To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Basic Physics
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148

yesitdid
QUOTE
Clearly there are upward arcing plumes of material.


Not in any video I have seen. care to post one, Christophera.

newton, feel free to show a video in which it is shown conclusively that large debris was thrown upwards. I am not interested in stills, I am not interested in dust plumes, I want it shown that something of substance went not horizontal but upwards WHEN it was ejected from the collapsing tower.


<< cue Final Jeopardy music >>
newtonnjd
QUOTE
Still can't be bothered to actually read the NIST report newtonnjd?

Care to take the same position that Christophera has, that the gov't has been infiltrated and thus all NIST employees and data is to be dismissed out of hand?

If not then is there another reason you won't look at it?


I am not going to read something that is biased from the outset by working toward a pre-determined conclusion. Nor am I going to read a report that feels "global collapse ensued" adequately describes what happened after collapse initiation. Nor am I going to read something that won't allow other scientists to view their models. Nor am I going to read a preliminary hypothesis on a subject they are "having trouble getting a handle on", which tells me the hypothesis doesn't work.

No, I am not claiming NIST was inflitrated. The aim of the report was to describe how airplane damage and fire caused the collapses - i.e. the causes were set beforehand. Combine this limitation on free thinking with the overwhelming emotional response to 9/11 to think the best of your country, then it is not surprising.


Thanks for the description of the WTC7 fires. If you notice I said "in this image", meaning that one image was no sort of evidence by itself for widespread fires.
Common Sense
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 29 2006, 06:31 PM)
I am not going to read something that is biased from the outset by working toward a pre-determined conclusion.

No irony here...
yesitdid
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 29 2006, 11:31 PM)
QUOTE
Still can't be bothered to actually read the NIST report newtonnjd?

Care to take the same position that Christophera has, that the gov't has been infiltrated and thus all NIST employees and data is to be dismissed out of hand?

If not then is there another reason you won't look at it?


I am not going to read something that is biased from the outset by working toward a pre-determined conclusion. Nor am I going to read a report that feels "global collapse ensued" adequately describes what happened after collapse initiation. Nor am I going to read something that won't allow other scientists to view their models. Nor am I going to read a preliminary hypothesis on a subject they are "having trouble getting a handle on", which tells me the hypothesis doesn't work.

No, I am not claiming NIST was inflitrated. The aim of the report was to describe how airplane damage and fire caused the collapses - i.e. the causes were set beforehand. Combine this limitation on free thinking with the overwhelming emotional response to 9/11 to think the best of your country, then it is not surprising.


Thanks for the description of the WTC7 fires. If you notice I said "in this image", meaning that one image was no sort of evidence by itself for widespread fires.

That almost made me laugh as much as the paper trick.

You don't like forgone conclusions? Every single CD proponent argues from the prejudgement that the gov't caused the buildings to fall down.

You don't like hypothysis that have not nailed down a complete senario? Every single CD proponent waves his hands about and states that explosives(some type, maybe this or that) were placed (someplace). No site I have ever seen actually goes into much detail at all yet you glom onto this or presents a list of possible senarios. Why?

"in this image"......... then you haven't bothered to look at many other images then either. Of course not, you operate from the forgone conclusion that all three buildings were demolished by explosives. Of course all you care to do is throw stones at the NIST report. Lord forbid that you actually attempt to see exactly what they do say.

Once again I ask why it is more believeable to have some unknown explosives, and in the case of the towers, exotic explosives and weaponry, invoked as the cause of collapse and not the obvious aircraft impacts , debris impacts and fires?
When I first heard of the idea that the buildings were downed with explosives I read several sites and found that they had no evidence beyond 'it didn't look right' and 'it looked too fast'. Frankly there still isn't much else to compete with impact and fire.

Christophera said the gov't was infiltrated and thus NIST could not be trusted. You are essentially saying the same thing. You are saying that the NIST personnel who worked on this were complicit in a cover-up. Every last one of them.
reasonwhy
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 03:17 PM)



Actually you ignore the fact that some air will be trapped in the stairwells and elevator shafts unless the collapse is constant and even and each floor starts its failure at the center of the floor and moves outward at an even rate.

Somehow I don't believe that anything so orderly happened, do you?

I don’t think it would build up any pressure at all. Creating air pressure in a building that has mostly glass windows and a core is ridicules. I was just pointing out the predicament the OCT put themselves in when the try to explain the so called “squibs” as air shooting out of the windows. Explosives would be a much more resonalble explanation and the OCT can not even consider this.
Common Sense
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 29 2006, 07:01 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 03:17 PM)



Actually you ignore the fact that some air will be trapped in the stairwells and elevator shafts unless the collapse is constant and even and each floor starts its failure at the center of the floor and moves outward at an even rate.

Somehow I don't believe that anything so orderly happened, do you?

I don’t think it would build up any pressure at all. Creating air pressure in a building that has mostly glass windows and a core is ridicules. I was just pointing out the predicament the OCT put themselves in when the try to explain the so called “squibs” as air shooting out of the windows. Explosives would be a much more resonalble explanation and the OCT can not even consider this.

What's ridiculous is thinking there is enough pressure to blow out those heavy glass windows but that same pressure would stop at the open staircase and elevators shafts. That's not only ridiculous that's absurd.
newtonnjd
What you guys obviously forget is that I didn't START out believing in CD, so your claim that it was a pre-determined conclusion for me is NONSENSE. And I could PROVE it was nonsense by showing the long discussion I went through where my views gradually changed from thinking CD theories raised some troubling questions to being fully convinced by them. And that transformation took several months.

This is a terribly weak attack when *I* am the one who arrived at a conclusion different from my initial instincts, whereas every single OCT is just bearing out what they've believed from day 1.

If you don't think that the guys at NIST were told "find out how the airplane damage and fires could have done" this and then went away and did that, I think you are being very naive. CD is FAR too radical, politically and morally, to have ever been on the table for a body set up and funded by the government.
reasonwhy
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 04:17 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 29 2006, 07:01 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 03:17 PM)



Actually you ignore the fact that some air will be trapped in the stairwells and elevator shafts unless the collapse is constant and even and each floor starts its failure at the center of the floor and moves outward at an even rate.

Somehow I don't believe that anything so orderly happened, do you?

I don’t think it would build up any pressure at all. Creating air pressure in a building that has mostly glass windows and a core is ridicules. I was just pointing out the predicament the OCT put themselves in when the try to explain the so called “squibs” as air shooting out of the windows. Explosives would be a much more resonalble explanation and the OCT can not even consider this.

What's ridiculous is thinking there is enough pressure to blow out those heavy glass windows but that same pressure would stop at the open staircase and elevators shafts. That's not only ridiculous that's absurd.

QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 29 2006, 06:12 AM)

(Taken from Greening)

It might be argued that the air resistance would have been larger than suggested by the above calculations if the 10,000 m^3 of air inside one floor could not rapidly escape and was compressed as in a bicycle pump. However, as soon as a floor started to fall, all the windows on that floor would have shattered (if they were not broken already!) allowing the air to exit with very little resistance.....

NF


I don’t think Greening was suggesting air pressure caused the windows to shatter. Remember the floors supposedly caused the perimeter columns to collapse. The windows were framed between the columns.
newtonnjd
QUOTE
What's ridiculous is thinking there is enough pressure to blow out those heavy glass windows but that same pressure would stop at the open staircase and elevators shafts. That's not only ridiculous that's absurd.


No, what IS ridiculous is thinking that pressurized air was able to smash office material into dust.

I also wonder how air forced downwards several floors would suddenly find itself with nowhere else to go.
NEU-FONZE
If you look at any video of a WTC tower collapse that shows the alleged "squibs" coming out at various locations ahead of the collapse front, the ejection of dust/debris shows the action of a fluid flow, as in a hose - NOT EXPLOSIVE EJECTION

EXPLOSIVE EJECTION OF DEBRIS IS ONLY SEEN AT THE COLLAPSE FRONT (as would be expected in a "natural" as opposed to "artificial" collapse)

NF
reasonwhy
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 29 2006, 04:36 PM)
If you look at any video of a WTC tower collapse that shows the alleged "squibs" coming out at various locations ahead of the collapse front, the ejection of dust/debris shows the action of a fluid flow, as in a hose - NOT EXPLOSIVE EJECTION

EXPLOSIVE EJECTION OF DEBRIS IS ONLY SEEN AT THE COLLAPSE FRONT (as would be expected in a "natural" as opposed to "artificial" collapse)

NF

What are you trying to say? The ejection of dust/debris is coming from windows in the middle of an open office space floors below the collapse.
newtonnjd
QUOTE
If you look at any video of a WTC tower collapse that shows the alleged "squibs" coming out at various locations ahead of the collapse front, the ejection of dust/debris shows the action of a fluid flow, as in a hose - NOT EXPLOSIVE EJECTION


Then what created this flowing dust?
lenbrazil
It’s my impression that only about 1% of the US population believes that the WTC buildings fell due to CD. That might sound too low to you CD types but that is still is a lot of people almost 3 million Americans. Let’s say 10% - 20% of them or around 300,000 – 600,000 are active to some degree posting in forums, going to meetings etc and about 10% of the activists or 30 – 60,000 are leaders who start new groups or site, lead protests, write blogs etc. The fact that only about 45,000 people voted yes on the CNN poll despite a concerted effort by the ‘9/11 truth movement’ indicates that the number of believers can’t be much higher than that. Sure attendance at meetings in big cities and college towns might lead you to believe the percentage is higher but these are places that would probably have a disproportionately high concentration of people who believe such things.
lenbrazil
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 11:46 PM)
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 29 2006, 06:31 PM)
I am not going to read something that is biased from the outset by working toward a pre-determined conclusion.

No irony here...

You beat me too it CS. I'm sure he does not feel any such qualms about reading CT sites whose conclusions are forgone. He doesn't accept an explanation he won't even bother to read, Typical CT, it reminds me of creationists who reject evolution but refuse to study the science behind it.

newtonnjd and the other CD theorists - I and (I imagine) the other OCTs as you call us have read CT articles etc have you read anything that supports the collapse theory?

Len
newtonnjd
QUOTE
You beat me too it CS. I'm sure he does not feel any such qualms about reading CT sites whose conclusions are forgone. He doesn't accept an explanation he won't even bother to read, Typical CT, it reminds me of creationists who reject evolution but refuse to study the science behind it.

newtonnjd and the other CD theorists - I and (I imagine) the other OCTs as you call us have read CT articles etc have you read anything that supports the collapse theory?


I have read plenty in support of gravity collapses. I have not read NIST etc in their entirety, for reasons already given. Nor do I need to in order to understand their theories, because I know that the main arguments will be reproduced by OCTs in debates such as these. Why waste my time when anything truly convincing contained in the reports will be advanced by the people I debate with.

len, perhaps you missed my last post on this subject:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You beat me too it CS. I'm sure he does not feel any such qualms about reading CT sites whose conclusions are forgone. He doesn't accept an explanation he won't even bother to read, Typical CT, it reminds me of creationists who reject evolution but refuse to study the science behind it.

newtonnjd and the other CD theorists - I and (I imagine) the other OCTs as you call us have read CT articles etc have you read anything that supports the collapse theory?


I have read plenty in support of gravity collapses. I have not read NIST etc in their entirety, for reasons already given. Nor do I need to in order to understand their theories, because I know that the main arguments will be reproduced by OCTs in debates such as these. Why waste my time when anything truly convincing contained in the reports will be advanced by the people I debate with.

len, perhaps you missed my last post on this subject:

What you guys obviously forget is that I didn't START out believing in CD, so your claim that it was a pre-determined conclusion for me is NONSENSE. And I could PROVE it was nonsense by showing the long discussion I went through where my views gradually changed from thinking CD theories raised some troubling questions to being fully convinced by them. And that transformation took several months.

This is a terribly weak attack when *I* am the one who arrived at a conclusion different from my initial instincts, whereas every single OCT is just bearing out what they've believed from day 1.

If you don't think that the guys at NIST were told "find out how the airplane damage and fires could have done" this and then went away and did that, I think you are being very naive. CD is FAR too radical, politically and morally, to have ever been on the table for a body set up and funded by the government.


Before pointing out what you perceive as irony, you need to address this. I did NOT start with a pre-determined conclusion. I progressed to my current conclusion gradually, at one stage with each side pulling on me with equal strength. This is completely the opposite situation to the OCTs who have had the same conclusion since day 1.

Accusing me of a pre-determined conclusion is NONSENSE and a completely feeble attempt to shield those who really did have an inbuilt belief and worked backwards from that.
newtonnjd
Common sense..

QUOTE
If it removed the top supports just underneath the penthouse then I could see parcel collapse. to that point.


Why would a CD only remove the top supports?

Crickey, if those are the kind of assumptions you make about CD, no wonder you find it so unlikely!

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If it removed the top supports just underneath the penthouse then I could see parcel collapse. to that point.


Why would a CD only remove the top supports?

Crickey, if those are the kind of assumptions you make about CD, no wonder you find it so unlikely!

QUOTE
Not really. If the demolition wave travelled downwards at more of a constant speed, then it would pull ahead initially then be overtaken.


If the demolition wave traveled at a constant free fall speed THE COLUMNS WOULD NEVER, EVER CATCH UP MUCH LESS PULL AHEAD.

Do you have a single video showing this "Fast then slow" collapse you speak of? Any? I mean something taken close up. Because the ones I've seen only show the collapse speeding up as the weight of more and more floors collect.


I'm assuming that you do know the fundamental difference between "constant speed" and "acceleration" and that you just had mental block of some sort when reading my comment.

What I am saying is that if the demolition wave travelled at, say 20ms-1 and didn't change much, it would pull ahead of the debris at first and then be overtaken as the debris accelerates well beyong 20ms-1. Any easier now?
reasonwhy
NIST working Hypothesis for WTC 7:

QUOTE
Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7 (pg 6)

If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse, including:

An Initiating Event
An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2

A Vertical Progression at the East Side of the Building
Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse

A Subsequent Horizontal Progression from the East to the West Side
Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure

Disproportionate Global Collapse
Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure
NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.



It is interesting that as of 2004 you have to take Disproportionate Collapse into design consideration in the UK:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7 (pg 6)

If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse, including:

An Initiating Event
An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2

A Vertical Progression at the East Side of the Building
Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse

A Subsequent Horizontal Progression from the East to the West Side
Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure

Disproportionate Global Collapse
Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure
NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.



It is interesting that as of 2004 you have to take Disproportionate Collapse into design consideration in the UK:

The guidance provided is in accordance with the recently amended Building Regulations and the Approved Document A (2004 edition) which means that disproportionate Collapse must be considered in the design of all buildings.

Who should attend:
This course is aimed at practising engineers who need a general introduction or update on robustness and the issues which need to be considered when designing to avoid disproportionate collapse.
metamars
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 07:44 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 06:26 PM)
QUOTE
I have never used any derogatory term with you. I have not called you a moron or a shill or said you were lying. On the other hand, I see how you try to deal with those who disagree with you. And I see the evasiveness in your responses to me thus far.

I have no use for passive aggressive pussies. If you treat me with respect I'll treat you the same. If you're trying to jump on the CT bandwagon by slipping in jabs then you're in for a surprize. Implied stupidity is saying someone is stupidity. I said from the start, If I'm going to insult someone I'll do it in a way there is no doubt. So **** YOU. Do I need to clarify that?

I noticed you completely dodged the questions I raised with typical diversions.


Don't address me in the future if you feel that way.

Yes, please clarify that. I am really at a loss to understand your position. I don't believe you can point to an instance in which I have treated you in disrespect implied or otherwise. You certainly took offense but that is your issue, not mine. You also seem to be taking the absence of disrespect and insults as an insult.

The questions you raised were not germane to our current discussion .

Lon, the gratuitous insulting of so many of the FEMA Fairy Talers is habitual. Whether it is intentional or not, I don't know, but in the end, I don't think that matters.

Of course, some of the non-FEMA Fairy Talers are also quite rude, gratuitously. Nevertheless, if you study the postings of a "Common Sense" or adoucette, you can see that it's only a matter of time before they insult any frequent poster who disagrees with them. There may be exceptions, but I can't really think of any.

I assume that you are the same Lon Waters that is a fellow member of Scholars for 911 Truth. If so...

I wrote an email to Fetzer and Jones re allowing for members of Scholars for 911 Truth to declare themselves as belong to "camps" - pro-NIST/OCT, LIHOP/MIHOP, or undecided. The reason is that we need qualified scholars to conduct a serious, two-sided debate, who can argue facts without the ad hominems, but who may be reluctant to join because they don't want to be identified as "conspiracy theorists".

Fetzer replied that they would consider it, but that was about 2 weeks or so ago, and I've heard nothing since.

If you agree with my suggestion, would you be good enough to email Fetzer and Jones and request the same.

Somehow, "debating" with gratuitous insulters who have basically nothing to offer in a quantitative way (highly desirable when discussing physics rolleyes.gif ) , and may raise an excellent point here or there but will never concede anything, even when their arguments are shown to be laughable, does not seem like a terribly good use of time.

Scholars for 911 Truth have the beginning of superior forum to this unmoderated, hmmm, how to describe it? - exercize in free speech, but it needs qualified opponents. Even here, responding to the challenges of the popes has resulted in making some of our arguments stronger, as well as the tossing of unworthy ones. On a forum with more qualified participants, we should expect a more illuminating discussion.

Speaking of their forum, do you have access to it? I've asked for it twice, and Fetzer is agreeable, but AFAIK, the guy in charge never sent me any info.
metamars
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Mar 29 2006, 11:12 PM)
WTC 1 & 2 floor construction was "light weight concrete". Yesterday I went web trawling on this to discover that instead of ordinary aggregate various other materials are used, included vermiculite. Since the report of the dust all over lower Manhattan includes "mica (including vermiculite)", it seems likely that vermiculite was used for the light weight concrete floors.

Most of the powder being blown out during the collapse of each of the towers is the light weight concrete floor. (Note that specific vendors point out that light weight concrete is not to be used in areas traversed by fork-lifts and other heavy machinery. I surmise that it powders rather easily, but is considered adequate for ordinary office flooring.)

What do you make of the documentation posted by Christophera, that shows 3,000 and 4,000 psi specs for the concrete? My impression is that 1,000 psi concrete is "light-weight", and 3-4K is about tops, i.e., "heavyweight".

I don't know a lot about concrete, so feel free to enlighten me.
metamars
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 11:25 PM)
QUOTE
Clearly there are upward arcing plumes of material.


Not in any video I have seen. care to post one, Christophera.

newton, feel free to show a video in which it is shown conclusively that large debris was thrown upwards. I am not interested in stills, I am not interested in dust plumes, I want it shown that something of substance went not horizontal but upwards WHEN it was ejected from the collapsing tower.


<< cue Final Jeopardy music >>

If you search the thread for a post of mine where I described the "fireworks", not only are there upwardly arcing ejecta, but the "fireworks" I referred to was going up, almost vertically. I probably posted a reference to the video, though I really don't remember.

This is just the sort of evidence that cries out for expert evaluation. There are similarities to the "streamers" cause by nukes, as described by our Finnish military friend, but less exotic hypotheses should be evaluated by those with relevant expertise.
Common Sense
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 29 2006, 07:24 PM)
What you guys obviously forget is that I didn't START out believing in CD, so your claim that it was a pre-determined conclusion for me is NONSENSE. And I could PROVE it was nonsense by showing the long discussion I went through where my views gradually changed from thinking CD theories raised some troubling questions to being fully convinced by them. And that transformation took several months.

This is a terribly weak attack when *I* am the one who arrived at a conclusion different from my initial instincts, whereas every single OCT is just bearing out what they've believed from day 1.

If you don't think that the guys at NIST were told "find out how the airplane damage and fires could have done" this and then went away and did that, I think you are being very naive. CD is FAR too radical, politically and morally, to have ever been on the table for a body set up and funded by the government.

QUOTE
What you guys obviously forget is that I didn't START out believing in CD


But now you "BELIEVE" in CD. Being open minded at one time doesn't make you open minded now. You have obviously been handed only one side of the argument and have changed your mind accordingly. I can tell because you don't know how to process the new information I'm giving you like the fireman's quotes.

It's a logical fallacy to say just because we concluded the NIST report is correct that we aren't open minded. Because if they are right, they are right. If Osama did it from day 1 then he did it. I'm not going to blame 3000 murders on someone who didn't do anything just to look open minded. It doesn't matter how much I hate bush and his other murderous policies.

I KNEW Bush was lying before the 2000 elections because I investigated all his campaign rhetoric. I also was skeptical of Colin Powells UN speech. Now I'm convinced he lied us into war because of the real evidence against him. People have come out all over the place saying he was going to war from day 1. So don't suggest I'm not open minded just because I conclude the NIST report is correct. I conclude it's correct because all the evidence points to it being correct. It's not romantic and it wont get me laid but it's the truth until someone brings new evidence in. Bomb fragments, a whistle blower, memo, SOMETHING other than a professor who even the civil engineers in his university say hes leaving things out of his paper.

At some point you have to go from trying to discredit a normal collapse to having evidence FOR a controlled demolition. 'It looks like one" isn't evidence.
yesitdid
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 30 2006, 03:44 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 11:25 PM)
QUOTE
Clearly there are upward arcing plumes of material.


Not in any video I have seen. care to post one, Christophera.

newton, feel free to show a video in which it is shown conclusively that large debris was thrown upwards. I am not interested in stills, I am not interested in dust plumes, I want it shown that something of substance went not horizontal but upwards WHEN it was ejected from the collapsing tower.


<< cue Final Jeopardy music >>

If you search the thread for a post of mine where I described the "fireworks", not only are there upwardly arcing ejecta, but the "fireworks" I referred to was going up, almost vertically. I probably posted a reference to the video, though I really don't remember.

This is just the sort of evidence that cries out for expert evaluation. There are similarities to the "streamers" cause by nukes, as described by our Finnish military friend, but less exotic hypotheses should be evaluated by those with relevant expertise.

metamars, that is the very same video I just posted a link to.

The "fireworks" you refer to next to the 'spire' is another column falling away. It never moves in an upward trajectory. Once again I state that in that video nothing ever moves in an upward trajectory.

You might also notice that some of the debris/dust actually moves backwards as it first is ejected from the towers and then is drawn back by the down draft of the collapsing building. Watch just after the beginning of that clip and you will see what I refer to.

I suppose you will now tell me that this is proof of a space based beam weapon being used. rolleyes.gif
Common Sense
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 29 2006, 10:06 PM)
Common sense..

QUOTE
If it removed the top supports just underneath the penthouse then I could see parcel collapse. to that point.


Why would a CD only remove the top supports?

Crickey, if those are the kind of assumptions you make about CD, no wonder you find it so unlikely!

First of all your not calling me Crickey are you? We can exchange insults if you like but that only tells me you gave up like the rest of the CTers. Second I was talking about the fires not the CD. I was responding to your post about the fire being a lot lower than the penthouse. If the fires would have been all over the top floors under the penthouse then I could see parcel collapse. But since it was on the lower floors it had more load on the column and you would predict the penthouse falling to the ground if it failed by the fire.

An insult is like sin. You either do it or you don't. The degree doesn't matter.
yesitdid
Yeah, newtonnjd, Foxx "says" he was aghast at the idea of a gov't caused death of its citizens too. Though he goes on to cite a litany of past nefarious deeds by the US gov't, many of which are debatable in their own right.

Ok, I'll take you at your word that at first you could not decide which way to go.

Then what caused you to accept the handwaving arguements for CD rather than the well developed reasonings that employed known events such as the impacts and fires.

What caused you to reject NIST from the outset if you were undecided and you did not (do not) consider NIST to have been infiltrated by,,,, nefarious forces of evil? (help me out here Christophera, is that a good description?)
Common Sense
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 29 2006, 10:28 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 07:44 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 06:26 PM)
QUOTE
I have never used any derogatory term with you. I have not called you a moron or a shill or said you were lying. On the other hand, I see how you try to deal with those who disagree with you. And I see the evasiveness in your responses to me thus far.

I have no use for passive aggressive pussies. If you treat me with respect I'll treat you the same. If you're trying to jump on the CT bandwagon by slipping in jabs then you're in for a surprize. Implied stupidity is saying someone is stupidity. I said from the start, If I'm going to insult someone I'll do it in a way there is no doubt. So **** YOU. Do I need to clarify that?

I noticed you completely dodged the questions I raised with typical diversions.


Don't address me in the future if you feel that way.

Yes, please clarify that. I am really at a loss to understand your position. I don't believe you can point to an instance in which I have treated you in disrespect implied or otherwise. You certainly took offense but that is your issue, not mine. You also seem to be taking the absence of disrespect and insults as an insult.

The questions you raised were not germane to our current discussion .

Lon, the gratuitous insulting of so many of the FEMA Fairy Talers is habitual. Whether it is intentional or not, I don't know, but in the end, I don't think that matters.

Of course, some of the non-FEMA Fairy Talers are also quite rude, gratuitously. Nevertheless, if you study the postings of a "Common Sense" or adoucette, you can see that it's only a matter of time before they insult any frequent poster who disagrees with them. There may be exceptions, but I can't really think of any.

This comming from someone who continues insulting people since day 1 by saying they believe in fairy tales. You have no credibility here. dry.gif I told you I treat people like they treat me. Fine, you can say I believe in fairy tales and I can say fu<k you you childish moron.

An insult is like sin. You either do it or you don't. The degree doesn't matter.
metamars
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 30 2006, 04:09 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 30 2006, 03:44 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 11:25 PM)
QUOTE
Clearly there are upward arcing plumes of material.


Not in any video I have seen. care to post one, Christophera.

newton, feel free to show a video in which it is shown conclusively that large debris was thrown upwards. I am not interested in stills, I am not interested in dust plumes, I want it shown that something of substance went not horizontal but upwards WHEN it was ejected from the collapsing tower.


<< cue Final Jeopardy music >>

If you search the thread for a post of mine where I described the "fireworks", not only are there upwardly arcing ejecta, but the "fireworks" I referred to was going up, almost vertically. I probably posted a reference to the video, though I really don't remember.

This is just the sort of evidence that cries out for expert evaluation. There are similarities to the "streamers" cause by nukes, as described by our Finnish military friend, but less exotic hypotheses should be evaluated by those with relevant expertise.

metamars, that is the very same video I just posted a link to.

The "fireworks" you refer to next to the 'spire' is another column falling away. It never moves in an upward trajectory. Once again I state that in that video nothing ever moves in an upward trajectory.

You might also notice that some of the debris/dust actually moves backwards as it first is ejected from the towers and then is drawn back by the down draft of the collapsing building. Watch just after the beginning of that clip and you will see what I refer to.

I suppose you will now tell me that this is proof of a space based beam weapon being used. rolleyes.gif

What is the link?
yesitdid
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 30 2006, 04:33 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 30 2006, 04:09 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 30 2006, 03:44 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 11:25 PM)
QUOTE
Clearly there are upward arcing plumes of material.


Not in any video I have seen. care to post one, Christophera.

newton, feel free to show a video in which it is shown conclusively that large debris was thrown upwards. I am not interested in stills, I am not interested in dust plumes, I want it shown that something of substance went not horizontal but upwards WHEN it was ejected from the collapsing tower.


<< cue Final Jeopardy music >>

If you search the thread for a post of mine where I described the "fireworks", not only are there upwardly arcing ejecta, but the "fireworks" I referred to was going up, almost vertically. I probably posted a reference to the video, though I really don't remember.

This is just the sort of evidence that cries out for expert evaluation. There are similarities to the "streamers" cause by nukes, as described by our Finnish military friend, but less exotic hypotheses should be evaluated by those with relevant expertise.

metamars, that is the very same video I just posted a link to.

The "fireworks" you refer to next to the 'spire' is another column falling away. It never moves in an upward trajectory. Once again I state that in that video nothing ever moves in an upward trajectory.

You might also notice that some of the debris/dust actually moves backwards as it first is ejected from the towers and then is drawn back by the down draft of the collapsing building. Watch just after the beginning of that clip and you will see what I refer to.

I suppose you will now tell me that this is proof of a space based beam weapon being used. rolleyes.gif

What is the link?

From my post on page 613 of this thread (March 29)

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Clearly there are upward arcing plumes of material.


Not in any video I have seen. care to post one, Christophera.

newton, feel free to show a video in which it is shown conclusively that large debris was thrown upwards. I am not interested in stills, I am not interested in dust plumes, I want it shown that something of substance went not horizontal but upwards WHEN it was ejected from the collapsing tower.


<< cue Final Jeopardy music >>

If you search the thread for a post of mine where I described the "fireworks", not only are there upwardly arcing ejecta, but the "fireworks" I referred to was going up, almost vertically. I probably posted a reference to the video, though I really don't remember.

This is just the sort of evidence that cries out for expert evaluation. There are similarities to the "streamers" cause by nukes, as described by our Finnish military friend, but less exotic hypotheses should be evaluated by those with relevant expertise.

metamars, that is the very same video I just posted a link to.

The "fireworks" you refer to next to the 'spire' is another column falling away. It never moves in an upward trajectory. Once again I state that in that video nothing ever moves in an upward trajectory.

You might also notice that some of the debris/dust actually moves backwards as it first is ejected from the towers and then is drawn back by the down draft of the collapsing building. Watch just after the beginning of that clip and you will see what I refer to.

I suppose you will now tell me that this is proof of a space based beam weapon being used. rolleyes.gif

What is the link?

From my post on page 613 of this thread (March 29)

Watch this video of the north tower. It is also very obvious in this video of the south tower.

Nothing goes up.


First link is a different link, but the same video
Foxx
QUOTE
by non sense

That is unless you're stupid enough to call the fireman liars...



This. from someone who rejects all statements from firemen who witnessed explosions... and tries to pass these explosions off as 'transformers' exploding... although he refuses to show any evidence that the transformers were contained in the buildings anywhere but on the mechanical floors and basement levels.

Lon Waters - you are really wasting yout time trying to have an intelligent conversation with this Schneiby-Dooby-Doo. He does not listen (or comprehend the english language)... He is "On A Mission" to attempt to 'debunk' the real conspiracy -

I guess he doesn't want his 'buddies' facing similar (or worse charges) than Abramoff. biggrin.gif

Seems to me there were some CONSPIRACY charges he went down for ? Gee, I thought (according to all these 'CT Debunkers' that there is NO SUCH THING as gov't official conspiracies? It's obvious he doesn't read, in his obfuscating posts to you, me, and all the others who have an actual handle on What IS Going ON.

He's one of those who hides his head in the sand like an ostrich --- or a monkey who puts his hands over his eyes and ears... Unfortunately, he forgot to put them over his mouth, thereby consistently exposing his foolishness.

IF the poster behind the handle "CS' ISN'T Schneibster-ooney, he's an idiotic clone who is vieing for the title of the biggest Rove-supporter here. biggrin.gif



Foxx
QUOTE
posted by newton.. (replying to CS)

it's from a video.
things are clearer in the video.

it is proof of demolition, and you're too stupid to realise it.

like a headless chicken running around the barnyard.


Man... you sure nailed 'im to a "T" biggrin.gif

You notice he tries to squawk away from the fox (running around in circles), also?

I love those photos of smoke pouring from the full south face of WTC 7... yet he refuses to explain why the west wall shows NO evidence of fires from the adjacent windows to the corner where the smoke is coming from.

No wonder he refused to co-operate in posting ALL the photos he has of the west wall to support the contention there were fires adjacent to where the smoke was originating from.

Like "Schneibster" he suffers from psychological projection --- accusing everyone else of LIES, while he realizes he is the main propagator of such.

(likewise as to his accusations of "insults" - when he is the main originator of such, and then turns around and accuses others of "insulting him" first.

Did you ever hear of the new dance being propagated by these OCT's?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
posted by newton.. (replying to CS)

it's from a video.
things are clearer in the video.

it is proof of demolition, and you're too stupid to realise it.

like a headless chicken running around the barnyard.


Man... you sure nailed 'im to a "T" biggrin.gif

You notice he tries to squawk away from the fox (running around in circles), also?

I love those photos of smoke pouring from the full south face of WTC 7... yet he refuses to explain why the west wall shows NO evidence of fires from the adjacent windows to the corner where the smoke is coming from.

No wonder he refused to co-operate in posting ALL the photos he has of the west wall to support the contention there were fires adjacent to where the smoke was originating from.

Like "Schneibster" he suffers from psychological projection --- accusing everyone else of LIES, while he realizes he is the main propagator of such.

(likewise as to his accusations of "insults" - when he is the main originator of such, and then turns around and accuses others of "insulting him" first.

Did you ever hear of the new dance being propagated by these OCT's?



"Brand new dance...

New Sensation...

Brand new dance...

Sweepin' the nation...

WANGO TANGO

WANGO TANGO

WANGO TANGO"




PS - Sorry, metamars... couldn't resist biggrin.gif

WANGO TANGO... WANGO TANGO.... WANGO TANGO...













Foxx
QUOTE
Originally posted by YID

You don't like forgone conclusions? Every single CD proponent argues from the prejudgement that the gov't caused the buildings to fall down.


A complete error in perception, YID.

'WE' DO NOT argue from an axiom that "the gov't Caused the Effects, and therefore... fit the conclusion from that perspective.

We argue that the 'Effect' certainly shows CD... and it is unreasonable to assume that the OCT fairy tale can account for rabid muslims to have Caused the Effect... therefore the ONLY OTHER plausible suspects must consist of 'insiders' (apart from Al Queda and Osama Bin Boogeyman). There is definately a 'boogeyman' here - and the cave-dwellers COULD NOT have been the perps of this aspect of the operation.

You are simply using sophistry and rhetorics again. Give it up.


Foxx
QUOTE
by lenbrazil

It’s my impression that only about 1% of the US population believes that the WTC buildings fell due to CD. That might sound too low to you CD types but that is still is a lot of people almost 3 million Americans. Let’s say 10% - 20% of them or around 300,000 – 600,000 are active to some degree posting in forums, going to meetings etc and about 10% of the activists or 30 – 60,000 are leaders who start new groups or site, lead protests, write blogs etc. The fact that only about 45,000 people voted yes on the CNN poll despite a concerted effort by the ‘9/11 truth movement’ indicates that the number of believers can’t be much higher than that. Sure attendance at meetings in big cities and college towns might lead you to believe the percentage is higher but these are places that would probably have a disproportionately high concentration of people who believe such things.


Perhaps you would like to show WHY (according to your above parameters) there is such a low percentage of people (in the segment of 'interested populace') who disagree (as you do)... with the CD thesis?





yesitdid
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 30 2006, 05:19 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by YID

You don't like forgone conclusions? Every single CD proponent argues from the prejudgement that the gov't caused the buildings to fall down.


A complete error in perception, YID.

'WE' DO NOT argue from an axiom that "the gov't Caused the Effects, and therefore... fit the conclusion from that perspective.

We argue that the 'Effect' certainly shows CD... and it is unreasonable to assume that the OCT fairy tale can account for rabid muslims to have Caused the Effect... therefore the ONLY OTHER plausible suspects must consist of 'insiders' (apart from Al Queda and Osama Bin Boogeyman). There is definately a 'boogeyman' here - and the cave-dwellers COULD NOT have been the perps of this aspect of the operation.

You are simply using sophistry and rhetorics again. Give it up.

Thank you for an example of rhetoric and hyperbole that helps prove my case.

fairy tale
rabid muslims
Osama Bin Boogeyman
'boogeyman' here - and the cave-dwellers
newton
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 11:25 PM)
QUOTE
Clearly there are upward arcing plumes of material.


Not in any video I have seen. care to post one, Christophera.

newton, feel free to show a video in which it is shown conclusively that large debris was thrown upwards. I am not interested in stills, I am not interested in dust plumes, I want it shown that something of substance went not horizontal but upwards WHEN it was ejected from the collapsing tower.


<< cue Final Jeopardy music >>

no. someone else already did that .gif. it's on the "prove there were NO BOMBS, win a million dollars" site.

this is enough from me...

user posted image

the debris i circled that is falling outside the tower is in freefall, and has been for a few storeys.

the bombs are taking out corner supports first above, and then below the freefalling debris(in about 1/30th of a second, or on the low side, 1/24th of a second).

that is it. it's game over.

no overpressure is going to cause ejecta to come out several floors below the floors that are actually collapsing. your syringe theory for accelerating air faster than freefall only works in elevator shafts, not 234,000 sq. foot open spaces.

you see, satan's food, it is just the corner that is accelerating wildly. that means that the floor pans are all shattered to a different degree on each floor that is in the process of collapsing. there is SIMPLY no way that whatever is happening inside the building can speed ahead of what's freefalling outside the building other than a timed sequence of bombs.

also, the explosion that i circled is a very localised 'puff', and not indicitative of a floor-wide event.
also, that explosion i circled is on the wall facing the camera, but, if you look beside the wall, in the air between the debris i circled, and the corner, you will see new debris being exploded out the adjacent corner.
in the next couple frames, the freefalling debris is completely swallowed by the violent explosions which are cutting the corner supports.

a no brainer. even you evil goons from the shadow government should realise that no amount of hand waving or obFUscating will change the facts (recorded and widely distributed) on that video.

i may be the first guy to actually circle some debris and put arrows, but i have only pointed out something that's been around for FOUR YRS.

and you are so quick to hand wave, that you haven't even looked at the bigger picture that is available on the video. the .gif is zoomed in to only show the relevent visual, without wasting bandwidth. in the full view, and with motion, it is even more obvious.

newtonnjd, if i don't get a chance, let me say, may god(or 2+2, if you prefer) bless you and all the scholars for truth. that goes out to all the good guys, here in the clown car, too.
yesitdid
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 30 2006, 05:23 AM)
QUOTE
by lenbrazil

It’s my impression that only about 1% of the US population believes that the WTC buildings fell due to CD. That might sound too low to you CD types but that is still is a lot of people almost 3 million Americans. Let’s say 10% - 20% of them or around 300,000 – 600,000 are active to some degree posting in forums, going to meetings etc and about 10% of the activists or 30 – 60,000 are leaders who start new groups or site, lead protests, write blogs etc. The fact that only about 45,000 people voted yes on the CNN poll despite a concerted effort by the ‘9/11 truth movement’ indicates that the number of believers can’t be much higher than that. Sure attendance at meetings in big cities and college towns might lead you to believe the percentage is higher but these are places that would probably have a disproportionately high concentration of people who believe such things.


Perhaps you would like to show WHY (according to your above parameters) there is such a low percentage of people (in the segment of 'interested populace') who disagree (as you do)... with the CD thesis?

That is an error in perception Foxx.

Most people who do not believe in CD simply go on with their lives. On occasion when they do see something about they regard it with as much interest as you would an article about slime mold. On the other hand those who, like you, believe in CD of the WTC structures tend to be vocal and strident about it. Therefore if a poll is done on the interest in this subject, especially one that demands that a person seek out the poll, it will be predominantly believers in CD that respond.

That is one reason that web polls are not reliable.
yesitdid
I should note that the poll was not about controlled demolition, disappearing planes, nukes or thermite.

The question was whether or not people believed that the gov't was covering up something(ie. anything) concerning the 9/11 attacks. Hell, the way that poll was worded I would have to have voted "yes". I believe that at least, a lot of incompetance at very high levels was covered up.

Claiming that this poll has 84% of respondants agreeing with the CD theory is plain wrong.

Loved the movie,,,,,,,
user posted image
yesitdid
QUOTE
the debris i circled that is falling outside the tower is in freefall, and has been for a few storeys.

the bombs are taking out corner supports first above, and then below the freefalling debris(in about 1/30th of a second, or on the low side, 1/24th of a second).


You ascribe a lot to a grainy blow up of a shaky video.

What you have circled could just as easily be a dark spot in the smoke.

Last time you posted the video and said it was more obvious there I had trouble even determining where in the video this blow up comes from, and I never did see a 'more obvious' faster than free fall event.

You are so focused on seeing what you want to see that you will jump on anything.
Lon Waters
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 30 2006, 03:28 AM)
Lon, the gratuitous insulting of so many of the FEMA Fairy Talers is habitual. Whether it is intentional or not, I don't know, but in the end, I don't think that matters.

Of course, some of the non-FEMA Fairy Talers are also quite rude, gratuitously. Nevertheless,  if you study the postings of a "Common Sense" or adoucette, you can see that it's only a matter of time before they insult any frequent poster who disagrees with them.  There may be exceptions, but I can't really think of any.

I assume that you are the same Lon Waters that is a fellow member of Scholars for 911 Truth. If so...

I wrote an email to Fetzer and Jones re allowing for members of Scholars for 911 Truth to declare themselves as belong to "camps" - pro-NIST/OCT, LIHOP/MIHOP, or undecided. The reason is that we need qualified scholars to conduct a serious, two-sided debate, who can argue facts without the ad hominems, but who may be reluctant to join because they don't want to be identified as "conspiracy theorists".

Fetzer replied that they would consider it, but that was about 2 weeks or so ago, and I've heard nothing since.

If you agree with my suggestion, would you be good enough to email Fetzer and Jones and request the same.

Somehow, "debating" with gratuitous insulters who have basically nothing to offer in a quantitative way (highly desirable when discussing physics  rolleyes.gif  ) ,  and may raise an excellent point here or there but will never concede anything, even when their arguments are shown to be laughable, does not seem like a terribly good use of time.

Scholars for 911 Truth have the beginning of superior forum to this unmoderated, hmmm, how to describe it? - exercize in free speech, but it needs qualified opponents. Even here, responding to the challenges of the popes has resulted in making some of our arguments stronger, as well as the tossing of unworthy ones. On a forum with more qualified participants, we should expect a more illuminating discussion.

Speaking of their forum, do you have access to it? I've asked for it twice, and Fetzer is agreeable, but AFAIK, the guy in charge never sent me any info.

Metamars,

Thanks for this. Regarding the st911 forum, I do have access to it but only just got it recently. A section of the forum is now starting for guests with opposing viewpoints invited to engage in civilized debate. I think you need to be a part of this. I encourage you to keep contacting the forum administrator and/or Jim Fetzer until you get access. You will find the board a refreshing alternative to the physorg forum, viewpoints are challenged as they need to be but the discussion is civil and reasoned.

Lon
reasonwhy
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 09:47 PM)
I should note that the poll was not about controlled demolition, disappearing planes, nukes or thermite.

The question was whether or not people believed that the gov't was covering up something(ie. anything) concerning the 9/11 attacks. Hell, the way that poll was worded I would have to have voted "yes". I believe that at least, a lot of incompetance at very high levels was covered up.

Claiming that this poll has 84% of respondants agreeing with the CD theory is plain wrong.

Did someone on this forum make that claim?

reasonwhy
This must be were Common Sence / Schneibster (Dave) work when not spamming this forum:

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...ndpost&p=796671

Who else would refer to a Common Sense post as a perspectives based on physics and insult people by claiming they work for Rove.

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...ndpost&p=796941

I don’t think there are that many shill's ,just quite a few sock puppets and user names. I have noticed one of the most common shill tactics is to try to make people feel they are in the minority.
Christophera
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 11:25 PM)

QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 29 2006, 10:30 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 29 2006, 07:06 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 02:02 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 28 2006, 10:13 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Mar 28 2006, 09:34 PM)
It is obvious still, that newtonjd has not bothered to read the NIST prelim report on WTC7. Despite this he seems to believe that he knows all about its construction and how it collapsed.

How is it that despite the fact that NIST, using some of the country's best engineers, could not arrive at as exact a senario for the collapse of #7 as newtonnjd?


Why would a serious researcher read anything that did not start with a credible explanation of free fall?

Our government has been infiltrated and there is no point on depending on them for valid information.

No building fell at free fall rate on 9/11.

The possible explanations of the collapse of #7 come at the end of the report(obviously you haven't read it either) after explaining how the building was constructed and the damage and fires observed.

Why would anyone read anything that starts with a conclusion before setting out a background upon which to base a conclusion? Coming to a conclusion first is dishonest and prejudicial in the extreme.


yesitdid wrote.
Coming to a conclusion first is dishonest and prejudicial in the extreme.

Consider that the material going up in the below image showing material being blown upwards.

user posted image

The distance travelled upwards must be added to the distance of the tower falling because material going up must still fall down. When this is done the towers fell faster than free fall.

I did some simple thinking and then I came to a conclusion. You are wrong.

If one looks at the video it is obvious that material is ejected with only horizontally while the building collapses. As the collapse ensues the lighter dust which does get affected by air resistance lags behind and falls slower than larger pieces.

Using stills is deceiving since the only motion visible is that of the debris and one does not see that the collapse is progressing. Thus , if this were a photo of a surface level explosion it would represent a large upward travel since the surface would not also be moving downward, but the lighter debris was ejected at a level close to where it is at the time the picture was taken but the building has moved downward and the lighter debris and dust that still hangs behind the ejected debris gets drawn down by the tower's dropping. This creates the illusion of a steep parabolic trajectory.

Watch this video of the north tower. It is also very obvious in this video of the south tower.

Nothing goes up.

You do prove that you do "simple thinking".

Your mind is playing tricks on you.

Be assured, your video makes it conclusively so.

The building is going DOWN because it is being blown UP. Clearly there are upward arcing plumes of material.

QUOTE
Clearly there are upward arcing plumes of material.


Not in any video I have seen. care to post one, Christophera.

newton, feel free to show a video in which it is shown conclusively that large debris was thrown upwards. I am not interested in stills, I am not interested in dust plumes, I want it shown that something of substance went not horizontal but upwards WHEN it was ejected from the collapsing tower.


<< cue Final Jeopardy music >>



I noticed you got rid of the rest of my comment and the links to the video you posted that showed huge arcs of upwardly traveling particulates. Well, .......... I brought it back to demonstrate your problem.

Got Integrity?
Foxx
QUOTE
by Yid

Most people who do not believe in CD simply go on with their lives. On occasion when they do see something about they regard it with as much interest as you would an article about slime mold. On the other hand those who, like you, believe in CD of the WTC structures tend to be vocal and strident about it. Therefore if a poll is done on the interest in this subject, especially one that demands that a person seek out the poll, it will be predominantly believers in CD that respond.

That is one reason that web polls are not reliable.


Amazing semantics and sophistry, YID - I gotta admit you are GOOD in those areas.

"Most people who do not believe in CD simply go on with their lives."

Wrong.

'MOST PEOPLE' are completely unaware that this discussion is ongoing, and have no concept of the parameters of the discussion. It is not a case of 'most people' do not believe in CD --- it's a case of they have never heard about it ... (due to MSM censorship of the discussion). Do you actually believe that IF the majority of the population was made aware of the 'arguements' being carried on here (and numerous other places on the web) that THAT 'great unwashed' would agree with YOU and other obfuscators?

IF so... you are dreaming (and seeing the emperors nice new clothes).

MOST People who research the questions proposed in threads like this ... even though they have no pre-conceived notions (like I, and many others. who began investigating these events) will soon come to a rational common sense conclusion that the official fairy tale does NOT stand up to the light of day. Those like you, who post for years on these threads trying to refute the 'evidence' and refuse to open your eyes are in a serious minority --- as is shown by the poll.

Just as the 'CTer's enlist 'support' and opinion on these polls... SO DOES YOUR SIDE.

Nevertheless, it is obvious from the stats, that your side has FAILED to convince the majority of your sophist Bullsh1t.

The '9/11 debunking sites' do not provide valid evidence to support their position to the vast majority of those who objectively investigate ALL the parameters and factors.

I hate to tell you, but you are wearing rove-colored glasses, and are in for a rude awakening.

The REAL PROBLEM is what happens... when the great unwashed wakes up to reality?

Personally, I think this is one of the 'problems' MSM has in addressing the problem. This is a HUGE transformation in perception. Who THEN do we 'depend upon' to keep us from descending into anarchy?


IF this issue was as banal as the science related to 'slime mold', I wouldn't concern myself with it.

If YOU feel it is comparable to such science... WHY do YOU spend so much time trying to 'refute' it?






Lon Waters
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 30 2006, 05:13 AM)
Lon Waters - you are really wasting yout time trying to have an intelligent conversation with this Schneiby-Dooby-Doo. He does not listen (or comprehend the english language)... He is "On A Mission" to attempt to 'debunk' the real conspiracy -

I guess he doesn't want his 'buddies' facing similar (or worse charges) than Abramoff. biggrin.gif

It's okay, I had some time to waste. In actual fact, I don't really think it is a waste of time. The situation I recently faced was really quite minor, or at least should have been. I made a very small and selective, but irrefutable point on an issue that would not ultimately weigh in very heavily on the CD argument even if Silverstein did mean demolition when he said "pull it". Even in that case, we'd still have to show that CD is the more reasonable hypothesis by all of the other means available to us. However, it is illustrative that no matter how one approaches even such small points, there seems to be absolutely no concession that can be given. And, as we have all seen too often, they seem to thrive when they can draw you out into an insult trading match.
Foxx
QUOTE
originally posted by Lon Waters

However, it is illustrative that no matter how one approaches even such small points, there seems to be absolutely no concession that can be given. And, as we have all seen too often, the opposition seems to thrive when they can draw you out into an insult trading match.



Yep - it's an obfuscating tactic.

Insult others (whilst claiming that 'You' are 'justified' in insulting others because 'you' were insulted first) --- The childishness of CS is exposed.

Anyone can check back and find out who the 'first insulters' were.

Andrew Johnson first started this thread with utter respect and patience for those with differing opinions... and was immediately attacked by the "Schneib" with numerous demeaning accusations.

The OCT's make continual references that They were 'insulted' FIRST, but that is clearly shown NOT to be the case to anyone who starts at the beginning of this thread and follows it through --- the OCT's have used insults as a tactic right from the beginning of this thread... (as well as all other threads related to 9/11 issues.)


One of the primary laws of the Lord is...

"Do unto others, as you would expect them to do unto you".

The OCT's subvert this law by claiming 'pope-ishly' that others insulted them first (although it is easily shown by the history of this thread WHO started the 'insults'... and I'll call him by name... the "Schneibster" ...

aka - the 'OCT' promoters).





Rational observers / skulkers will easily see this ...(just as I did when I was a silent 'skulker')






newton
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 30 2006, 06:50 AM)
And, as we have all seen too often, they seem to thrive when they can draw you out into an insult trading match.

they have no emotions, no empathy, especially.
just like psychopaths. no empathy.

they just use tactics from the infowar foot soldier handbook. ad hominem is high on the list of effective 'extermination' tools. ridicule with smileys is highly valued. the bandwagon technique is very popular. and, there was an attempt at the delphi technique, earlier on in the thread. a poor attempt, LOL!
i'd rather hang out in nicer places than the 'basic physics' thread, but the fact is, the public must be protected from the silvertongued lies of the shadow government.
anyway, i love them all, regardless. i guess i was a little brainwashed by what the bible says jesus said. oops. probably lose my head, someday, over it. oh, well.

peace and much love, you evil morons. may god forgive you(or, alternatively, may satan be famished, and finish you in one bite).

i don't know how these guys can live with themselves, covering up a mass murder of their own neighbors by a cabal of pyramid schemers. what's that worth, shills? a new car? a house?

idiots.

Rove's shill
QUOTE (newton+Mar 30 2006, 07:20 AM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 30 2006, 06:50 AM)
And, as we have all seen too often, they seem to thrive when they can draw you out into an insult trading match.

they have no emotions, no empathy, especially.
just like psychopaths. no empathy.

they just use tactics from the infowar foot soldier handbook. ad hominem is high on the list of effective 'extermination' tools. ridicule with smileys is highly valued. the bandwagon technique is very popular. and, there was an attempt at the delphi technique, earlier on in the thread. a poor attempt, LOL!
i'd rather hang out in nicer places than the 'basic physics' thread, but the fact is, the public must be protected from the silvertongued lies of the shadow government.
anyway, i love them all, regardless. i guess i was a little brainwashed by what the bible says jesus said. oops. probably lose my head, someday, over it. oh, well.

peace and much love, you evil morons. may god forgive you(or, alternatively, may satan be famished, and finish you in one bite).

i don't know how these guys can live with themselves, covering up a mass murder of their own neighbors by a cabal of pyramid schemers. what's that worth, shills? a new car? a house?

idiots.

Hey all, gone for awhile. Good to see newtonnjd and lon make it thru the 'babtism of fire' Stand fast boys, you KNOW the truth, but I didn't have to tell you that.
The more these guys try to pistol whip you with their 'truth' the more it implies guilt. I'm sure you've deduced this already, also.

Nobody can take the as*beatings these guys have taken and still be back everyday for more, if they weren't compensated in some way. These guys are paid COWARDS and TRAITORS. How is that for passive agressive CSpam?

These as8holes will dance around every direct question you hit them with. Why? Because they have to, they can't give an inch, and that is what reveals them to all.

Anybody who sees the WTC 7 collapse correlated to other CD's can see the similarities, even these screen names we debate. They are here to suppress, confuse, dimiss, deny, divert using any means possible. Period.

The ways they try and get you to doubt yourself, are just more tactics.

I agree with Metamars and others, that this thread has sharpened alot of the arguments for me, but wish there were more worthy opponents. These dicks are like the people you meet at the bar on New Years Eve. Amateurs
lenbrazil
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 30 2006, 06:01 AM)
Regarding the st911 forum, I do have access to it but only just got it recently. A section of the forum is now starting for guests with opposing viewpoints invited to engage in civilized debate. I think you need to be a part of this. I encourage you to keep contacting the forum administrator and/or Jim Fetzer until you get access. You will find the board a refreshing alternative to the physorg forum, viewpoints are challenged as they need to be but the discussion is civil and reasoned.

Lon


I couldn't find any mention of the forum on the site. I guess it's one of those "walled garden" forums that Fetzer is infamous for preferring where only view points corresponding to the moderators are allowed.

I seriously doubt any forum run by Fetzer could anyway be balanced: he recently referred to people who disagree with his POV on 9/11 as "anal apertures", he is known for lashing out anyone who disagrees with him. and he even once compared me to Hitler because I disputed his account of the Wellstone crash

You guys complain that Arthur and Common Sense lash out at those that disagree with them but it's a 2 way street, you guys regularly refer to those of us who disagree with your views as being stupid or dupes or shills for PNAC etc. The two posts above this one are examples of what I'm refering to.

I guess you find one sided debate refreshing.
JamesX
Audio file of interview with David Ray Griffin on KPFA

In this interview, Dr. Griffin focuses on the eyewitness testimony from the WTC.
Common Sense
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 30 2006, 12:13 AM)
QUOTE
by non sense

That is unless you're stupid enough to call the fireman liars...



This. from someone who rejects all statements from firemen who witnessed explosions... and tries to pass these explosions off as 'transformers' exploding... although he refuses to show any evidence that the transformers were contained in the buildings anywhere but on the mechanical floors and basement levels.

Lon Waters - you are really wasting yout time trying to have an intelligent conversation with this Schneiby-Dooby-Doo. He does not listen (or comprehend the english language)... He is "On A Mission" to attempt to 'debunk' the real conspiracy -

I guess he doesn't want his 'buddies' facing similar (or worse charges) than Abramoff. biggrin.gif

Seems to me there were some CONSPIRACY charges he went down for ? Gee, I thought (according to all these 'CT Debunkers' that there is NO SUCH THING as gov't official conspiracies? It's obvious he doesn't read, in his obfuscating posts to you, me, and all the others who have an actual handle on What IS Going ON.

He's one of those who hides his head in the sand like an ostrich --- or a monkey who puts his hands over his eyes and ears... Unfortunately, he forgot to put them over his mouth, thereby consistently exposing his foolishness.

IF the poster behind the handle "CS' ISN'T Schneibster-ooney, he's an idiotic clone who is vieing for the title of the biggest Rove-supporter here. biggrin.gif

YOU'RE LYING AGAIN FOXX, I NEVER rejected the fireman saying they heard Explosions. I POINTED OUT Conspiracy sites LIE about them...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/quotes.htm

Quotes:

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

This was one of those quotes taken out of context I told you about. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context part...

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt

Let me guess why they left that important part out..

“t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDN'T FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.

THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.

Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?

A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.

Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN I SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110035.PDF

First, notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse of this odd combination.

“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers

there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...IC/Cruthers.txt

And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to be an EXPLOSION... blink.gif

"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.” --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski

Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110202.PDF

And here is the outright LIE...

“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen

Note where these lairs put the "...."

Now for the REAL quote...

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110505.PDF

With that alone I should rest my case. wink.gif These CT sites are dishonest.

Here is the other lie, they split up these quote to make it seem like there are more than hey really are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera and Stephen Gregory split up as if there are different accounts. They are the same account. What other reason would they have for splitting them up???

“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore


MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.

GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "ITS BLOWING".


I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDN'T KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING

SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.

It's time to see a transformer explosion.

http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electri...ormer-Explosion

All these buildings had transformers.

SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF

“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.” -- Captain Jay Swithers

When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see who was yelling "run".

At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.

But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110172.PDF

First he heard the rumble. Not the so called "Explosion" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.

Fire officer Paul Isaac Jr. asserted that 9-11 was an inside job last September 11 at ground zero where mourners and protesters were gathered; “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too”, said Isaac.

"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac

Paul Isaac never said anything of the kind. Another CT deception.
Common Sense
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 30 2006, 12:16 AM)
PS - Sorry, metamars... couldn't resist biggrin.gif

Couldn't because that's all you have. Character assassination and LAME jokes in the face of evidence. Don't think I haven't noticed how once again I provide evidence which is clear and unambiguous then all of a sudden people like Newtesticle insult me to change the topic back to me. Then the boys gang up on me for defending myself. It's become a clear sign of you're sides frustration with facts. The hypocrisy of pointing out my insults which are retaliatory without hand slapping others for starting it is as old as it is telling. I wait for with much anticipation. wink.gif

But I'm not going to let you get away from the facts. I'm going to stay on target...


Lets review the evidence on Building 7...

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

9) Lots of white smoke against the building indicating fuel and oxygen rich fires.

What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large whole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

4) Any sign of an actual explosive.
yesitdid
Christophera, I posted those links twice. I have never 'gotten rid' of them.

Still there.
Got sight??
shagster
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 29 2006, 04:17 AM)
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Brigadier Gen. Benton K Partins analysis of the Murrah building before introducing that as a comparative example of 'Progressive Disproportionate Progressive Collapse' on THIS thread... ???

http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/...ns_analysis.htm


I've seen some of Partin's arguments before. He has taken the stance that the federal government blew up Murrah, although not many in the professional community agree with his argument. He also contends that that federal agents were shooting people trying to escape the Waco compound during the fire, based on what turned out to be sun glint seen by aerial cameras (at least 3 independent research groups, some outside the U.S., concluded it was sun glint).

Partin's contention that the federal government used controlled demolition to assist the truck bomb at Murrah is basically the same as contentions that CD assisted the aircraft strikes at the WTC. He would have been expected to take a similar stance on 911. However, it's curious that Partin refutes CD theories about the WTC and Pentagon and even gets upset about them.

The Waco and Murrah incidents happened during the Clinton administration, yet he's defensive about the federal government when it comes to 911 which happened during another administration. It makes one question whether he has a political idealogy that affects the way he interprets events. Partin has been approached by 911 CD advocates to get him on their side but has refused. Partin contributed to this site that refutes claims of CD on 911:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publi...nter_1253.shtml

"The claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat to cause the building to collapse are nonsense," Partin told THE NEW AMERICAN. "Steel doesn't have to 'melt' as some of these people claim. The yield strength of steel drops very dramatically under heat, and the impact of the airliners would have severely impacted the support columns. When they could no longer support the upper stories and the top started coming down, the dynamic loading caused a very rapid collapse, or 'pancaking,' that would have very nearly approached free-fall rate. No demolition charges were needed to accomplish this."

"General Partin, an Air Force Command Pilot, sums up the case for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: "The alternative explanations just get crazier and crazier. In addition to the physical evidence and the photographic evidence supporting the official story, there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses including many people I know personally who saw the 757. Besides that, there are the light poles that were knocked down which I saw personally and which are in the photographic record that can't be accounted for by a missile or small jet wingspan. Then you have the Flight 77 victim remains and the black boxes. If you reject all of that, then you have to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened to Flight 77. I've seen the alternative explanations and they're absurd!""
Common Sense
User posted image

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/otis.jpg

What's figure 4 fauxtopher... What's that... That's just one of MANY transformers in the building. I told you foxx. I don't lie because I don't need to. Only you seem to NEED to lie.

Just use your head. There is NO way that much 110 electricity could go all the way to the 110th floor without losing mondo on the way. That's why there is a transformer in just about every block in every city in the country. The building I work in has a large transformer outside the building and another vault in the building. There is yet another in the office which the fire chief said could take the whole office out if it didn't have ventilation and over heated. It's about the size of that trans in the photo.

Use your head faux-topher.
brian
Contrast and compare -

Admiral Nelson - at the Battle of Copenhagen held his telescope to his blind eye, saying, “I see no ships” before he disobeyed orders to retreat, going on to win the battle.

NIST - with eyes and ears fully functional proclaimed - we saw no evidence of explosives.

Heroes aint what they used to be eh.

Explosive testimony.


Audio file of interview with David Ray Griffin on KPFA

http://www.911blogger.com/files/audio/Grif...329-Wed1300.mp3

reasonwhy
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 30 2006, 06:19 AM)
User posted image

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/otis.jpg

What's figure 4 fauxtopher... What's that... That's just one of MANY transformers in the building. I told you foxx. I don't lie because I don't need to. Only you seem to NEED to lie.

Just use your head. There is NO way that much 110 electricity could go all the way to the 110th floor without losing mondo on the way. That's why there is a transformer in just about every block in every city in the country. The building I work in has a large transformer outside the building and another vault in the building. There is yet another in the office which the fire chief said could take the whole office out if it didn't have ventilation and over heated. It's about the size of that trans in the photo.

Use your head faux-topher.


What causes the explosion in your indoor transformers?

QUOTE
  Large transformers to be used indoors must use a nonflammable liquid or be Dry Type, ie, having no fluid.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_oil

The honest debunker uses an outdoor transformer for an example.
lenbrazil
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 30 2006, 06:35 AM)
QUOTE
by Yid

Most people who do not believe in CD simply go on with their lives. On occasion when they do see something about they regard it with as much interest as you would an article about slime mold. On the other hand those who, like you, believe in CD of the WTC structures tend to be vocal and strident about it. Therefore if a poll is done on the interest in this subject, especially one that demands that a person seek out the poll, it will be predominantly believers in CD that respond.

That is one reason that web polls are not reliable.


Amazing semantics and sophistry, YID - I gotta admit you are GOOD in those areas.

"Most people who do not believe in CD simply go on with their lives."

Wrong.

'MOST PEOPLE' are completely unaware that this discussion is ongoing, and have no concept of the parameters of the discussion. It is not a case of 'most people' do not believe in CD --- it's a case of they have never heard about it ... (due to MSM censorship of the discussion).

[...]

LOL Foxx it seems can’t go more than two posts without using the words ‘semantics’, ‘sophistry’ or ‘rhetoric’. Funny because I’m not even sure he knows what they mean. Call it what you like but YID is correct the vast majority (99% ?) of Americans believe that the Twin Towers fell because they were hit by planes. You can claim that the vast majority of people who have examined the issue objectively support your POV, but there are two problems with this claim 1) it’s a case of “special pleading” because you can conveniently claim that those who don’t support your view aren’t objective* 2) there is no objective evidence that it’s true – even here the split is about 50/50 and there are forums where only a minority believe the WTC CD theory.

He is also correct that most people who believe the “OCT” go on with their lives while those who believe Bush and the PNAC were behind 9/11 are more likely “to be vocal and strident about it”. When I lived in the US I was politically active: I was an ACLU organizer, I protested against the 1st Gulf War etc. If I believed the WTC was demo’d and was still stateside I would be very active about it – probably more so that the CD supporters on this forum.

None of my friends in the US or Brazil (90% of whom are left of center) believe in CD. They’ve heard the theories but they couldn’t be bothered to participate in forums and ask me why I waste my time doing so. I participate in JFK research forums where over 95% of the posters believe the MIC/PTB was behind the assassination of JFK and almost as many think they were behind the murders of RFK, MLK and Malcolm X and attempts on Reagan and Wallace. These definitely are not people who “wear Rove colored glasses” but very few of them believe the Towers were demo’d. They might post a message or two on a forum they are silent

Nor is it realistic to say that most people are unaware the debate exists, The CTs have been reported on CNN, CNBC, The New York Times, UPI, The Christian Science Monitor, Popular Mechanics, Scientific America, the Miami Herald, LA Times, Boston Herald major newspapers in Salt Lake City, Las Vegas and Pittsburg, The CBS affiliate in Salt Lake City, New York magazine, the Village Voice, the New York Press, The Nation, Z-Net, The Washington Post, the Washington Time, the CBC (Canada’s biggest TV network) and probably many more media outlets as well as thousands of websites, blogs and forums and several best selling books. Yeah you’re right Foxx your theories have been subject to a total media black out.

The situation is analogous to the debate over gun control. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Americans support gun control esp. when it come to automatic weapons, “cop killer” bullets, silencers etc, but the minority that opposes any restrictions on gun sales is more vocal and active. They are more likely to donate their money, participate in events, join organizations and vote on this single issue etc, in other words the gun nuts make noise far disproportionate to their numbers. For this reason it’s difficult to pass effective gun control legislation in the US. The MIHOP/CD theorists also make noise far disproportionate to their numbers.

So Foxx tell us what percentage of the population do you think believes in CD?

*This is an example of circular logic, you guys are argue that anybody who looks at all the data objectively supports your theory, thus anybody who studies 9/11 and disagrees with you is either stupid, biased, blinded by Rove or a PNAC shill/paid disinfo agent. I know not all CD proponents think that way but many, perhaps most do.
lenbrazil
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 30 2006, 02:10 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 29 2006, 04:17 AM)
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Brigadier Gen. Benton K Partins analysis of the Murrah building before introducing that as a comparative example of 'Progressive Disproportionate Progressive Collapse' on THIS thread... ???

http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/...ns_analysis.htm


I've seen some of Partin's arguments before. He has taken the stance that the federal government blew up Murrah, although not many in the professional community agree with his argument. He also contends that that federal agents were shooting people trying to escape the Waco compound during the fire, based on what turned out to be sun glint seen by aerial cameras (at least 3 independent research groups, some outside the U.S., concluded it was sun glint).

Partin's contention that the federal government used controlled demolition to assist the truck bomb at Murrah is basically the same as contentions that CD assisted the aircraft strikes at the WTC. He would have been expected to take a similar stance on 911. However, it's curious that Partin refutes CD theories about the WTC and Pentagon and even gets upset about them.

The Waco and Murrah incidents happened during the Clinton administration, yet he's defensive about the federal government when it comes to 911 which happened during another administration. It makes one question whether he has a political idealogy that affects the way he interprets events. Partin has been approached by 911 CD advocates to get him on their side but has refused. Partin contributed to this site that refutes claims of CD on 911:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publi...nter_1253.shtml

"The claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat to cause the building to collapse are nonsense," Partin told THE NEW AMERICAN. "Steel doesn't have to 'melt' as some of these people claim. The yield strength of steel drops very dramatically under heat, and the impact of the airliners would have severely impacted the support columns. When they could no longer support the upper stories and the top started coming down, the dynamic loading caused a very rapid collapse, or 'pancaking,' that would have very nearly approached free-fall rate. No demolition charges were needed to accomplish this."

"General Partin, an Air Force Command Pilot, sums up the case for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: "The alternative explanations just get crazier and crazier. In addition to the physical evidence and the photographic evidence supporting the official story, there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses including many people I know personally who saw the 757. Besides that, there are the light poles that were knocked down which I saw personally and which are in the photographic record that can't be accounted for by a missile or small jet wingspan. Then you have the Flight 77 victim remains and the black boxes. If you reject all of that, then you have to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened to Flight 77. I've seen the alternative explanations and they're absurd!""

Josiah Thompson who was the lead investigator for McVeigh's defense team calls OKC CTs "rubbish". He was one of the first prople to question the Warren Commision's conclusion that LHO alone killed JFK and still believes that multiple shooters were involved. He is also a veteran of the elite USN "Underwater Demolition Team".
Temp
"Call it what you like but YID is correct the vast majority (99% ?) of Americans believe that the Twin Towers fell because they were hit by planes"

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html

http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.ph...b17257b2ed9a66f
Christophera
QUOTE (brian+Mar 30 2006, 02:25 PM)
Contrast and compare -

Admiral Nelson - at the Battle of Copenhagen held his telescope to his blind eye, saying, “I see no ships” before he disobeyed orders to retreat, going on to win the battle.

NIST - with eyes and ears fully functional proclaimed - we saw no evidence of explosives.

Heroes aint what they used to be eh.

Explosive testimony.


Audio file of interview with David Ray Griffin on KPFA

http://www.911blogger.com/files/audio/Grif...329-Wed1300.mp3

QUOTE
NIST - with eyes and ears fully functional proclaimed - we saw no evidence of explosives.


Then proceeded to go into battle in aid of the destruction of the rights and freedoms that existed in the pitiful US democracy still remaining after a stolen election.
yesitdid
QUOTE (Temp+Mar 30 2006, 04:41 PM)
"Call it what you like but YID is correct the vast majority (99% ?) of Americans believe that the Twin Towers fell because they were hit by planes"

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html

http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.ph...b17257b2ed9a66f

The CNN poll does not ask whether or not the respondant believees that planes brought down the towers. It asks if there is any cover up at all.

The "Let's roll" poll disparages one of the choices with
" 911 was carried out by Usama and his 19 Cave Dwelling Templar Terrorists".

So in one poll no one can say that this is supportive of the CD theory and in the other one choice has been poisoned by the person constructing the poll. It is patently obvious which way the person devising this poll wants the results to go. Hardly an unbiased poll.

Further to this they are both polls in which one has to actively seek the poll and it is quite obvious that one side is more strident than the other and its believers will simply be more prone to seek out such a poll and vote. Add to this the ease at which anyone can vote multiple times in either poll and any results get skewed.
lenbrazil
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 30 2006, 02:31 AM)
len, perhaps you missed my last post on this subject:

QUOTE
What you guys obviously forget is that I didn't START out believing in CD, so your claim that it was a pre-determined conclusion for me is NONSENSE. And I could PROVE it was nonsense by showing the long discussion I went through where my views gradually changed from thinking CD theories raised some troubling questions to being fully convinced by them. And that transformation took several months.

This is a terribly weak attack when *I* am the one who arrived at a conclusion different from my initial instincts, whereas every single OCT is just bearing out what they've believed from day 1.

If you don't think that the guys at NIST were told "find out how the airplane damage and fires could have done" this and then went away and did that, I think you are being very naive. CD is FAR too radical, politically and morally, to have ever been on the table for a body set up and funded by the government.


Before pointing out what you perceive as irony, you need to address this. I did NOT start with a pre-determined conclusion. I progressed to my current conclusion gradually, at one stage with each side pulling on me with equal strength. This is completely the opposite situation to the OCTs who have had the same conclusion since day 1.

Accusing me of a pre-determined conclusion is NONSENSE and a completely feeble attempt to shield those who really did have an inbuilt belief and worked backwards from that.

When did I ever say that YOU started with a preconceived notion? I said that the sights that you looked at did.

That you used to believe the OCT proves little how does that line go about "converts make the strongest believers". Many of the neo-cons were progressives in the 60's, does that make their currant beliefs more valid? It shows that you are or were more open minded than most CTists who probably started blaming Bush for planing 9/11 before 2 WTC fell.

How do you know that there aren't people who used to believe the CTs who now reject them: a friend's husband used to believe them but (largely due to my influence) changed his mind, CS says that people told him his site changed their minds. The fact that we didn't change our minds proves little as well, someone who was right to begin with doesn't have to change his mind

The NIST and FEMA reports were gov't sponsored but the NIST panel included outside consultants, most of the ASCE BPS team were independent as were the numerous engineers who wrote various papers and articles and the still more who reviewed them. The fact that not a single qualified expert from anywhere in the world supports your theories should tell you something. You say the collapses violate the laws of physics then all those engineer must be complete idiots because you know more than they do!

BTW - What is your technical background? If you presume to understand the WTC collapses better that all the honest civil engineers who studied them, then it would be interesting to know your qualifications to hold such a belief.

And now that I have your attention you said that the supporters of the "OCT" haven't proven that asymmetrically damaged buildings can collapse symmetrically or that 1,2 & 7 WTC could have fallen as fast as they did. But your camp hasn't provided any evidence that they can't, photos of buildings tipped over by earthquakes don't help your case. Since no high-rise was ever hit by a jetliner the way the Twin Towers were and few buildings suffered as much damage from falling debris as 7 was it not like there are precedents for comparison. You also seem to misunderstand how things can be proved. The collapses fit computer and theoretical models. The Theory of Evolution can't be proven does that make creationism legitimate? Before the first a-bomb test the scientist of the Manhattan Project couldn't prove it would work but they were very certain that it would.

So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically?
lenbrazil
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 30 2006, 06:03 PM)
QUOTE (Temp+Mar 30 2006, 04:41 PM)
"Call it what you like but YID is correct the vast majority (99% ?) of Americans believe that the Twin Towers fell because they were hit by planes"

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html

http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.ph...b17257b2ed9a66f

The CNN poll does not ask whether or not the respondant believees that planes brought down the towers. It asks if there is any cover up at all.

The "Let's roll" poll disparages one of the choices with
" 911 was carried out by Usama and his 19 Cave Dwelling Templar Terrorists".

So in one poll no one can say that this is supportive of the CD theory and in the other one choice has been poisoned by the person constructing the poll. It is patently obvious which way the person devising this poll wants the results to go. Hardly an unbiased poll.

Further to this they are both polls in which one has to actively seek the poll and it is quite obvious that one side is more strident than the other and its believers will simply be more prone to seek out such a poll and vote. Add to this the ease at which anyone can vote multiple times in either poll and any results get skewed.

How many times do we have to go over this? Internet polls are totally unscientific.
yesitdid
There are about 30 people who work at the building I do. Everyone of them knows that there are people who believe that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives. Not one of them believes it themselves. Everytime I mention that I post on the subject they automatically assume that i do believe that the buildings were brought down by the gov't. When I explain that , no I am on the other side of the subject they usually ask why I bother. Indeed Foxx has asked me that very question himself.

I explain that I cannot stand to have idiocy promulgated and try to make sure that lies and misrepresentations are exposed.

Seems that 0% of the 30 people I work with then believe that there was any gov't complicity in the destruction of the WTC buildings.

Personally I know of ONE person who does.

So my own personal, informal poll would have about 1% supporting the idea that the buildings were brought down by CD. That , people, is as good and scientific a poll as either of the above.
yesitdid
QUOTE
How many times do we have to go over this? Internet polls are totally unscientific.


I would not be telling you anything you did not already know by saying that the non-believers in the official history of 9/11 will twist any and all they can to attempt to back their claims.

Witness the idea that 9/11 was carried out in order to invade Iraq.

(but lets do Afghanistan first and blame OBL first and only look to manufacture ways to implicate Saddam Hussein after Afghanistan,,,,,)
Christophera
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 30 2006, 06:20 PM)
There are about 30 people who work at the building I do. Everyone of them knows that there are people who believe that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives. Not one of them believes it themselves. Everytime I mention that I post on the subject they automatically assume that i do believe that the buildings were brought down by the gov't. When I explain that , no I am on the other side of the subject they usually ask why I bother. Indeed Foxx has asked me that very question himself.

I explain that I cannot stand to have idiocy promulgated and try to make sure that lies and misrepresentations are exposed.

Seems that 0% of the 30 people I work with then believe that there was any gov't complicity in the destruction of the WTC buildings.

Personally I know of ONE person who does.

So my own personal, informal poll would have about 1% supporting the idea that the buildings were brought down by CD. That , people, is as good and scientific a poll as either of the above.

Apparently you ignore psychological factors such as social fears.

In the CNN poll, 83% of those THAT respond believe in CD. The people that do not respond are too afraid to do so. If they did, and they were honest, we would most likely see that about 70% of the population believes in CD just from the appearance of the event. The remaining, when asked how 2 towers could fall out of order, identically at free fall, will refuse to discuss the issue.
Lon Waters
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 30 2006, 06:06 PM)
And now that I have your attention you said that the supporters of the "OCT" haven't proven that asymmetrically damaged buildings can collapse symmetrically or that 1,2 & 7 WTC could have fallen as fast as they did. But your camp hasn't provided any evidence that they can't, photos of buildings tipped over by earthquakes don't help your case. Since no high-rise was ever hit by a jetliner the way the Twin Towers were and few buildings  suffered as much damage from falling debris as 7 was it not like there are precedents for comparison. You also seem to misunderstand how things can be proved. The collapses fit computer and theoretical models. The Theory of Evolution can't be proven does that make creationism legitimate? Before the first a-bomb test the scientist of the Manhattan Project couldn't prove it would work but they were very certain that it would.

So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically?

I do not know what computer models you are suggesting the collapses fit. This is an edited version of a previous post:

One of the papers presented by supporters in support of gravitation collapse is that of Lu and Jiang:

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm

Lu-Jiang present what is the only FEM simulation of the collapse of the towers that I am aware of. The authors are only able to induce a complete collapse in an extreme case when they lower the fracture plastic strain of the steel to 0.5%. When this value is at 1% there is only a partial collapse that is arrested 100m below the damaged areas. At 5% there is only a localized collapse near the plane impact area. "gordon" has shown from Bazant-Zhou and Greening that a strain of at least 3% is expected. Further, in the Lu-Jiang case of 0.5%, the simulated collapse times are much greater than the actual times. The collapse times they found are:

North Tower: 1:53
South Tower: 1:32

For the North Tower, that is about a factor of 7 greater than the actual time. Note that Lu-Jiang do not report the collapse times given by the simulation in their paper. They are not attempting to support a CD hypothesis. When asked about the discrepancy between the observed and simulated collapse times they responded:

QUOTE

I think that it may depends on the region that softened under the fire. You have read in our work that we only considered the softening of structures in the impacted stories. But from recent work it is widely belived that a much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.


I don't believe that this assertion can be supported. Nothing in the NIST study suggests that "a much larger part of the WTC has been influenced by the fire". The floors affected by fires are well documented for WTC 1 and 2. (I assume that flow of oil refers to jet fuel.) Also, Foxx's work has shown that the WTC 1 and 2 fires were not as intense as the official theory would want us to believe.
brian
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 30 2006, 06:20 PM)
There are about 30 people who work at the building I do. Everyone of them knows that there are people who believe that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives. Not one of them believes it themselves. Everytime I mention that I post on the subject they automatically assume that i do believe that the buildings were brought down by the gov't. When I explain that , no I am on the other side of the subject they usually ask why I bother. Indeed Foxx has asked me that very question himself.

I explain that I cannot stand to have idiocy promulgated and try to make sure that lies and misrepresentations are exposed.

Seems that 0% of the 30 people I work with then believe that there was any gov't complicity in the destruction of the WTC buildings.

Personally I know of ONE person who does.

So my own personal, informal poll would have about 1% supporting the idea that the buildings were brought down by CD. That , people, is as good and scientific a poll as either of the above.

Try giving them a copy of Griffins New Pearl Harbour, DVDs of Professor Jones lecture or 911Eyewitness/Loose Change2 etc.

I have found that although some are reluctant/incapable of making the emotional adjustment required to categorically admit members of the US government committed such an atrocity on their own people, once they have seen such as the above they cannot deny that huge questions need addressed.

MOST see it for what it quite clearly is - a grotesque mass murder inflicted by others than those to whom it has been attributed.

In this day and age the power of these visual presentations is key to showing people the paucity of the lie, once exposed people are no longer capable of dismissing what they have been conditioned to regard as conspiracy theory.

newtonnjd
len - if truth was decided only by the number of experts who support it then important scientific revolutions would never have occured. Any change to accepted knowledge ALWAYS starts out with the support of a minority. You seem to be assuming that experts in a given field are foolproof. And that there is no other motive but a completely open search for the truth. This is not how science works. The majority do not have any say in the direction research takes. They just do their part in an effort coordinated by a superior. They are also more likely to embrace ideas consistent with their underlying world view, and avoid ideas that have troubling ramifications outside the scientific community. Many would know that to entertain ideas with troubling ramifications could cost them their reputation and their jobs.

So please, enough of this "You think you know more than the experts". There is SO much more to it than the degree of scientific expertise alone. 9/11 was NOT a purely scientific phenomenon, and you are naive to think that it could ever be treated as such by human beings who cannot help being influenced by other factors. And yes, that includes CTs too, but I don't believe the groupthink is anywhere near as bad.

Seriously, do you really think that NIST or FEMA would EVER turn around to the hand that feeds them and say "Thanks for the years of funding, but, uh, we're gonna have to take you down."
Temp
NO.

Full Spectrum Dominance!

It was to allow the US/British Empire begin it's campaign of world dominance on all fronts. Religious, economic and militarily. Britain was unwillingly dragged into the European Union, it hasn't ratified most, it retains it's own currency etc. Britain is more at home with America as it's ally for historical reasons.

Osama bin Forgotten conveniently.

Media Quote : "He is in a remote region of Pakistan".

What happened when he was in a remote region of Afghanistan?

You bombed the *** out of it and invaded, and found a tape of him confessing to having comitted 9/11 five minutes after arrival. Aint it funny how no more tapes have been found of him "fessing up"?

When.

When I see the real CCTV footage of all alleged hijackers entering the airports, presenting their tickets and passing through a security screening.

When I see the Passenger Manifests published by the alleged Airlines, NOT CNN, including the names of the alleged hijackers.

When I see proof that 20 minute cellphone calls from 30k ft are possible.

When I see proof that it is possible for a bunch of scrawny ayrabs to hijack 4 airplaines mid air, disable the attendants and crew, ex-army and navy dudes, with box-cutters then fly the planes unassisted past several American Airbases, disabling all the tracking equipment, find and fly to their targets after 2 or 3 sessions in a Cessna, forgetting the *** instructions on how to fly a plane in "Arabic", forgetting too their tickets to the afterlife - the Koran.


When I see the names of the passengers in then SSDI and SSA databases, and on the Compensation Fund for the Victims of the Flights.

When I see the correct phyical representation of what an airplane hitting a tall building looks like.

When I see the proof of Collapse Theory.

When the FAA de-register both UA planes allegedly involved., and when someone explains why Wilmington/Enron owned both AA airplanes.

When I see the real-time data for the flights in the BTS database, according to which, none of the flights were scheduled that day.

When I see the fueling logs and the service logs for the alleged flights. None of which have ever been published.

Etc, etc, etc.

But all of this is academic - I SAW THE FAKE PLANE HITTING THE SOUTH TOWER ON DAY 1.

I emailed the national TV station here, they have stopped showing all foootage of the airplanes since I pointed out the fake airplanes.

They know! They know they can't open their mouths or the US will bomb us and freeze our assets and withdraw US companies from our shores.




Rove's shill
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 30 2006, 01:39 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 30 2006, 12:16 AM)
PS - Sorry, metamars... couldn't resist biggrin.gif

Couldn't because that's all you have. Character assassination and LAME jokes in the face of evidence. Don't think I haven't noticed how once again I provide evidence which is clear and unambiguous then all of a sudden people like Newtesticle insult me to change the topic back to me. Then the boys gang up on me for defending myself. It's become a clear sign of you're sides frustration with facts. The hypocrisy of pointing out my insults which are retaliatory without hand slapping others for starting it is as old as it is telling. I wait for with much anticipation. wink.gif

But I'm not going to let you get away from the facts. I'm going to stay on target...


Lets review the evidence on Building 7...

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

9) Lots of white smoke against the building indicating fuel and oxygen rich fires.

What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large whole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

4) Any sign of an actual explosive.

You are convieniently leaving out the footage of the collapse. In this footage all can see the behavour of the structure during collapse. You also have left out the Silverstien quote which you have only dismissed for yourself. It will stand along with your firefighter quotes. Not so impressive now?
Rove's shill
Oh yeah, and that hole you talk about, anything like this?

User posted image
Rove's shill
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 30 2006, 06:06 PM)



BTW - What is your technical background? If you presume to understand the WTC collapses better that all the honest civil engineers who studied them, then it would be interesting to know your qualifications to hold such a belief.

And now that I have your attention you said that the supporters of the "OCT" haven't proven that asymmetrically damaged buildings can collapse symmetrically or that 1,2 & 7 WTC could have fallen as fast as they did. But your camp hasn't provided any evidence that they can't, photos of buildings tipped over by earthquakes don't help your case. Since no high-rise was ever hit by a jetliner the way the Twin Towers were and few buildings suffered as much damage from falling debris as 7 was it not like there are precedents for comparison. You also seem to misunderstand how things can be proved. The collapses fit computer and theoretical models. The Theory of Evolution can't be proven does that make creationism legitimate? Before the first a-bomb test the scientist of the Manhattan Project couldn't prove it would work but they were very certain that it would.

So what evidence do you have to support you belief that the towers should have fallen slower and asymmetrically?


user posted image

The proof is here but you keep dismissing it, insisting the fall times are possible in a gravity driven 'pancake' hypothosis doesn't make it true. You continue to dismiss the behavoir of the structure during collapse and point us to non existant computer models.
Why are you here?
brian
Not someone from the YIDs building apparently.

March 29, 2006

9/11 -- Eliminating the Impossible
by Sheila Samples


http://www.opednews.com


It is always better to say right out what you think without trying to prove anything much: for all our proofs are only variations of our opinions, and the contrary-minded listen neither to one nor the other."~~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


I said I'd never do it -- say what I think about that terrible morning of September 11, 2001. I've seen what happens to those who question the elaborate, tangled explanations the Bush administration offers about what happened, how it happened, who did it, and why they did it. It doesn't matter if those who dare speak truth to the lies are professors, investigative reporters, eyewitnesses, scientists -- "conspiracy theorist" is immediately tattooed on their foreheads. They are jeered at, ridiculed, spat upon and swift-boated right out of the room. They are banished to the outskirts of civilized society.

But my friend Bernie says we're way beyond asking questions about 9-11 and, since nobody listens to me anyway, I might as well get it off my chest. "Besides," Bernie said, "George Bush never shuts up about 9-11. He's obsessed with it. No matter what anybody asks him, he spouts September the 11th. Bush never says September 11; he never says 9-11," Bernie groaned, "he just keeps chanting over and over -- September the 11th, September the 11th, September the 11th, Septem --"

"I get the picture!" I interrupted, shuddering at the loathsome image of Bush cavorting around September "the" 11th, pointing to it in every public appearance with masturbatory delight, reveling in the knowledge that "history will show" they got away with it. "You know, Bernie," I sighed, "it's like he's bragging about a grand accomplishment. You'd almost think it was an inside job."

"Of course it was an inside job," Bernie snorted. "Anyone who can connect even two dots without ramming one up his nose and the other into his forehead knows that. And anyone who's ever flown a Cessna 172 is roaring with laughter at the thought of those Muslim guys Bush fingered emerging from a dusty Florida airport, climbing into the cockpit of a Boeing 757, looking at the flashing lights, bells and whistles on its control panel, and know which button to push to even talk to the passengers, let alone get that 100-ton beast in the air. HAW HAW...

"We know they did it," Bernie said, suddenly sober. "Every single one of us. We know it now -- and we knew it then." He rose and started toward the door -- "All you gotta remember is ... if something is something, it can't be anything else but that something. No matter how they dress it up, no matter how much lipstick they smear on it, it's still that something. It ain't never something else. Everything that's happened in the last five years, and everything that'll happen in the next five," Bernie said, "is a result of that one day Bush keeps throwing in our faces -- September the 11th."

I sat there, trying to wrap my mind around Bernie's string of "somethings," when it suddenly occurred to me. Of course! Bernie instinctively hit upon the universal law called dharma, a simple principle that brings order to chaos -- things are what they are, and a thing cannot be other than what it is. Universal laws cannot be broken, even by the genocidal warmongers running rampant within this administration, no matter how hard they try. Knowing Bernie, however, I suspect he was channeling Sherlock Holmes who skillfully used the critical dharma tool Sir Arthur Conan Doyle gave him to solve crime -- "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

For four and a half years, questions about 9-11 have swirled through the Internet with tornadic force, yet caused scarcely a breeze within the mainstream media. The sheer number of heroic questioners helped to keep the door of truth open just a crack in spite of a relentless effort of the Bush men, the media and the Congress to force it shut. It hasn't been easy. Americans' psyches were shattered on 9-11 when, with no warning, they suddenly came face-to-face with raw, fiendish evil. They were incapable of handling the truth.

Americans are waking up. They have been told one -- or one hundred -- too many lies. They instinctively know there are only three areas of questions about 9-11 whose answers, however improbable, reveal the truth.

One -- Who, or what, flew the four hijacked planes on 9-11? Certainly not the inexperienced, box-cutter-armed bunch of rag-tag Saudis -- most of whom are still alive -- whose photographs the FBI plastered on our TV screens and in our minds immediately after the attack. There were no Arabs in the air on the morning of 9-11, performing astonishing feats of acrobatic maneuvering -- spinning and snap-rolling and pulling 180's (scroll down to see flight paths) into the World Trade Center and Pentagon -- nor were any listed on the manifests of the four flights. The only proof of their presence is the passport of one Salem Suqami that fluttered through the chaos of explosions, a raging inferno and collapse of buildings and landed, undamaged, on the sidewalk below.

Actually, we need go no further into the 9-11 morass than the planes. What we witnessed on that ghastly morning was a carefully planned, perfectly orchestrated PSYOPS attack on a citizenry by its own government. The first victim of this brutal assault was possibly the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), which was juggling a minimum of five training exercises that morning and, at any one time its radar screens showed up to 22 hijacked aircraft. Much has been written about NORAD "standing down" on 9-11. I don't buy that for one minute.

But NORAD is guilty. It is guilty of assuming the mass confusion was a result of multiple war games it was playing that morning of crashing planes into buildings. It is guilty of trying to cover its *** when it realized the destruction was real-world. According to an in-depth report by retired theologian Dr. David Ray Griffin, who also wrote “The New Pearl Harbor” and “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," both General Richard Myers, then acting chair of the Joint Chiefs, and Mike Snyder, NORAD spokesman, reported that "no military jets were sent up until after the strike on the Pentagon."

Griffin says when this admission started raising eyebrows, a second story appeared on Sept. 14 that "contrary to early reports, jets were scrambled while the attacks were underway, but they arrived too late to prevent them." Four days later, NORAD released a timeline so jumbled it failed to pass muster in any venue. Finally, unable to get out of the hole, both the FAA and NORAD stopped digging. The FAA destroyed the tapes of activity that morning, to include conversations between the hijacked planes and air traffic control personnel, said, "oopsie, sorry about that," then just shut up and took its licks.

Two -- Nothing reveals the truth of 9-11 as clearly as the in-your-face controlled demolition of the World Trade Center's twin towers and building 7. They all fell down. According to a NYC fireman on the scene, they fell -- "just like that -- boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom" -- In 10 seconds flat. Well, that's not exactly true, because it took the 47-story No. 7 only 6.6 seconds to pancake into its own footprints. But if ever there was a classic case of "don't believe your lying eyes," it is the deliberate destruction of these three WTC buildings.

Nothing reveals the truth as clearly as the breathless, on-the-scene initial reaction by network and cable TV -- "There are explosions going off everywhere!" ... "We just heard another huge explosion!" ..."A huge explosion, raining debris on all of us -- we need to get out of here!" ... "This almost looks like a -- a controlled demolition." CNN's Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McEntyre, blurted this "Breaking News" item -- "There's no evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon or anywhere near it and in fact, the only pieces left were small enough that you could pick them up in your hands --and no large sections -- tail sections, fuselage sections..."

By the next morning, the media monkeys had come to their senses and were dutifully droning administration talking points while ominously reminding Americans that questioning what happened was nothing short of criticism of the president, or how unpatriotic can we be at a time when we all need to hang together. However, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld apparently agreed with McEntyre and conspiracy theorists when he told Parade Magazine on Oct. 13, "Here we're talking about plastic knives, and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building, and similar (inaudible) that damaged the WTC."

Nothing reveals the truth more clearly than the implosion of No. 7, which was not hit by a plane. WTC owner Larry Silverstein publicly acknowledged that they "pulled" No. 7 and, although he made out like a bandit on the whole 9-11 holocaust, he did not explain nor did the media ask him when the explosives needed to "pull" the 47 stories were put in place. Interestingly, the 9-11 Commission did not think it important enough to question either Silverstein or the fire department about the No. 7 collapse, nor did it even mention the building in its bogus report.

Three -- The truth is what it is. As Bernie says, it ain't never something else. A search for the truth about 9-11 is much easier if all that cannot be true is tossed out. Why waste time considering the impossible?

For example, if you're reading Michael Chertoff's massive May 2002 FEMA investigation into 9-11, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," you need go no further into its 262 pages than this conclusion -- "...as each aircraft impacted a building, jet fuel on board ignited. Part of this fuel immediately burned off in the large fireballs that erupted at the impact floors. Remaining fuel flowed across the floors and down elevator and utility shafts, igniting intense fires throughout upper portions of the buildings. As these fires spread, they further weakened the steel-framed structures, eventually leading to total collapse."

Toss it, as well as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, which uses its 292 pages to "describe how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapses (sic) of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings..."

While you're at it, you can trash the March 2005 Popular Mechanics hit piece -- a regurgitation of FEMA's fantastical explanation, to wit --"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction."

And the Pentagon? PM had that all figured out too. It quotes Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University as shrugging aside the nagging conspiracy that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, ". . .one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns," Sozen said. "What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass."

I could be wrong, but I doubt even the zany, fun-loving Rumsfeld would try to run THAT one by us. The PM piece is little more than an attack on those who question the events of that dreadful morning, and is replete with unattributed "facts." It is the work of Michael Chertoff's cousin, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, who was given free reign after a shock-and-awe coup at the magazine wherein PM editor-in-chief Joe Oldham was given 90 minutes to clean out his desk. Other staff members, including the creative director, were also fired.

The 9-11 Commission Report should be discarded as well. And set afire. It differs from the above attempts to cover up a government's attack on its own people only in length and breadth. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton entered into a "contract" with the American people; they swore to get to the bottom of the tragedy; inventory its causes and put the blame where it rightfully belonged. They betrayed us. And they charged us only ten bucks a copy.

In his hard-hitting article in Harper's Magazine, Benjamin DeMott writes that the Report is "a shrewdly conceived and sustained equity-of-blame argument that becomes the fulcrum of the entire document and has a single principle at its center -- any blame that might be apportioned to the behavior of the sitting administration is easily counterbalanced by the behavior of preceding authorities -- and by historical 'fact' as interpretated in accordance with current presidential and commissarial need."

Bush made clear that his "presidential need" was to not have a Commission blaming him for what happened. When an investigation was forced on him, Bush undercut it, underfunded it and agreed to meet with Commission members only in the Oval Office, only if *** Cheney was there, only if he was not under oath, only if his remarks were not recorded and only if no notes were taken. DeMott tells us that the more than 600-page document was nothing more than "a weapon in a major domestic conflict: the war on incisive, sometimes rudely disruptive thought -- thought that distinguishes the democratic citizen from the idolatrous fool, the sucker, the clueless consumer, the ad person's delight."

Rather than tell the people the truth about 9-11, Kean and Hamilton used their Report as a PSYOPS weapon against them. Bill Clinton is to blame. With the FAA riding shotgun. Shut up and move on.

Homework assignment

After eliminating the impossible, we are left with ghastly images of death and suffering. With brutal malice aforethought, on 9-11 this administration murdered 2,823 human beings. Only 1,102 victims have been identified, although 19,500 body parts were "collected." More than 100 Americans were pulverized in the explosions, their remains mingling with tons and tons of cement into fine dust, and just disappeared into the air, perhaps into the lungs of those working feverishly at Ground Zero to save them. Each of us with any connection to reality knows that the only explanation for 9-11 is that the entire holocaust was a deliberately planned, orchestrated, controlled demolition of our way of life.

If you want to know what happened on 9-11, watch Korey Rove, Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas' critical film, "Loose Change, 2nd Edition." Surely the Truth is worth 1 hour, 21 minutes and 50 seconds of our lives..

If you want to know why 9-11 happened, read the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)2000 report, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," which calls for a "new Pearl Harbor" to establish US military preeminence throughout the world as well as unending war to seize and control the world's resources. It's only 90 pages, and should take even less than 1 hour, 21 minutes and 50 seconds to peruse.

If you want to know the truth about the attack on this country, watch and read the above as if your life depended upon it. Because it does.

We have the crime. We have the criminals. The time has come to indict them. Try them. Convict them. Punish them. Then, and only then, can we move on.

That's what I think.



N%252FA

Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at: rsamples@sirinet.net

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sh...liminating_.htm
Rove's shill
Nice work brian! I was always a big fan of the "fuel down the elevator shafts destroyed the bottom floors theory". That man was obvously a big Star Wars fan. Wasn't that the final scene in the original were Luke has to make the 'impossible' shot down the 'exhaust' shaft that leads to the core to destroy the Death Star. Awesome!!!
Guest_yesitdid
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 30 2006, 06:41 PM)


In the CNN poll, 83% of those THAT respond believe in CD. The people that do not respond are too afraid to do so. If they did, and they were honest, we would most likely see that about 70% of the population believes in CD just from the appearance of the event. The remaining, when asked how 2 towers could fall out of order, identically at free fall, will refuse to discuss the issue.

You apparently haven't read what the poll question was.

You get all of that from a question about whether or not the gov't has covered up something(ie anything).

rolleyes.gif .
frater plecticus
QUOTE
You apparently haven't read what the poll question was.

You get all of that from a question about whether or not the gov't has covered up something(ie anything).


(Clutching at straws)

sheila samples in da house

" We have the crime. We have the criminals. The time has come to indict them. Try them. Convict them. Punish them. Then, and only then, can we move on."
Common Sense
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 30 2006, 10:47 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 30 2006, 06:19 AM)
User posted image

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/otis.jpg

What's figure 4 fauxtopher... What's that... That's just one of MANY transformers in the building. I told you foxx. I don't lie because I don't need to. Only you seem to NEED to lie.

Just use your head. There is NO way that much 110 electricity could go all the way to the 110th floor without losing mondo on the way. That's why there is a transformer in just about every block in every city in the country. The building I work in has a large transformer outside the building and another vault in the building. There is yet another in the office which the fire chief said could take the whole office out if it didn't have ventilation and over heated. It's about the size of that trans in the photo.

Use your head faux-topher.


What causes the explosion in your indoor transformers?

QUOTE
  Large transformers to be used indoors must use a nonflammable liquid or be Dry Type, ie, having no fluid.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_oil

The honest debunker uses an outdoor transformer for an example.

Unlike any of the dishonest debunkers, the honest ones will correct themselves if they are wrong. Just because a transformer doesn't have oil doesn't mean it can't ark and blow up. It just means it can't spread it's fire with the help of oil.

I'm going to look into this more but just because the transformer doesn't blow up doesn't mean it doesn't ark and pop like in the electrical explosion in the video. You can leave the actual explosion out and the video would still work to explain the flashes, colors and weird noises coming from the towers just before it came down.

And if I could find an indoor video of a transformer arcing I would show that. But the video at least shows what the "Flash, Flash, Flash" could have been.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
  Large transformers to be used indoors must use a nonflammable liquid or be Dry Type, ie, having no fluid.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_oil

The honest debunker uses an outdoor transformer for an example.

Unlike any of the dishonest debunkers, the honest ones will correct themselves if they are wrong. Just because a transformer doesn't have oil doesn't mean it can't ark and blow up. It just means it can't spread it's fire with the help of oil.

I'm going to look into this more but just because the transformer doesn't blow up doesn't mean it doesn't ark and pop like in the electrical explosion in the video. You can leave the actual explosion out and the video would still work to explain the flashes, colors and weird noises coming from the towers just before it came down.

And if I could find an indoor video of a transformer arcing I would show that. But the video at least shows what the "Flash, Flash, Flash" could have been.

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.


Electrical arcing in transformers or any other electrical arcing could explain the whole quote.

QUOTE
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.


Somewhere around the middle... Could he be talking about the mechanical floors? They would have the transformers and other electrical equipment packed in.

It sounds more like electrical than explosive. The only time I've ever seen an explosion with color are on the 4th of july. Those colors are added and are not needed to blow steel columns.

The point is I didn't tell you the it WAS transformers but I did say the building HAD transformers and they do. So I'm not lying. I'm giving a perfectly reasonable explanation.
Guest_David B. Benson
About 2/3 of the floor area in WTC 1 & 2 was cast-in-place lightweight concrete. The core area used a more conventional concrete. At the time of WTC construction, typical compressive strengths for lightweight concrete were 17 MPa (residential applications) to 28 MPa (some commercial applications). The figure used for the WTC lightweight concrete in a paper by Dat Duthinh, for NIST, was a compressive strength of 21 MPa --- 3000 psi. Considerations of energetics should perhaps note that the tensile strength of lightweight concrete is about 10--20% of the compressive strength.

(But note that lightweight concrete has improved quite a bit in recent years. Compressive strengths of 50 to 100 MPa are now routinely obtained.)

I believe this answers the question that Miramars asked. Maybe you can do me the favor of sending an email to an administrator pointing out that it is impossible for me to use my 'member' privileges. I know this sending such an email ought to be possible, but when I, as a 'logged-in member' try it, I am informed that I don't have permission. Talk about a catch-22 sad.gif
newtonnjd
A quick aside:

METAMARS

Have you contacted Greg Lopreato about getting access to the Scholars forum? As far as I know it is Greg that activates peoples accounts not Jim. Greg's email address is:

greglopreato@yahoo.com
Christophera
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 30 2006, 08:00 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 30 2006, 01:39 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 30 2006, 12:16 AM)
PS - Sorry, metamars... couldn't resist biggrin.gif

Couldn't because that's all you have. Character assassination and LAME jokes in the face of evidence. Don't think I haven't noticed how once again I provide evidence which is clear and unambiguous then all of a sudden people like Newtesticle insult me to change the topic back to me. Then the boys gang up on me for defending myself. It's become a clear sign of you're sides frustration with facts. The hypocrisy of pointing out my insults which are retaliatory without hand slapping others for starting it is as old as it is telling. I wait for with much anticipation. wink.gif

But I'm not going to let you get away from the facts. I'm going to stay on target...


Lets review the evidence on Building 7...

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.

9) Lots of white smoke against the building indicating fuel and oxygen rich fires.

What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large whole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

4) Any sign of an actual explosive.

You are convieniently leaving out the footage of the collapse. In this footage all can see the behavour of the structure during collapse. You also have left out the Silverstien quote which you have only dismissed for yourself. It will stand along with your firefighter quotes. Not so impressive now?

Experts of omission and fake focus, confused deficient ignorant material distorted in importance to waste time while appearing relative.

This is how we got five years away from the crime without getting cultural leaders oriented in the facts and voicing disssent.

It is getting weak and we are getting better at seeing it, where ever, how ever or why ever it appears.
lenbrazil
Full Spectrum Bull$hit is more like it!

QUOTE (Temp+Mar 30 2006, 07:13 PM)
NO.

Full Spectrum Dominance!

[…]

When.

When I see the real CCTV footage of all alleged hijackers entering the airports, presenting their tickets and passing through a security screening.



IIRC Logan (or was it one the other airports) didn’t have CCTV. It’s believed they chose Logan and Newark for lax security. How would you know if it was real footage, don’t you think the CIA easily could have produce fake footage if they so desired.

QUOTE
When I see the Passenger Manifests published by the alleged Airlines, NOT CNN, including the names of the alleged hijackers.


http://911myths.com/html/passenger_manifests.html

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
When I see the Passenger Manifests published by the alleged Airlines, NOT CNN, including the names of the alleged hijackers.


http://911myths.com/html/passenger_manifests.html

When I see proof that 20 minute cellphone calls from 30k ft are possible.


http://911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

What 911 myths failed to mention was that the cellphone tests were done in Ontario not where any of the calls were made.

QUOTE
When I see proof that it is possible for a bunch of scrawny ayrabs to hijack 4 airplaines mid air, disable the attendants and crew, ex-army and navy dudes, with box-cutters then fly the planes unassisted past several American Airbases, disabling all the tracking equipment, find and fly to their targets after 2 or 3 sessions in a Cessna, forgetting the *** instructions on how to fly a plane in "Arabic", forgetting too their tickets to the afterlife - the Koran.


1) This is inherently racist

2) http://911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

3) They didn’t turn off all the transponders. They did on flight 11 but not on 175, I’m not sure about the other 2.

4) Not all airbases have pilots ready to scramble, the only flight that could conceivably have been prevented from hitting it’s target was flight 77

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
When I see proof that it is possible for a bunch of scrawny ayrabs to hijack 4 airplaines mid air, disable the attendants and crew, ex-army and navy dudes, with box-cutters then fly the planes unassisted past several American Airbases, disabling all the tracking equipment, find and fly to their targets after 2 or 3 sessions in a Cessna, forgetting the *** instructions on how to fly a plane in "Arabic", forgetting too their tickets to the afterlife - the Koran.


1) This is inherently racist

2) http://911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

3) They didn’t turn off all the transponders. They did on flight 11 but not on 175, I’m not sure about the other 2.

4) Not all airbases have pilots ready to scramble, the only flight that could conceivably have been prevented from hitting it’s target was flight 77

When I see the names of the passengers in then SSDI and SSA databases, and on the Compensation Fund for the Victims of the Flights.


The Social Security Death Index (the SSA database is the same thing as the SSDI) brouhaha was debunked long ago. Many deaths in the US (probably more than half)don’t make it to the index because it only includes deaths that were reported to the Social Security administration. Registered deaths will disproportionately be people who were receiving benefits (1).

According to the 2000 census the population of Wyoming (which I chose because it’s the least populous state) was 493,782 (2). According to the World Fact Book the Death Rate in the US is 8.25 deaths / 1,000 population (3) or 0.825%, thus we would expect that about 4074 people died in that state in any one of the last couple of years. According to Wikipedia citing census data 1.006% of the population has the last name Smith (4) thus we would expect about 43 Smiths to die in any particular year in Wyoming probably more because ethnic groups that are not likely to have that last name (Hispanics, Asians, Italians, Jews etc) are under represented there.

What happens when we check the Death Index for Smiths who died in Wyoming in 2001 (the year of 9/11), we get 23 hits (5). To be fair you should know that not all deaths in the index list the place of death. Searching for all Smiths who died in 2001 with 50 matches per page on the 1st page 4 or 8% don’t list place of death (6) so we would expect about 40 hits (without factoring up due to a probable disproportionate number of Smiths in Wyoming, ifyou factor this in probably most death aren't listed (7)). Thus it appears that less than 57% of deaths make it into the index.

Most people who die are old, most old people get social security payments.
and are retired. Since the vast majority of people who were on those flights were still working we would expect a disproportionately low number of them to appear in the index.

If you don’t believe me do your own search (8) changing the year and place of death (last know residence on the search page) and last name and I imagine you will get similar results. Alternately you can search for people you know who died. If they were getting SS benefits they will probably appear, if they weren’t probably not.

I never heard the compensation fund claim, please show evidence that their names don’t appear.

1. http://911myths.com/html/social_security.html

2. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyc...a/entry/Wyoming

3. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/us/popula.html

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_...s#United_States

5 http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll...st=&rank=1&so=3

6. http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll...gss=angs-d&qf=1

7. If 1.16% of Wyominians have the last name Smith as opposed to 1.06% nationwide we would expect 46 dead Smiths a year and thus less than half the death make it to the index.

8. http://www.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=3693



QUOTE
When I see the correct phyical representation of what an airplane hitting a tall building looks like.


??????????????????????

You mean other than all those shots carried live around the World? You don't subscribe to the retarded blue screen theory do you?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
When I see the correct phyical representation of what an airplane hitting a tall building looks like.


??????????????????????

You mean other than all those shots carried live around the World? You don't subscribe to the retarded blue screen theory do you?

When I see the proof of  Collapse Theory
.

What do you mean by proof? Do you think they should build a replica of one of the towers and fly a 767 into it to see what happens?

QUOTE
When the FAA de-register both UA planes allegedly involved


allegedlly invoved??? Sounds very much like you believe the blue screen theory.

This has already debunked!!

http://911myths.com/html/registration_numbers.html

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
When the FAA de-register both UA planes allegedly involved


allegedlly invoved??? Sounds very much like you believe the blue screen theory.

This has already debunked!!

http://911myths.com/html/registration_numbers.html

and when someone explains why Wilmington/Enron owned both AA airplanes.


Evidence for this and significance IF true

QUOTE
When I see the real-time data for the flights in the BTS database, according to which, none of the flights were scheduled that day.


How do you expect to get real time data 4 1/2 years after the fact. If it's true that they don't /didn't appear there are various logical explanations, none of which include believing that the MIC/CIA/PTB could pull off such an elaborate hoax but aren't able to manipulate a Federal gov't database.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
When I see the real-time data for the flights in the BTS database, according to which, none of the flights were scheduled that day.


How do you expect to get real time data 4 1/2 years after the fact. If it's true that they don't /didn't appear there are various logical explanations, none of which include believing that the MIC/CIA/PTB could pull off such an elaborate hoax but aren't able to manipulate a Federal gov't database.

When I see the fueling logs and the service logs for the alleged flights. None of which have ever been published.


Why should they have been?

The notion that these flights didn't exist is plain (plane?) stupid. You would have to believe that hundreds of people at UA, AA, the FAA, Logan, Newark and Dulles airports, the “fake relatives” etc etc etc were in on it. The planes were seen by various witnesses on the ground. Where did all the plane wreckage come from? Where did the human remains in Shanksville come from?

QUOTE
But all of this is academic - I SAW THE FAKE PLANE HITTING THE SOUTH TOWER ON DAY 1.

I emailed the national TV station here, they have stopped showing all foootage of the airplanes since I pointed out the fake airplanes.


?????? You don’t do copious amounts of acid do you?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
But all of this is academic - I SAW THE FAKE PLANE HITTING THE SOUTH TOWER ON DAY 1.

I emailed the national TV station here, they have stopped showing all foootage of the airplanes since I pointed out the fake airplanes.


?????? You don’t do copious amounts of acid do you?

They know! They know they can't open their mouths or the US will bomb us and freeze our assets and withdraw US companies from our shores.


?????????????????????????
lenbrazil
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Mar 30 2006, 11:02 PM)
QUOTE
You apparently haven't read what the poll question was.

You get all of that from a question about whether or not the gov't has covered up something(ie anything).


(Clutching at straws)

sheila samples in da house

" We have the crime. We have the criminals. The time has come to indict them. Try them. Convict them. Punish them. Then, and only then, can we move on."

No citing internet polls as evidence of popular sentiment is grasping at straws. And yes people who don't believe in CD could have voted yes in that poll. The "911 truth movement" made a concerted effort to "get out the vote" but only got 40,000 people to do so. Foxx said the OCT crowd did the same but didn't cite any evidence.

Faeter - I've asked you this before but you haven't answered you claimed that you are a civil engineer but I have NEVER seen you make any kind of scientific argument in favor of CD, please explain. Also why don't you write a paper?
lenbrazil
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 30 2006, 09:54 PM)
Nice work brian! I was always a big fan of the "fuel down the elevator shafts destroyed the bottom floors theory". That man was obvously a big Star Wars fan. Wasn't that the final scene in the original were Luke has to make the 'impossible' shot down the 'exhaust' shaft that leads to the core to destroy the Death Star. Awesome!!!

Wow he is able to cut and paste, he must be a genius!

What's wrong with the theory that jetfuel spilled down the elevator shafts?

Talking about Star Wars don't a large number of the CD crowd including Hoffman (I think) and Metamars believe that a "death ray" was used?
lenbrazil
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 30 2006, 07:07 PM)
len - if truth was decided only by the number of experts who support it then important scientific revolutions would never have occured. Any change to accepted knowledge ALWAYS starts out with the support of a minority. You seem to be assuming that experts in a given field are foolproof. And that there is no other motive but a completely open search for the truth. This is not how science works. The majority do not have any say in the direction research takes. They just do their part in an effort coordinated by a superior. They are also more likely to embrace ideas consistent with their underlying world view, and avoid ideas that have troubling ramifications outside the scientific community. Many would know that to entertain ideas with troubling ramifications could cost them their reputation and their jobs.

So please, enough of this "You think you know more than the experts". There is SO much more to it than the degree of scientific expertise alone. 9/11 was NOT a purely scientific phenomenon, and you are naive to think that it could ever be treated as such by human beings who cannot help being influenced by other factors. And yes, that includes CTs too, but I don't believe the groupthink is anywhere near as bad.

Seriously, do you really think that NIST or FEMA would EVER turn around to the hand that feeds them and say "Thanks for the years of funding, but, uh, we're gonna have to take you down."

But so far your theory has zero backing from anybody with relevant expertise any where in the World. Don't you think that IF the collapse theory is such utter bull$hit like you think it is at least a handful or architects or civil engineers from somewhere in the World would have said something, not even some Serbian, Cuban, Iranian. Palestinian, Iraqi ones anti-American sentiment is high all over the World. Even in the US I can't believe a least a few structural engineers would say something people from various other professions publicly support CD theories why not any one qualified?

You do presume to know more than the experts because you claim that thing they say happened are impossible. The question is a valid one, if you want tododge it go ahead.

Can you cite me one case in history, since the birth of the scientific method, of a theory not supported by ANY experts but believed by a saw body of laymen was shown to be true?

The FEMA panel were all volunteers only a few of them worked for the federal govt.

Common Sense
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 30 2006, 08:52 PM)
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Mar 30 2006, 11:02 PM)
QUOTE
You apparently haven't read what the poll question was.

You get all of that from a question about whether or not the gov't has covered up something(ie anything).


(Clutching at straws)

sheila samples in da house

" We have the crime. We have the criminals. The time has come to indict them. Try them. Convict them. Punish them. Then, and only then, can we move on."

No citing internet polls as evidence of popular sentiment is grasping at straws. And yes people who don't believe in CD could have voted yes in that poll. The "911 truth movement" made a concerted effort to "get out the vote" but only got 40,000 people to do so. Foxx said the OCT crowd did the same but didn't cite any evidence.

Faeter - I've asked you this before but you haven't answered you claimed that you are a civil engineer but I have NEVER seen you make any kind of scientific argument in favor of CD, please explain. Also why don't you write a paper?

I would like to see some evidence hes a civil engineer myself. I find that very had to believe. If he is, and felt the way he does then why hasn't he passed a peer reviewed paper in a journal?
lenbrazil
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 12:34 AM)
A quick aside:

METAMARS

Have you contacted Greg Lopreato about getting access to the Scholars forum? As far as I know it is Greg that activates peoples accounts not Jim. Greg's email address is:

greglopreato@yahoo.com

I hope you guys enjoy your "walled garden" so that you can discuss your theories without having to be bothered by contrary points of view!!!!
Common Sense
I guess this is how they plot conspiracies. HEHEHE! OOOH, THE IRONY!!!.
Christophera
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Mar 30 2006, 10:00 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 30 2006, 06:41 PM)


In the CNN poll, 83% of those THAT respond believe in CD.  The people that do not respond are too afraid to do so.  If they did, and they were honest, we would most likely see that about 70% of the population believes in CD just from the appearance of the event.  The remaining, when asked how 2 towers could fall out of order, identically at free fall, will refuse to discuss the issue.

You apparently haven't read what the poll question was.

You get all of that from a question about whether or not the gov't has covered up something(ie anything).

rolleyes.gif .

Oops, you got me there. Pretty important point huh?

Curious how I cannot get a simple admission from those that support the official story W/regard to the concrete core seen below.

user posted image

Curious how none has explained why none of the 47, 1,300 foot columns are never seen in position off the ground.
Common Sense
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 30 2006, 10:35 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Mar 30 2006, 10:00 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 30 2006, 06:41 PM)


In the CNN poll, 83% of those THAT respond believe in CD.  The people that do not respond are too afraid to do so.  If they did, and they were honest, we would most likely see that about 70% of the population believes in CD just from the appearance of the event.  The remaining, when asked how 2 towers could fall out of order, identically at free fall, will refuse to discuss the issue.

You apparently haven't read what the poll question was.

You get all of that from a question about whether or not the gov't has covered up something(ie anything).

rolleyes.gif .

Oops, you got me there. Pretty important point huh?

Curious how I cannot get a simple admission from those that support the official story W/regard to the concrete core seen below.

user posted image

Curious how none has explained why none of the 47, 1,300 foot columns are never seen in position off the ground.

HAHAHA! Poor Chris, they dumped him by himself and now hes lonely. You guys are so cruel. Heh!
metamars
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 30 2006, 04:30 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 30 2006, 06:35 AM)
QUOTE
by Yid

Most people who do not believe in CD simply go on with their lives. On occasion when they do see something about they regard it with as much interest as you would an article about slime mold. On the other hand those who, like you, believe in CD of the WTC structures tend to be vocal and strident about it. Therefore if a poll is done on the interest in this subject, especially one that demands that a person seek out the poll, it will be predominantly believers in CD that respond.

That is one reason that web polls are not reliable.


Amazing semantics and sophistry, YID - I gotta admit you are GOOD in those areas.

"Most people who do not believe in CD simply go on with their lives."

Wrong.

'MOST PEOPLE' are completely unaware that this discussion is ongoing, and have no concept of the parameters of the discussion. It is not a case of 'most people' do not believe in CD --- it's a case of they have never heard about it ... (due to MSM censorship of the discussion).

[...]

LOL Foxx it seems can’t go more than two posts without using the words ‘semantics’, ‘sophistry’ or ‘rhetoric’. Funny because I’m not even sure he knows what they mean. Call it what you like but YID is correct the vast majority (99% ?) of Americans believe that the Twin Towers fell because they were hit by planes. You can claim that the vast majority of people who have examined the issue objectively support your POV, but there are two problems with this claim 1) it’s a case of “special pleading” because you can conveniently claim that those who don’t support your view aren’t objective* 2) there is no objective evidence that it’s true – even here the split is about 50/50 and there are forums where only a minority believe the WTC CD theory.

He is also correct that most people who believe the “OCT” go on with their lives while those who believe Bush and the PNAC were behind 9/11 are more likely “to be vocal and strident about it”. When I lived in the US I was politically active: I was an ACLU organizer, I protested against the 1st Gulf War etc. If I believed the WTC was demo’d and was still stateside I would be very active about it – probably more so that the CD supporters on this forum.

None of my friends in the US or Brazil (90% of whom are left of center) believe in CD. They’ve heard the theories but they couldn’t be bothered to participate in forums and ask me why I waste my time doing so. I participate in JFK research forums where over 95% of the posters believe the MIC/PTB was behind the assassination of JFK and almost as many think they were behind the murders of RFK, MLK and Malcolm X and attempts on Reagan and Wallace. These definitely are not people who “wear Rove colored glasses” but very few of them believe the Towers were demo’d. They might post a message or two on a forum they are silent

Nor is it realistic to say that most people are unaware the debate exists, The CTs have been reported on CNN, CNBC, The New York Times, UPI, The Christian Science Monitor, Popular Mechanics, Scientific America, the Miami Herald, LA Times, Boston Herald major newspapers in Salt Lake City, Las Vegas and Pittsburg, The CBS affiliate in Salt Lake City, New York magazine, the Village Voice, the New York Press, The Nation, Z-Net, The Washington Post, the Washington Time, the CBC (Canada’s biggest TV network) and probably many more media outlets as well as thousands of websites, blogs and forums and several best selling books. Yeah you’re right Foxx your theories have been subject to a total media black out.

The situation is analogous to the debate over gun control. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Americans support gun control esp. when it come to automatic weapons, “cop killer” bullets, silencers etc, but the minority that opposes any restrictions on gun sales is more vocal and active. They are more likely to donate their money, participate in events, join organizations and vote on this single issue etc, in other words the gun nuts make noise far disproportionate to their numbers. For this reason it’s difficult to pass effective gun control legislation in the US. The MIHOP/CD theorists also make noise far disproportionate to their numbers.

So Foxx tell us what percentage of the population do you think believes in CD?

*This is an example of circular logic, you guys are argue that anybody who looks at all the data objectively supports your theory, thus anybody who studies 9/11 and disagrees with you is either stupid, biased, blinded by Rove or a PNAC shill/paid disinfo agent. I know not all CD proponents think that way but many, perhaps most do.

Emphasis mine.

And how many of these media outlets reported that the collapse time of WTC7 was within about .5 seconds of free fall in a vacuum? Furthermore, how many of these outlets then surveyed structural engineers, reporting this fact to them, and other ancillary facts, and then asked them to guesstimate what the odds were that WTC 7 was CD'd?

A scientific argument should be settled on the strongest evidence. If the FEMA Fairy Tale believers really wanted the arguments settled, they would beg for a full blown investigation, FEA and all.

It's quite clear which side wants a full investigation, and which side thinks that puff pieces in magazines like Popular Mechanics, and the public's response to them, prove anything. (To be fair, some of the people on my side think the recent CNN internet poll proved something significant. It did not, and I said so publicly, here on this thread.)

I'm quite aware of the fact that many of the CT'ers aren't all that scientific in their approach to 911, either. Could that be because most of them aren't scientists, or trained like scientists?

So what? I don't blame NIST for all the lame arguments that NIST apologists make in their behalf. E.g., the lamest argument I have ever heard was not by one of our beloved "popes", but by a poster on the Randi Rhodes Forum name dptonic (or something similar), who tried to tell us that we really did trust the US governement because we expect mail to be delivered and Social Security checks to be cut. Is that NIST's fault, that some dude made an uber-lame comment?

Can you imagine a scientist making such an argument in front of his peers? You know, something like "Well, we have no need to warn of or investigate global warming, because President Bush is at the helm, and he would never do anything to harm the country or the environment, because he's a compassionate conservative."

Such an "argument" may be OK for Britney Spears, but for a scientist?

The response of even non-scientists (and the non-scientifically trained) to increasing knowledge about the 911 atrocities shoulld be a matter of fact, not opinion, anyway. AFAIK, neither you nor any CT'er can point to firm evidence regarding the effects on beliefs with increasing study, other than anectdotal cases.


Hopefully, Scholars for 911 Truth will facilitate and encourage some real science, both hard and social. If neither hard real science, or social real science, or a real investigation into military, air defense, intelligence and other non-scientific aspects of 911 interests you, that tells me you have no real interest in understanding the 911 attacks.

Not that that would surprise me in the least.
yesitdid
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 31 2006, 01:59 AM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 30 2006, 09:54 PM)
Nice work brian!  I was always a big fan of the "fuel down the elevator shafts destroyed the bottom floors theory".  That man was obvously a big Star Wars fan.  Wasn't that the final scene in the original were Luke has to make the 'impossible' shot down the 'exhaust' shaft that leads to the core to destroy the Death Star.  Awesome!!!

Wow he is able to cut and paste, he must be a genius!

What's wrong with the theory that jetfuel spilled down the elevator shafts?

Talking about Star Wars don't a large number of the CD crowd including Hoffman (I think) and Metamars believe that a "death ray" was used?

Well considering she cites the erroneous time of 6.6 seconds for the collapse of #7 nothing she states can be taken as fact.

The time of 6.6 seconds ignores the time period from the penthouse's first downward movement to the start of movement of the outer walls. IIRC that adds another 2 seconds or so.

Nice call on frater's 'clutching at straws' statement. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Stretching respones to such a vague question into support for a very specific action is quite telling of both Christophera and frater.
Christophera
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 31 2006, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 30 2006, 10:35 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Mar 30 2006, 10:00 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 30 2006, 06:41 PM)


In the CNN poll, 83% of those THAT respond believe in CD.  The people that do not respond are too afraid to do so.  If they did, and they were honest, we would most likely see that about 70% of the population believes in CD just from the appearance of the event.  The remaining, when asked how 2 towers could fall out of order, identically at free fall, will refuse to discuss the issue.

You apparently haven't read what the poll question was.

You get all of that from a question about whether or not the gov't has covered up something(ie anything).

rolleyes.gif .

Oops, you got me there. Pretty important point huh?

Curious how I cannot get a simple admission from those that support the official story W/regard to the concrete core seen below.

user posted image

Curious how none has explained why none of the 47, 1,300 foot columns are never seen in position off the ground.


HAHAHA! Poor Chris, they dumped him by himself and now hes lonely. You guys are so cruel. Heh!

So we get no reasonable, credible answer from you (or others) regarding the non appearance of the 47, 1,300 foot steel columns protruding from the core area of either tower in all images?

user posted image

But we do get ridicule from you. So the bellow describes the best you do under conditions.



"Ridicule Replaces Reason."
©2003 Christopher A. Brown


"Ridicule Replaces Reason."

A common conspiracy that is unconsciously participated in is a blight to processes of reason. It is a conspiracy based, at the very least, on each persons natural fear of being ridiculed. It is a campaign with a threat of degradation compulsively conducted within our social communications. Criticism based in evidence is justifiable, political conditions are too bad to justify ridicule based in disbelief fueled by fear.

"Ridicule Replaces Reason."

There are those amongst us that react to a special fear and need everything to be clearly laid out for them to feel comfortable. Without that feeling of social comfort, no reason can be openly engaged. There is a monumental risk they perceive in operating with less than knowledge verifiable by its already being commonly used. That risk is that they suffer an immense blow, a drastic reduction of self esteem and worth, if detected using knowledge unverified by others with the same fear. That fear controls them and they cannot confront it. Each of those fearful, must be certain of everything by using only commonly verified knowledge in order to commit to doing anything, even thoughts.

"Ridicule Replaces Reason."

They must watch the masses and determine by the movements of others, where it is safe to go with all that is done, even their thinking.
Vast amounts of knowledge that may be perfectly good, is not used by them because by itself, it proves nothing. This results in their fearful obsession with the position, that; because all this unverified knowledge proves nothing, everyone one should perceive as they do, or in this instance, do nothing, not even have thoughts with that knowledge because the one fearful does not have them, ........... therefore no others should have them; and if someone does, that person should not express those thoughts because that may influence more people to actually use information that is not verified by its common usage. Conversely believed; everyone who does express their thought derived from unverified knowledge, therefore has, in some way, flawed thinking meaning none should listen to those expressions ever.

"Ridicule Replaces Reason."

Since those amongst us reacting to that special fear must only use knowledge valid by virtue of its being recognized by others as commonly used, learned this method by suffering criticism, or watching criticism inflicted on others, by loved ones, ones respected, whom yet others; of the common group; accepted by those respected, also reacting to the special fear, believed the respected teachers were being responsible by teaching these fearful paradigms of action in this way.

"Ridicule Replaces Reason."

With regard to reason, all knowledge has a value, some of much more value immediately and others great value generally, and some little ever; it is not reasonable to exclude knowledge because it is unused by a group. Therefore that fearful group agreed that a special punishment must be created. In some ways it could be said to have a purpose derived from the ultimate opposite purpose of all said here.

"Ridicule Replaces Reason."

When one person says something with a lesson of irony that is very well understood, relative or a truism expressing by axiomatic or analogous means; and another perceives and UNDERSTANDS the expression, they show this understanding by a very complex and dynamic expression that is comprehensive and a product of all that is said so far; they LAUGH. This profound expression of understanding and appreciated was borrowed and converted for use as a punishment for those using unverified knowledge in anyway, even thinking.

"Ridicule Replaces Reason."

This new method of punishment was named ridicule. Those reacting to that special fear, the one being explained here, had suffered, at the will of those they loved and respected, a reduced perception of self worth whenever they engaged in a usage of knowledge not commonly known. Their behaviors were changed by loved ones laughing at them and those seeing the great power and potential harm of ridicule often were helpless to identify and counter the abusive expression.

"Ridicule Replaces Reason."

Ridicule is no more functional than using unverified information or thinking but it serves as a way for those who are fearful to acknowledge and identify each other as having the same fears without looking like they are afraid.
newtonnjd
QUOTE
But so far your theory has zero backing from anybody with relevant expertise any where in the World.


In terms of visible public backing, yes. And I will certainly admit that this is a concern for the truth movement. But I do NOT agree that it settles it. On the Scholars forum we are discussing this problem. We see it as a hurdle we must overcome. But as we've already seen, it is not necessary for achieving visibility of the movement. Plus, there is no one branch of engineering that covers ALL aspects of 9/11 as well as general physics.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
But so far your theory has zero backing from anybody with relevant expertise any where in the World.


In terms of visible public backing, yes. And I will certainly admit that this is a concern for the truth movement. But I do NOT agree that it settles it. On the Scholars forum we are discussing this problem. We see it as a hurdle we must overcome. But as we've already seen, it is not necessary for achieving visibility of the movement. Plus, there is no one branch of engineering that covers ALL aspects of 9/11 as well as general physics.

Don't you think that IF the collapse theory is such utter bull$hit like you think


I don't think it's "utter bull$hit". I think it has something going for it, but is too unlikely overall. Nor does it jive with what we know about the criminality and imperialistic desires of the most corrupt government in US history and how 9/11 benefitted them perfectly.

QUOTE
Even in the US I can't believe a least a few structural engineers would say something people from various other professions publicly support CD theories why not any one qualified?


Just to be clear, do structural engineers study in detail how buildings collapse? Is it possible that they, like FEMA and NIST, would only follow things through to collapse initiation?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Even in the US I can't believe a least a few structural engineers would say something people from various other professions publicly support CD theories why not any one qualified?


Just to be clear, do structural engineers study in detail how buildings collapse? Is it possible that they, like FEMA and NIST, would only follow things through to collapse initiation?

You do presume to know more than the experts because you claim that thing they say happened are impossible. The question is a valid one, if you want to dodge it go ahead.


I'm not saying their claims are impossible. I'm saying I find an alternate theory far more likely.

QUOTE
Can you cite me one case in history, since the birth of the scientific method, of a theory not supported by ANY experts but believed by a saw body of laymen was shown to be true?


Laymen? Come on...

9/11 isn't just about CDs. There are people from a wide variety of fields who can be counted as experts on various aspects of 9/11.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Can you cite me one case in history, since the birth of the scientific method, of a theory not supported by ANY experts but believed by a saw body of laymen was shown to be true?


Laymen? Come on...

9/11 isn't just about CDs. There are people from a wide variety of fields who can be counted as experts on various aspects of 9/11.

The FEMA panel were all volunteers only a few of them worked for the federal govt.


Doesn't change anything. Do you think the editor would allow the claim that the US government had helped murder Americans into the report? laugh.gif
Common Sense
QUOTE
And how many of these media outlets reported that the collapse time of WTC7 was within about .5 seconds of free fall in a vacuum? Furthermore, how many of these outlets then surveyed structural engineers, reporting this fact to them, and other ancillary facts, and then asked them to guesstimate what the odds were that WTC 7 was CD'd?


Probably because the media was told well before the evident it was coming down by the fireman.

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...igro_Daniel.txt

Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. Covered with dust, he was drinking a bottle of Poland Spring water. Half his squad was missing. They’d gone into the South Tower and never come out. Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away.

“That building is coming down,” he said with a drained casualness.

“Really?” I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. “When?”

“Tonight . . . Maybe tomorrow morning.”

This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled.


“***!” I screamed, unsure which way to run, because who knows which way these things fall. As it turned out, I wasn’t in any danger, since 7 WTC appeared to drop straight down. I still have dreams about the moment. Even then, the event is oddly undramatic, just a building falling.

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index4.html

More evidence that everyone knew the building was coming down. Odd for someone to announce an illegal act... Because blowing up a building for insurance money is illegal.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And how many of these media outlets reported that the collapse time of WTC7 was within about .5 seconds of free fall in a vacuum? Furthermore, how many of these outlets then surveyed structural engineers, reporting this fact to them, and other ancillary facts, and then asked them to guesstimate what the odds were that WTC 7 was CD'd?


Probably because the media was told well before the evident it was coming down by the fireman.

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...igro_Daniel.txt

Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. Covered with dust, he was drinking a bottle of Poland Spring water. Half his squad was missing. They’d gone into the South Tower and never come out. Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away.

“That building is coming down,” he said with a drained casualness.

“Really?” I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. “When?”

“Tonight . . . Maybe tomorrow morning.”

This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled.


“***!” I screamed, unsure which way to run, because who knows which way these things fall. As it turned out, I wasn’t in any danger, since 7 WTC appeared to drop straight down. I still have dreams about the moment. Even then, the event is oddly undramatic, just a building falling.

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index4.html

More evidence that everyone knew the building was coming down. Odd for someone to announce an illegal act... Because blowing up a building for insurance money is illegal.

A scientific argument should be settled on the strongest evidence.


NO scientist worth the paper his degree is written on works off of a preconceived notion. A CD would be working off a preconceived notion because there is no evidence of one. The speed of the building falling isn't proof of CD. For them to spend time and money on on CD they may as well spend money on aliens teleporting in and blasting the thing with lasers. At some point you have to have evidence FOR CD and not just cast doubt on normal collapse.

QUOTE
So what? I don't blame NIST for all the lame arguments that NIST apologists make in their behalf. E.g., the lamest argument I have ever heard was not by one of our beloved "popes", but by a poster on the Randi Rhodes Forum name dptonic (or something similar), who tried to tell us that we really did trust the US governement because we expect mail to be delivered and Social Security checks to be cut. Is that NIST's fault, that some dude made an uber-lame comment?


The stupidest thing I heard was by one of the so called scholars. As if there was some evidence of a pyroclastic flow... Yet this lunacy is repeated by the sheeple over and over again. Blind to the fact that no one complained about 212 degree F or greater air.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So what? I don't blame NIST for all the lame arguments that NIST apologists make in their behalf. E.g., the lamest argument I have ever heard was not by one of our beloved "popes", but by a poster on the Randi Rhodes Forum name dptonic (or something similar), who tried to tell us that we really did trust the US governement because we expect mail to be delivered and Social Security checks to be cut. Is that NIST's fault, that some dude made an uber-lame comment?


The stupidest thing I heard was by one of the so called scholars. As if there was some evidence of a pyroclastic flow... Yet this lunacy is repeated by the sheeple over and over again. Blind to the fact that no one complained about 212 degree F or greater air.

Hopefully, Scholars for 911 Truth will facilitate and encourage some real science, both hard and social. If neither hard real science, or social real science, or a real investigation into military, air defense, intelligence and other non-scientific aspects of 911 interests you, that tells me you have no real interest in understanding the 911 attacks.


A stereotypical logical fallacy. Bush could be Hitler reincarnated (And sometimes I think he is) and the buildings STILL could have fallen due to the fires. The government could have ordered the attacks using Osama and the building STILL could have fallen due to the fires. The government could be bought and paid for by corporations at every level and STILL the buildings could have fallen due to fire. If a scientist takes this nonsense into account hes not a scientist, hes an idiot.
yesitdid
Christophera gets caught stretching the relevance of a poll and shoots back that the columns are not visible in ONE smoke obscured picture.
Chris, the columns broke. If you can build a column of steel which is 1300 feet long that can stand on its own then you need to patent the process. You'll be rich!

metamars states that #7 fell only 0.5 seconds slower than free fall but ignores the time during which the roof structures, penthouse, screenwall etc., were falling through the roof. I guess that he and others simply don't consider large portions of a building moving about to be relevant.

Coupling this with the uncretainty in measurement of the collapse time one gets a time that can easily be 30% longer than free fall.

Another post includes patently racist comments designed to suggest that Arabs are too incompetant to have carried out the attacks. Yet when it is pointed out to be racist no CT poster, so far, has any comment.

edited to add

I almost forgot Temp who, it seems, wishs to join Christophera in promulagting way-out fantasies. Temp wishs to inform us that no planes were involved, at all.

That is one bitchin' big blue screen. I know that nothing seems to faze New Yorkers but I still think they'd have taken notice.
newtonnjd
QUOTE
The time of 6.6 seconds ignores the time period from the penthouse's first downward movement to the start of movement of the outer walls. IIRC that adds another 2 seconds or so.


YID, you disappoint me. I thought you were a better physicist than this. The comparison to free fall can only be made with parts of the building we can SEE falling a significant distance from rest. The delay after the penthouse fall is IRRELEVANT to the downward acceleration of the main roofline. Yes, if we're measuring the time that ANY part of the building was collapsing, it must start when the penthouse falls. But what matters is the time it takes for ONE visible part of the building to reach the ground. And THAT is 6.6 seconds.
yesitdid
QUOTE
I don't think it's "utter bull$hit". I think it has something going for it, but is too unlikely overall. Nor does it jive with what we know about the criminality and imperialistic desires of the most corrupt government in US history and how 9/11 benefitted them perfectly.


I thought you said you had no preconceived notions that would affect your reasoning here.

You just stated that you believe in CD not because it is a better explanation for what happened but because the gov't is an evil force that does bad things.
newtonnjd
QUOTE
If a scientist takes this nonsense into account hes not a scientist, hes an idiot.


This kind of attitude is exactly the reason the Scholars forum did not open the floodgates to just anyone. The harrassment would be non-stop and detrimental to our progress.

We are however creating a separate forum for guest members that have alternate views, so that we may have discussions with the skeptics. This forum will be kept free of insults as much as possible.
Foxx
AP reports explosion on the 105th floor !!!...

from newly released documents... published - Friday March 31, 2006...

(Must have been 'transformers' on every floor) biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

QUOTE


(AP) NEW YORK Christopher Hanley had to repeat his story to two different dispatchers after calling 911 from the Windows on the World restaurant on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Yeah. Hi. I'm on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center. We just had an explosion on the, on the like 105th floor," Hanley, 35, told an operator. Later, he says, 'We have smoke and — it's pretty bad." An operator tells him to "sit tight. Do not leave, OK?"

Hanley, who died in the trade center, was one of 28 people identified among about 130 emergency calls the city planned to release Friday. Hanley's parents shared the tape with The New York Times, which had sued the city for access to all the calls.



http://wcco.com/topstories/topstories_story_089185930.html

Note that he doesn't say it "Sounded" like an explosion --- he states "We just HAD AN EXPLOSION"

Poor Mr. Hanley must've been a CTer just before he died.
yesitdid
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 31 2006, 05:06 AM)
QUOTE
The time of 6.6 seconds ignores the time period from the penthouse's first downward movement to the start of movement of the outer walls. IIRC that adds another 2 seconds or so.


YID, you disappoint me. I thought you were a better physicist than this. The comparison to free fall can only be made with parts of the building we can SEE falling a significant distance from rest. The delay after the penthouse fall is IRRELEVANT to the downward acceleration of the main roofline. Yes, if we're measuring the time that ANY part of the building was collapsing, it must start when the penthouse falls. But what matters is the time it takes for ONE visible part of the building to reach the ground. And THAT is 6.6 seconds.

How can you even type that and sleep at night.

The penthouse and other roof top structures falling in illustrate that central load bearing columns were failing.
That is an element of the collapse, pure and simple.

The loads they were bearing were then distributed to the other central columns that survived this initial failure and to the perimeter walls. When those structural elements were overloaded they failed and since there was no where else to distribute the load the remaining structure all fails virtually simultaneously as all remaining elements quickly are overloaded well beyond design.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.