolts" than you are likely to get from femr2. does what I say make sense to you? If not why not. And (clue) it is nothing to do with whether you trust me or not.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...(your little jab at femr2 is showing of your debunker "bias and indoctrination" - this is more clear in other posts you have made though)
another cheap shot by false analogy - see the previous one.

Patriots4Truth wrote:...I do not dwell on how people would get explosives in the buildings. If they can get it on a plane they can get it in a building....
I see that as an evasion. The two big "impossibilities" which in proper perspective are stronger than all the technical detail stuff. (1) It could not be done without getting caught; AND (2) No truther has ever shown how demolition could be accomplished to assist the natural processes and cause the collapse mechanisms that actually happened.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...[ What's more important to me is characteristics of collapse due to explosion and explosion testimony/evidence....
This may be more important to you. BUT the question at WTC is "demolition or not?" And the logic doesn't care about what is important to you - it works on what is important in the facts off the real world issue of collapse.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...It should be of your best interest (or anyone's) to not ever claim victory and act all snobby and whatnot. Randi/JREF is like a warzone with victory points as evidence by gloating and stundies etc... Many, many debates about 9/11 conspiracy on the internet are often seen as warlike - the way people go at each other. I've seen "war" and "victories" in the way people treat each other and I agree that it's a pity that people treat each other this way...
Agreed - but it hasn't always been like that. On the forums I have frequented the "war zone" has only developed since all the real "truth" questions in the technical domain have been answered and "truthers" have resorted to repeated parroting of long rebutted bits of technical stuff.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...well you and uke2se both wrote something like "there may have been free fall acceleration". This is a subject that both of you refused to research for yourselves....
It is of no interest to me - part of your attempt to shift the burden of proof. Free fall is essentially irrelevant to my perspective. If it is relevant to your claim then you put forward why...
Patriots4Truth wrote:... A refusal not unlike how you say I refuse to engage in discussion with you...
...there goes that same false analogy. :naughty2:
Patriots4Truth wrote:... and I've repeatedly told you why I wouldn't be able to discuss a bunch of physics stuff very well. But now you have a link at the 9/11 freeforums for you to discuss your theory with more experienced people - assuming that you actually want a good discussion - I am not sure you do because I've asked before if you have any desire to have that discussion with more experienced people and I believe you didn't answer me.
This last bit is quite confused. We are (or at least I am) addressing how to improve your understanding. I have no interest in discussing the detailed technical stuff with the mixed bunch of characters at the911forum. My interest is explaining not theoretical physics OR proving NIST wrong OR (all the other side tracks.) So I'm not after a "good discussion" - far too late for that. Maybe if we have another 911 style topic but I wouldn't wish that on anyone. And whatever disasters there may be in future none would be as glove fit to my qualifications and experience as 9/11 WTC Collapse has been.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2166  Postby amused » Nov 23, 2010 1:21 pm

I take it all back. Here's definitive proof that thermite was used to do something evil.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU8iRYbnAb0[/youtube]
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2167  Postby Miragememories » Nov 25, 2010 2:57 pm

Well this is not a Thermite Thanksgiving.

But this is more proof that indeed, thermite was used to do something extremely evil.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxiNNZBDKJ8[/youtube]

This video is a 'quick assembly' of mostly NIST FOIA clips. Its focus is on the critical failure of the northeast corner of the South Tower, WTC2.

Initial videos show the fires set off by the aircraft fuel. Later in the video, thermitic activity becomes quite visible as revealed by white smoke, hot orange fire centers, and dripping molten iron as the structural steel is attacked. Once the already damaged support columns are sufficiently eaten away by thermitc activity, the initial toppling collapse of the upper section begins.

NOTE: Not all of the audio is original to the associated video. No intentionally misleading audio was added. Some generic or in context audio was used to cover originally silent video clips.

Explosions that can be heard are original and not faked.

MM
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 71
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2168  Postby bootsie » Nov 25, 2010 3:04 pm

Miragememories wrote:Well this is not a Thermite Thanksgiving.

But this is more proof that indeed, thermite was used to do something extremely evil.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxiNNZBDKJ8[/youtube]

This video is a 'quick assembly' of mostly NIST FOIA clips. Its focus is on the critical failure of the northeast corner of the South Tower, WTC2.

Initial videos show the fires set off by the aircraft fuel. Later in the video, thermitic activity becomes quite visible as revealed by white smoke, hot orange fire centers, and dripping molten iron as the structural steel is attacked. Once the already damaged support columns are sufficiently eaten away by thermitc activity, the initial toppling collapse of the upper section begins.

NOTE: Not all of the audio is original to the associated video. No intentionally misleading audio was added. Some generic or in context audio was used to cover originally silent video clips.

Explosions that can be heard are original and not faked.

MM



I'm new here so perhaps you will explain how the necessary and extensive stripping of the WTC back to the steel core in order to place the thermite cutting charges was achieved without anyone noticing the partial demolition of the WTC?
User avatar
bootsie
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 50

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2169  Postby econ41 » Nov 25, 2010 3:35 pm

bootsie wrote:...I'm new here so perhaps you will explain how the necessary and extensive stripping of the WTC back to the steel core in order to place the thermite cutting charges was achieved without anyone noticing the partial demolition of the WTC?

Welcome to the thread bootsie.

Yes your question is valid. And whatever answer you get it leads to several other questions only one of them being "why didn't the demolition leave evidence behind"? And, if we follow that track, it leads to a dilemma of two more implicit claims that the evil perpetrators of this totally unnecessary bit of demolition either:
  • knew in advance exactly where the aircraft would impact AND the exact details of consequent damage (so that they knew which columns to attack) OR
  • The perpetrators actually installed the demolition devices after the aircraft strike AND whilst the fires were raging. (Which resolves the question of "which columns" BUT requires suicide squads in "dreadnought" or better fireproof suits.)

Bottom line therefore - anyone claiming thermXte has a lot of explaining to do otherwise a thermXte claim is nothing more than an evasion.

And "why do it because the building was going to collapse anyway?" is just one of those other (and "bigger") questions.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2170  Postby Miragememories » Nov 25, 2010 3:42 pm

bootsie wrote:
Miragememories wrote:Well this is not a Thermite Thanksgiving.

But this is more proof that indeed, thermite was used to do something extremely evil.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxiNNZBDKJ8[/youtube]

This video is a 'quick assembly' of mostly NIST FOIA clips. Its focus is on the critical failure of the northeast corner of the South Tower, WTC2.

Initial videos show the fires set off by the aircraft fuel. Later in the video, thermitic activity becomes quite visible as revealed by white smoke, hot orange fire centers, and dripping molten iron as the structural steel is attacked. Once the already damaged support columns are sufficiently eaten away by thermitc activity, the initial toppling collapse of the upper section begins.

NOTE: Not all of the audio is original to the associated video. No intentionally misleading audio was added. Some generic or in context audio was used to cover originally silent video clips.

Explosions that can be heard are original and not faked.

MM



I'm new here so perhaps you will explain how the necessary and extensive stripping of the WTC back to the steel core in order to place the thermite cutting charges was achieved without anyone noticing the partial demolition of the WTC?


Why not watch the video before you start questioning its premise?

MM
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 71
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2171  Postby Miragememories » Nov 25, 2010 3:45 pm

econ41 wrote:
bootsie wrote:...I'm new here so perhaps you will explain how the necessary and extensive stripping of the WTC back to the steel core in order to place the thermite cutting charges was achieved without anyone noticing the partial demolition of the WTC?

Welcome to the thread bootsie.

Yes your question is valid. And whatever answer you get it leads to several other questions only one of them being "why didn't the demolition leave evidence behind"? And, if we follow that track, it leads to a dilemma of two more implicit claims that the evil perpetrators of this totally unnecessary bit of demolition either:
  • knew in advance exactly where the aircraft would impact AND the exact details of consequent damage (so that they knew which columns to attack) OR
  • The perpetrators actually installed the demolition devices after the aircraft strike AND whilst the fires were raging. (Which resolves the question of "which columns" BUT requires suicide squads in "dreadnought" or better fireproof suits.)

Bottom line therefore - anyone claiming thermXte has a lot of explaining to do otherwise a thermXte claim is nothing more than an evasion.

And "why do it because the building was going to collapse anyway?" is just one of those other (and "bigger") questions.


Why not watch the video before you start with your amateur-based incredulity?

MM
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 71
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2172  Postby hotshoe » Nov 25, 2010 3:48 pm

Miragememories wrote:
econ41 wrote:
bootsie wrote:...I'm new here so perhaps you will explain how the necessary and extensive stripping of the WTC back to the steel core in order to place the thermite cutting charges was achieved without anyone noticing the partial demolition of the WTC?

Welcome to the thread bootsie.

Yes your question is valid. And whatever answer you get it leads to several other questions only one of them being "why didn't the demolition leave evidence behind"? And, if we follow that track, it leads to a dilemma of two more implicit claims that the evil perpetrators of this totally unnecessary bit of demolition either:
  • knew in advance exactly where the aircraft would impact AND the exact details of consequent damage (so that they knew which columns to attack) OR
  • The perpetrators actually installed the demolition devices after the aircraft strike AND whilst the fires were raging. (Which resolves the question of "which columns" BUT requires suicide squads in "dreadnought" or better fireproof suits.)

Bottom line therefore - anyone claiming thermXte has a lot of explaining to do otherwise a thermXte claim is nothing more than an evasion.

And "why do it because the building was going to collapse anyway?" is just one of those other (and "bigger") questions.


Why not watch the video before you start with your amateur-based incredulity?

MM
:scratch: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2173  Postby byofrcs » Nov 25, 2010 3:50 pm

Miragememories wrote:Well this is not a Thermite Thanksgiving.

....


Stop wasting our time with this nonsense that you promote. At very least can you please provide exactly in the timeline of the video where in the video what you claim happens and the exact timeline from the real world i.e. actual UTC times.

e.g.
white smoke = video timestamp xx:xx = UTC time yy:yy:yy
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 58
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2174  Postby bootsie » Nov 25, 2010 5:07 pm

Miragememories wrote:
econ41 wrote:
bootsie wrote:...I'm new here so perhaps you will explain how the necessary and extensive stripping of the WTC back to the steel core in order to place the thermite cutting charges was achieved without anyone noticing the partial demolition of the WTC?

Welcome to the thread bootsie.

Yes your question is valid. And whatever answer you get it leads to several other questions only one of them being "why didn't the demolition leave evidence behind"? And, if we follow that track, it leads to a dilemma of two more implicit claims that the evil perpetrators of this totally unnecessary bit of demolition either:
  • knew in advance exactly where the aircraft would impact AND the exact details of consequent damage (so that they knew which columns to attack) OR
  • The perpetrators actually installed the demolition devices after the aircraft strike AND whilst the fires were raging. (Which resolves the question of "which columns" BUT requires suicide squads in "dreadnought" or better fireproof suits.)

Bottom line therefore - anyone claiming thermXte has a lot of explaining to do otherwise a thermXte claim is nothing more than an evasion.

And "why do it because the building was going to collapse anyway?" is just one of those other (and "bigger") questions.


Why not watch the video before you start with your amateur-based incredulity?

MM


So that'll be a no, you don't know how the thermite could have been placed without anyone noticing. Of course the most parsimonious explanation is that there was no thermite used because there was no controlled demolition. But you're welcome to your amateur-based credulity when you watch the video. :cheers:
User avatar
bootsie
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 50

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2175  Postby econ41 » Nov 26, 2010 7:13 am

Miragememories wrote:...Why not watch the video before you start with your amateur-based incredulity?

MM

Believe it or not I did watch it MM.

That said the whole question of "what was that glowing cascade of something or other?" has been discussed many times.

I have ridiculed the suggestion that it was thermXte demolition related for a number of very obvious reasons.

Here are a couple to chew on - and yes I am aware of your standard evasion tactics.

A) How many columns were cut to assist the collapse. Specifically was it more than one?

B) If the answer to "A" is "no only one" - go to laughter;
If it is "More than one" then how did the perpetrators get all that molten stuff to one point so it could fall in a single cascade?

Hence my usual shortcut answer to trivial claims about thermXte - The necessity for fireproof suited suicide workers to install the channels to carry the molten metal to one point so it could fall thereby giving away the secret demolition.....

And there are lots more. But until you post a reasoned case I will not waste energy responding to rubbish claims of this standard.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2176  Postby byofrcs » Nov 26, 2010 7:59 am

Fire Salamanders ? With some people claiming lizard people exist then and masquerading as humans there could just be some kind of special fire lizard that did this.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 58
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2177  Postby amused » Nov 26, 2010 2:33 pm

Miragememories wrote:Well this is not a Thermite Thanksgiving.

(insert silly video)

MM


But it IS a turkey!
amused
 
Posts: 468

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2178  Postby the_5th_ape » Nov 28, 2010 8:17 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t36fUenwaxw[/youtube]
Thanking God for sparing you in a natural disaster is like
sending a thank-you note to a serial killer for stabbing the family next door

Question: If you could live forever, would you and why? Best Answer
User avatar
the_5th_ape
 
Posts: 3530
Male

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2179  Postby econ41 » Nov 28, 2010 9:23 am

the_5th_ape wrote:{youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t36fUenwaxw[/youtube]

What a clown. Is this the "Glish Galloper" of 9/11. :nono: :nono:

Dunno where you find them 5th_ape.

Let's have a competition - can we identify anything he says which is true? :naughty2:

(Disclaimer: I stopped watching at around the three minute mark... No point wasting bandwidth.)
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2180  Postby the_5th_ape » Nov 28, 2010 9:42 am

In the 2008 Edition of this stunning multimedia presentation, filmed professionally in a studio before a live audience, San Francisco Bay Area architect, Richard Gage, AIA, provides the myth-shattering scientific forensic evidence of the explosive controlled demolition of all 3 WTC high-rise buildings on September 11, 2001

Part-1

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74naeawdCs[/youtube]


Watch ALL parts(1 to 13)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74naeaw ... playnext=1
Thanking God for sparing you in a natural disaster is like
sending a thank-you note to a serial killer for stabbing the family next door

Question: If you could live forever, would you and why? Best Answer
User avatar
the_5th_ape
 
Posts: 3530
Male

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 4 guests