Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nick_oliveri wrote:- Longest sentance ...ever.
Specially with the full stop in the middle that you overlooked
That clears that up. Speaking of best guesses and such, wouldn't the Pancake Theory be just a theory?? It seems to be closest to reality for some folks.
"Just a theory" is a comment that will make pretty-much anyone with a background in science wince when they hear it.
A scientific theory is just-about the Holy Grail of standards in science. It means that something has been shown to be true to the extent that we can assume it to hold true in general within the framework that the theory is referencing. In the scientific sense, a theory is as close to reality as you get.
If the term is being used in this manner to refer to the pancake theory, then the only way in which it can be inapplicable is to scientifically find a single refutation. If a theory predicts something, then one single counterexample where it says this something will happen but is wrong disproves the theory. However, appealing to the senses (common or otherwise) that you don't believe it is not a counter-example.
If, of course, the pancake theory is not a theory in the scientific sense, then its still inaccurate to argue that "just a theory" applies. After all, those demon head pictures are just an idea as well. As is the idea that it was all done by space-aliens who actually used an invisible death-ray from their moon-base with an illusion of an airplane (which they vaporised with a second blast somewhere else and so on and so forth).
"Just a theory" isn't an arugment whichever way you look at it. Not all ideas are equal, and there is no "just" about scientific theories.
Nope. It would require more initial conditions to be true, and it would also require that one show those conditions being true would not cause a collapse under normal load conditions.Wouldn't an explanation like a failure in architecture or spastic core beams be a more feasible theory??
Supposition has no place in theory. Either we can show that they must have been in this state, or we discard the possibility.Or fire vents that were supposed to be open were somehow shut that day and retained all of the heat??
Think of it like this....if a model shows that with no hidden factors, the impact and resultant fire should have led the building to collapse in the manner observed, then what reason do we have to introduce additional factors to make the building collapse?
Furthermore, if we wish to introduce additional factors, then we should be able to show that they result in an equal or better fit at the very least. Again, this is meant in the scientific sense. Its nto an appeal to guesswork, gut feeling, eyewitness accoutns or anythng else. You don't trump a mathematical model using proven modelling techniques by appealing to gut feeling and what you thnik it should have looked liek. You trump it with a better model.
I think everyone has accepted that.Well, i think you know what i meant, and i think we might both conclude that fire wasn't the main cause in building 7!!
The problem is that those who wish to pour scorn on the official version want to trump up the original "best guess which is almost certainly wrong" and make it out to be "best guess which we'll stand over, believe to be true, and no-one's said anything different since". Seriously - the only people who you'll see make the claim that this is a serious theory any more are those trying to ridicule it....and/or perhaps those who haven't followed the story since the FEMA report came out.Bonkey, how can anything be scientifically clarified and investigated, if everything was removed and fecked into boats bound for china, ignoring the normal procedure of sifting through evidence? I think most people have based their opinions and theorys on "what looks like".
Because everything wasn't removed and fecked into boats bound for China.
NIST had metallurgical samples made available to them, and have never once complained about the insufficiency of this information. Furthermore, a lot of their work involves serious collation of the photographic and video evidence. Note that this doesn't mean cherry-picking the view of the building that suits their theory....this means searchnig all footage to get as complete a picture as possible.
They have only had partial success - they admit that there are still difficulties modelling the collapse, but that they're pretty certain that at least 1/3 of the building was destroyed by falling debris despite three of the faces being almost-totally intact. Their working model, from what I recall, had the building more-or-less collapse while leaving these three faces intact, and those are what we then see collapse straight down.
Thats not true. Jones' work alleging the use of thermit has made use of photographic, eye-witness and physical evidence - exactly the same stuff that NIST has done.This thread is pointless, because there never will be evidence to support what i think and what Tunaman thinks happened (maybe two differing trails of thought, but along the same lines!!), because it was all taken away and sold for scrap.
While I disagree with his findings and have pointed out what I believe to be flaws in his research, its clear that the allegations of there being no physical evidence and that a proper investigation cannot be carried out do not hold up.
Its also noteworthy that what you've just posted is an admission that you have a conclusion without the evidence to support it. On what grounds can you therefore criticise any other conclusion?0 -
bonkey wrote:Specially with the full stop in the middle that you overlooked
Woop, didn't notice that, damn my lazy eyes, not noticing, caring or paying attention to things.... Maybe all us non official story liking people have some new form of eye disease, affecting the part of the brain that takes in images and blurs them into our own sick twisted beliefs!!
What to call this new illness?bonkey wrote:"Just a theory" is a comment that will make pretty-much anyone with a background in science wince when they hear it.
A scientific theory is just-about the Holy Grail of standards in science. It means that something has been shown to be true to the extent that we can assume it to hold true in general within the framework that the theory is referencing. In the scientific sense, a theory is as close to reality as you get.
You might want to get in touch with someone so change this terminology. After all, it is an official government backed "explanation". maybe change it to a nicer one, for example, Pancake law of collapse??? I modelled this on the terminology "Newtons law".
After all, it is an official government backed "explanation". And no other fallback theory has been introduced. So thats what happened then. And if sears tower fell tomorrow due to fire damage, the forth high rise steel strutted building in history to do so. Maybe we could pass it off as that too!
Surely someone will agree, like teh cliché dissenting republicans! - tv episode quote, me trying to be funny, not to be mistaken for trolling/insult.bonkey wrote:Because everything wasn't removed and fecked into boats bound for China.
NIST had metallurgical samples made available to them, and have never once complained about the insufficiency of this information. Furthermore, a lot of their work involves serious collation of the photographic and video evidence. Note that this doesn't mean cherry-picking the view of the building that suits their theory....this means searchnig all footage to get as complete a picture as possible.
I do that, of course without adding numbers or finding out wind resistance or any of that crap!! Metallurgical samples, are these things teh scrapings they got off the road those days? Of course NIST didnt complain, i believe they worked backwards from the conclusion in the first place.bonkey wrote:They have only had partial success - they admit that there are still difficulties modelling the collapse, but that they're pretty certain that at least 1/3 of the building was destroyed by falling debris despite three of the faces being almost-totally intact. Their working model, from what I recall, had the building more-or-less collapse while leaving these three faces intact, and those are what we then see collapse straight down.
They probably have difficulty modelling the collapse because they cant really make out the cause of the problem. I can imagine them sticking burning matches into this "model" and scratching their chins. Hmmm...bonkey wrote:Thats not true. Jones' work alleging the use of thermit has made use of photographic, eye-witness and physical evidence - exactly the same stuff that NIST has done.
While I disagree with his findings and have pointed out what I believe to be flaws in his research, its clear that the allegations of there being no physical evidence and that a proper investigation cannot be carried out do not hold up.
What is there to search though though? Other than small "samples"? In physical evidence terms. You must find it odd that most of it was cleaned when the dust settled?bonkey wrote:Its also noteworthy that what you've just posted is an admission that you have a conclusion without the evidence to support it. On what grounds can you therefore criticise any other conclusion?
Is this NIST models partial success the valid evidence you hold to support your arguement/conclusion? Or is it all the video footage? Video footage in NIST and even Jone's case, could be classified as "what looks like".
I know im probably wrong here, but we seem to be in the same boat, quite like all that debris!!.
Pancake theory slated on most of these results. It seems that this theory isn't really as sound as some would think0 -
-
bonkey wrote:I'm saying the charter requires you to treat other posters with respect.
I really don't see how I could have disrespected you, as like I said it was not an insult, but merely an observation. If you feel the need to use it as an excuse to not reply to my last few posts, then you do that.You could argue that I was disingenuous and misleading in not pointing out why the "freedom to express opinions" argument was inherently flawed, and I'd accept that. I was prepared to be caught out on that one.
I could, but that is not the point here.Its why I never said that NoelRock was right...I said that the reason offered for him being wrong led to a double standard. There is a distinction which you've apparently missed.
Note that my objection to your insults are not based on the same reason. Mine are based on the fact that the charter obliges you to be respectful.
Thus, there is no double standard on my part.
The reality is that there is clearly a double standard on your part.
From a post you made from a few days ago in this thread, which was directed at me...It also scares me, frankly, that you need a link to the retraction. I'm amazed that you aren't familiar with is, considering that you've been rubbishing for so long.
I just ignored this obvious insult at the time, but seeing as you are playing the role of the victim, I thought I would bring it to people's attention.If you want to say I shouldn't do this, go right ahead. I can take it as acceptance that all of your own arguments which don't give the full pertinent details are also unacceptable in your own eyes.
Everybody has heard the seriously flawed official version of events for nearly the last 5 years now...
I think you will find I have absolutely no problem presenting as much video and photographic evidence as I can, so it's a bit much saying I don't give the full details.0 -
Well, to be honest, I don't know whether or not it is meant in the scientific sense or not.Nick_oliveri wrote:You might want to get in touch with someone so change this terminology.
Either which way, the point I was making is that "just a theory" is pretty meaningless as a critique regardless of whether or not it is meant in the scientific or non-scientific meaning.
And this is where my fundamental problem arises. These guys know what they are doing and are generally held in high regard (911 alternate-theory believers excepted).Of course NIST didnt complain, i believe they worked backwards from the conclusion in the first place.
You can believe they approached it back-to-front if you wish, but unless you can provide compelling evidence - or indeed any evidence at all - that this is what actually happened, then to be honest what you're ultimately doing is saying that speculation on your part is enough to discredit their findings. Indeed, it would be indicative of you doing what you are criticising them for - you're discarding their work because you have concluded its poorly done, rather than analysing their work and drawing an objective conclusion.
Tunaman has oft-stated his similar beliefs, as well as assertions that they never considered alternatives, and all I've done is asked for someone to prove such assertions, or indeed provide evidence to back it up. Bear in mind that NIST couldn't just come out and say "explosives/thermal charges were used". They'd have to model where they were used, how they were used, show how they could have been detonated (neither radio nor wire-based signalling would be possible), show how the impact of the planes didn't disturb /predetonate charges in WTCs 1 and 2, explain why no expected trace elements were found in the metallurgical samples they did have, and so on and so forth. Anything less would be a theory even more full of holes than the one thats being dismissed by its critics for incompleteness.
Incidentally, have you noticed that not one of said critics has held up any other disaster analysis (e.g. from a normal plane-crash) to show just how much more complete an analysis following large-scale unanticipated destruction should be? Has it never occurred to anyone to do this? Are they too lazy to do it? Or have they checked and found there is nothing exceptional about the NIST report? Thoroughness seems to be utterly lacking on the part of those criticising NIST for a lack of thoroughness.I can imagine them sticking burning matches into this "model" and scratching their chins. Hmmm...
And smoking their pipes over tea, what? No, NIST are not pre-WW2 english gentlemen. You can mock them all you like, but seriously...these guys are seriously good at what they do.
Yes, I do. I've never claimed that I'm perfectly happy with everything that went on, and this is one aspect I disapprove of, but not for the reasons that MIHOPers and the like keep coming up with.You must find it odd that most of it was cleaned when the dust settled?
BEfore it was hijacked and mis-represented to be support of the conspiracy theory, FDNY issued a complaint about this very issue, on the grounds that they believed there was a hell of a lot to learn about high-rise fires in general from these events. They do not accept that the standard (oft-repeated by alternatists) line that fire cannot collapse buildings and felt that the removal of the waste prevented the possibility of learning more to improve fire-fighting and life-saving techniques, as well as to learn lessons for future construction.
There is unquestionably the possibility of a conspiracy of this nature being present - that political games were being played to ensure that the standard line of "steel buildings don't just burn down" is kept, because a change in that belief would have immense commercial ramifications. Of course, such a conspiracy isn't sezy enough by far to grab people's interest, because it would be more classified as "business/politics as usual" than anything sinister.
Yes, it could. Have you read the reports? Is this what you think they're doing? If so, can you point to where they are doing it? If you haven't read the reports, then how can you critiquem criticise or dismiss them?Video footage in NIST and even Jone's case, could be classified as "what looks like".
There is no but. If you know you're probably wrong, then surely you should be looking to reevaluate your opinions....not just hold out in the vain hope that someone else will show you to be right.I know im probably wrong here, but
There's no shortage of people who criticse the pancake theory, What there is, is a shortage of qualified people to criticise it. All of the critics are effectively laypeople in the relevant fields and not one of them has "disproven" the theory. They've applied poorly-formulated tests (at best) to it and/or thought-experiments and decided that they don't accept the validity of the conclusion.Pancake theory slated on most of these results. It seems that this theory isn't really as sound as some would think
Its a bit like me saying that I don't accept gravitational theory, cause I've done some thought experiments and played with some lego and a stopwatch and decided that this proves its all a load of hogwash so we can discard what all of those scientists and their fancy schamncy equipment have said cause clearly they're just after cushy grant money to buy shiny toys.
jc0 -
Advertisement
-
tunaman wrote:I really don't see how I could have disrespected you,
I assme you won't mind if I, or others, start calling you delusional then, because thats in the same ballpark as cognitive dissonance (which is a form of self-delusion to avoid having to deal with conflicting beliefs).
It's not an insult, right?
What obvious insult? That I'm scared you can be so vehemently opposed to something you apparently are unfamiliary with, whilst insisting all the time that you engage in critical and logical thought?I just ignored this obvious insult at the time, but seeing as you are playing the role of the victim, I thought I would bring it to people's attention.
Would you prefer if I said you were deluding yoruself, thinking that you are logical or critical in dismissing something you're not familiar with, despite claiming to have researched the man in question and this being one of the two most relevant points regarding him?
Fair enough. I apologise for saying you scared me, but will instead say that you are delusional and suffering from cognitive dissonance....beause in your eyes, thats apparently not an insult.
jc0 -
-
-
-
bonkey wrote:I assme you won't mind if I, or others, start calling you delusional then, because thats in the same ballpark as cognitive dissonance (which is a form of self-delusion to avoid having to deal with conflicting beliefs).
Thanks for the education lesson.
You have tried to claim any evidence I present is just not credible, because you can find a retort on the likes of 911myths.com, who like you claim to be totally impartial, but the reality is very different.It's not an insult, right?
Like I said before, merely an observation.
As you can imagine I have been called all sorts of names for presenting my ideas, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest. All it does is show up their lack of intelligence and the weakness of their arguement.What obvious insult? That I'm scared you can be so vehemently opposed to something you apparently are unfamiliary with, whilst insisting all the time that you engage in critical and logical thought?
Maybe I should have been more specific in quoting you...considering that you've been rubbishing for so long.Would you prefer if I said you were deluding yoruself, thinking that you are logical or critical in dismissing something you're not familiar with, despite claiming to have researched the man in question and this being one of the two most relevant points regarding him?
You were trying to present evidence to support your arguement, so why should I make things easy for you?
For all I knew it could have been a different article to the one that I was aware of...Fair enough. I apologise for saying you scared me, but will instead say that you are delusional and suffering from cognitive dissonance....beause in your eyes, thats apparently not an insult.
You can say it, but it won't bother me in the slightest, as I know it's not true.
You obviously feel the same way about my observation, so why does it bother you?The proof can even be found in the NIST report!!!
I'm not about to download or trawl through that garbage to find what you think is relevant, so why don't you post the enlightening section in the thread?
Unless of course you mean this...
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.
I bet they looked really hard...
NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers.
Why would they even mention missiles?
Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
What did you say about people who use clearly in their arguement? 0 -
I am a man of speculation, and skepticism, same as yourself (the skeptic part). My speculation is not going to discredit anyones findings. Definatly not the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This isn't exactly the countrys foremost debate, suggested change and idea source!bonkey wrote:You can believe they approached it back-to-front if you wish, but unless you can provide compelling evidence - or indeed any evidence at all - that this is what actually happened, then to be honest what you're ultimately doing is saying that speculation on your part is enough to discredit their findings.
You have your views and i have mine, simple as that, im not doing this to get at you. Think of a tv show, a comedy if you will, because thats what i see the official story and pancake theory as. You like it, i dont.
Most materials of the NIST report were based on external images of the buildings, i got the feeling that they thought the external columns were what was keeping the building up!
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html
Did NIST have access to these blueprints? If the model was drawn precisely to these blueprints, would NIST not be liable for more or less releasing these blueprints in this vastly diagramed report of theirs?The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remain off-limits to the public three years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information
And if they took all of this data into account, would they not recreate an accurate computer model and explanation of the collapse? No... not very accurate models, ahh dammit.
I see fishy things about. Like the put options on American Airlines on Sept 10.
http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html
$9 million, would you risk complete and utter foreknowledge disclosure for this amount if you had picked the money up? No? Neither would they... evidently...[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options… Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these “insiders” would have profited by almost $5 million.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;… Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent “insiders,” they would represent a gain of about $4 million.[/FONT]
And what about Silversteins lucky payouts, after being leaseholder for three months. Didn't get the multiple insurance claims you wanted from two seperate attacks huh Larry? Ahh well, you got a few Billion anyways.
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]http://www.serendipity.li/wtc6.htm[/FONT]
[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]
[/FONT]It is interesting, in considering this idea, to look at the actual times that the Twin Towers stood after the impacts. As noted in Section 2, the North Tower was hit first, at 8:45 a.m., in a direct hit and most of the plane's fuel entered the building, causing a huge fire. Then at 9:03 a.m. the South Tower was hit, but the plane hit the tower toward a corner and at a shallow angle, and comparatively little of the jet fuel entered the building, most burning up outside.
In both cases the fires within the buildings died down after awhile, giving off only black, sooty smoke. If the Twin Towers were deliberately demolished, and the intention was to blame the collapse on the fires (as the official story has it) then the latest time at which the towers could be collapsed would be just as the fires were dying down.
Since the fire in the South Tower resulted from the combustion of less fuel than the fire in the North Tower, the fire in the South Tower began to go out earlier than the fire in the North Tower. Those controlling the demolition thus had to collapse the South Tower before they collapsed the North Tower. And in fact the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after impact, whereas the North Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact.
But again, i am spouting out what im in no doubt has been said earlier.
What is the exact quantity of these samples? Are they microscopic? Give me (a lamen :P) an idea.bonkey wrote:explain why no expected trace elements were found in the metallurgical samples they did have, and so on and so forth.
Unanticipated, i think not. As i have said earlier, no thorough investigation can be achieved without evidence. Physical evidence preferably.... Im talking about the actual world trade centers themselves, or what was left of them.bonkey wrote:Incidentally, have you noticed that not one of said critics has held up any other disaster analysis (e.g. from a normal plane-crash) to show just how much more complete an analysis following large-scale unanticipated destruction should be? Has it never occurred to anyone to do this? Are they too lazy to do it? Or have they checked and found there is nothing exceptional about the NIST report? Thoroughness seems to be utterly lacking on the part of those criticising NIST for a lack of thoroughness.
Fair enough.bonkey wrote: And smoking their pipes over tea, what? No, NIST are not pre-WW2 english gentlemen. You can mock them all you like, but seriously...these guys are seriously good at what they do.bonkey wrote:show how the impact of the planes didn't disturb /predetonate charges in WTCs 1 and 2
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.htmlJone's Conspiricy Rants! wrote:It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 oF).
We demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite. An electrical superthermite "match" could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal.
Why not? I do believe ive missed something, ill read back a bit, sorry!bonkey wrote:neither radio nor wire-based signalling would be possible
Im not dismissing them for the concusions they draw from photographs and videos, i was just illustrating the point that no valid, even scientific conclusion of a collapse can be made from just photographs and video footage of exterior columns. i.e. "what looks like"bonkey wrote:Yes, it could. Have you read the reports? Is this what you think they're doing? If so, can you point to where they are doing it? If you haven't read the reports, then how can you critiquem criticise or dismiss them?
Erm, read my post again bonkey, i was referring to me and you being in the same boat, not my entire observation. Pffft!bonkey wrote:There is no but. If you know you're probably wrong, then surely you should be looking to reevaluate your opinions....not just hold out in the vain hope that someone else will show you to be right.
1 - I think this has been discussed.bonkey wrote:There's no shortage of people who criticse the pancake theory, What there is, is a shortage of qualified people to criticise it. All of the critics are effectively laypeople in the relevant fields and not one of them has "disproven" the theory. They've applied poorly-formulated tests (at best) to it and/or thought-experiments and decided that they don't accept the validity of the conclusion.
2 - Does its best at scientific criticism!
3 - This is funny!
4 -
5 - teh letter from 3!NIST's investigation would not even start until virtually all of the steel had been removed from Ground Zero and recycled
6 - An Irish site, just thought i'd throw it in.
7 - That photo scares me.0 -
-
Just as I thought we could have a discussion on a single topic for a while...Nick_oliveri wrote:I see fishy things about. Like the put options on American Airlines on Sept 10.
Whether or not these options are fishy has nothing to do with whether or not the buildings were collapsed by explosive or thermal charges in asddition to planes crashing into them.
Regardless of who was behind it, whether or not the buildings collapsed, were blown up, shot down, melted, or whatever you like, all that would ened to be known for insider trading was that the airline industry was about to get shafted, and these airlines in particular. If the WTC stayed standing, that would still be true. If the planes were all shot down and no building attacked, that would still be true. If the buildings were blown up, blown down, melted, exploded, imploded or anything else...that would still be true.
So the fishiness of those transactions (if indeed they were fishy) neither adds to nor detracts from any of the explanations of why teh buildings fell. All it tells us is that someone might have had foreknowledge.
http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html for more info on whether or not it was fishy.
BTW Larry, you also get lumped with the obligation to rebuild the buildings - given that this is what the insurance was for - as well as having to maintain the rent-payments for the period of the lease despite there being no buildings there any more. Tough luck there pal - huge liabilities and no income for the next...ohh...5 years and counting. But look on the bright side...if they never get rebuilt, you only have just over 90 years more rent to pay on a no-income hole in the ground.And what about Silversteins lucky payouts, after being leaseholder for three months. Didn't get the multiple insurance claims you wanted from two seperate attacks huh Larry? Ahh well, you got a few Billion anyways.
Silverstein has not been made rich by this.
http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html for more details.
http://www.911myths.com/html/collapse_time.html for more info.
Indeed.But again, i am spouting out what im in no doubt has been said earlier.
Its also no coincidence that I point to 911myths.com whenever possible. It answers most of the frequently re-occurring questions, at least to the point where further discussion becomes interesting.
How can you dispute the findings if you don't already know this information?What is the exact quantity of these samples? Are they microscopic? Give me (a lamen :P) an idea.
But no, they weren't microscopic. They were sufficient to meet NISTs needs, and they were also sufficient for Prof Jones to use in his paper postulating the use of thermite/thermate. You can even see a photo of one piece of the stuff in his paper, which you'll find here.
You've also just asked a question indicating that you don't actually know what the evidence was.As i have said earlier, no thorough investigation can be achieved without evidence.
This comes after another question as to whether or not blueprints of teh building in question were made available to these people.
SO I'd suggest that you're right. No inbvestigation can be achieved without evidence, and so far you're showing that you don't have the evidence to call NISTs findings into question, nor do you know whether or not they have the evidence to have made their claims in the first place.
To be honest, the burden on anyone questioning NISTs findings is not to pose questions, but rather to pose and answer them and thus show that NIST have failed somehow. Show that their physical evidence was insignificant, rather than wonder if it might have been.
The burden of proof (BoP) is on the person making a claim. NIST have done their research and their collected reports are not just a summary of their findings, but a detailed documentation of how they reached them. They have met their requirements regarding BoP unless it can be shown otherwise. Anyone wishing to call their results into doubt need to show that the methods/results are wrong, not simply suggest that they might be.
One can refuse to believe them all one like - belief is a personal perogative - but don't expect many to put your faith over their science.
But I'm not suggesting that the plane would have ignited thermite, had thermite been present.planes don't ignite thermite wrote:
I'm suggesting that had charges been present, then the charge and the ignotion-mechanism and whatever means of receiving a signal would all be present. Fine - lets assume thermite was used. What should have ignited the thermite? Can we assert that this ignition mechanism was also plane/fire proof? How did this ignition mechanism receive a signal? Would that in turn not also have to be fire-proof?
So for the floors above the impact point to have broken off and to have come crashing down on teh rest of the building, and for it to have been caused by cutting charges....some of those charges would have had to have been on the floors where the fire went off. The charge, the initiator/detonator, and the signal-receiver would all have to be fire-proof and impact proof (a plane went smashing through there).
Simply arguing that thermite wouldn't catch fire isn't enough.
[/quote]Why not? I do believe ive missed something, ill read back a bit, sorry!
Hmmm...maybe it hasn't...
OK...lets take wire-based first. How do you prevent the wires from burning, given that a fire was raging throughout a number of floors, which couldn't have been predicted with accuracy in advance. How did the wiring get done with no-one noticing (even if we assume the explosive/thermal charges could be smuggled in and placed). Where was it detonated from? Also consider that the lift-shafts - the obvious place to put such wiring - were also the prime path for the fire to spread downwards.
As for radio-based, which obviously seems more intuitive...its unfortunately the same problem. FDNY reported problems and difficulties with maintaining communications. Its a fairly well-established fact regarding large skyspcrapers - that its difficult-to-impossible to get a consistent signal. Now, consider just how preceise a demolition is - hundreds/thousands of charges going off in a carefully timed sequence. You simply can't do that with unreliable communications, which radio would have been.
Now, consider that NISts study shows collapse initatied at the crash-level (and that the BoP is subsequently on anyone challenging their findings to show that those findings are wrong). So the key charges must have been thse shock-proof, fire-proof, able-to-receive-a-signal ones...despite the fact that they couldn't have been determined in advance. So now, not only do we need charges to resist the impact and fire, we also need a detonation sequence that cannot be calculated in advance.
And again...BoP requires that anyone favouring an demolition scenario show how it was done. All Im doing is pointing what that "how" needs to cover.was just illustrating the point that no valid, even scientific conclusion of a collapse can be made from just photographs and video footage of exterior columns. i.e. "what looks like"
This is not what NIST did, so from a perspective of challenging them its not terribly relevant.
On the other hand, it does mean that you've accepted that no counter-theory can be considered scientific or valid while it limits itself to these methods....so thats about 99% of CT-believers and CT-arguments done away with.
Incidentally, while I agree its not sufficient to do everything, there's quite a lot that can be scientifically determined from exterior-based data. Thats because when you look in fine enough detail (e.g. frame-by-frame in video, measuring angles, speeds, etc. accurately is possible and one is no longer dealing with "looks like".
Here's a simple example. People have posited that the buildings fell at (and sometimes faster than ) freefall speeds. One can identify, however, free-falling debris outside the footprint of the building, falling at a faster rate. As some MIHOPers have been wont to ask - did the laws oh physics stop working that day? Did these clearly-in-freefall objects fall and accelerate faster than freefall ? If not, then the only alternative is that the main body - which can be (and has been) shown to be falling and accelerating at a measureably slower rate - was not falling at freefall rates. This is based on nothing more than visual evidence, but is fully valid from a scientific perspective. So while it might look like freefall, one can scientifically determine that it isn't.....all from visual evidence only.0 -
BEcause I wanted to show just your reaction - that people criticising the report either demonstrate an unfamiliarity with it and/or an unwillingness to actually look at the content of it.tunaman wrote:I'm not about to download or trawl through that garbage to find what you think is relevant, so why don't you post the enlightening section in the thread?
<edt>Unless of course you mean this...
Well, presumably you haven't made yourself a liar and looked at what you said you're not going to, so I take it you're simply speculating that this is what I've referred to.
As usual, its further confirmation of your "standards" of verification, where speculation wins out over cold hard verifiable fact.
</edit>
You bet that, do you? Gosh...thats a pretty convincing argument you have there...especially since up till now you've been asserting they didn't even consider other possibilities at all.I bet they looked really hard...
More speculation...
Because it was an oft-repeated consiracy claim, perhaps?Why would they even mention missiles?
I think you'll find that your beloved Loose Change even mentions it.
Enlightening to know that you show you are as unfamiliar with the details of the sources you supposedly put weight behind as the ones you disagree with.
If you were familiar with the NIST report, you'd understand why my criticism doesn't apply in this case. They've already established why it is clear so they're clearly not trying to avoid having to explain this.What did you say about people who use clearly in their arguement?
Given that you're unwilling to read their report, though, its unsurprising that you don't know much about what you insist is wrong.
<edit2>
It should be noted that while it is simple to criticise NIST for not providing more information about their claims regarding alternate theories, its virtually impossible for them to have done so.
How can you prove you didn't find something? Realistically, you can't.
However, what critics of the report overlook is that this should present the single weakest statement in the entire report if explosives were used. All one need find is one single example which could only have come from demolition methods, at which point the credibility entire NIST report falls apart....and all based on that one comment.
Needless to say, no-one has come close. People have pointed at things that might be clues, but might be something else.
So NIST make this claim, that tunaman bets is the result of no serious work at all...but all of those thousands of demolition-believers including himself have singularly failed to manage to undermine this claim that they all-so-quickly dismiss. What does that say about their work?
</edit 2>0 -
Advertisement
-
Someone, or lots of people? It just gives another, malicious viewpoint of why the buildings might have fell that day.bonkey wrote:So the fishiness of those transactions (if indeed they were fishy) neither adds to nor detracts from any of the explanations of why teh buildings fell. All it tells us is that someone might have had foreknowledge.bonkey wrote:Indeed.
Its also no coincidence that I point to 911myths.com whenever possible. It answers most of the frequently re-occurring questions, at least to the point where further discussion becomes interesting.
Im sorry, i know i read most of this thread, but i cant really remember some of the points raised already. Theres a lot of information and if it was sorted in categories it would be great!!
Again bonkey, its my opinion, i am sorry if that still angers you. I was misinformed on the amount and quantity of samples they had available, thats all.bonkey wrote:How can you dispute the findings if you don't already know this information?
I believe you will find that i indicated that i didnt know what the quantity was..bonkey wrote:You've also just asked a question indicating that you don't actually know what the evidence was.
Yes... I asked the question of teh blueprints, because i wanted to point out the accuracy of this computer model, which didnt work out well and also concentrated on what caused the collapse, more than the actual collapse itself.bonkey wrote:This comes after another question as to whether or not blueprints of teh building in question were made available to these people.
I think blueprints would have also stated if there was a problem in costruction in 1,2 and 7. Which there obviously was, particularly on that day.
I refer you to the south tower collapse pic
It's falling over to a side! Anyone would think that this part of the building would have tipped over and fell into the street below leaving a considerable amount of the upper floors still partially intact (until it hit the ground of course, covering a few blocks!). Before the rest of the building had a chance to "pancake".
The odd thing is though, that this part seems to just disintegrate as the rest of the building is falling, how could this happen unless all of the floors above the point of collapse failed simultaneuosly? Did it lean one way first, and then balance out somehow?
Wow, you love this report. Im sorry that i dont like it bonkey, you'll just have to get over that fact. Im sure it was conducted in good faith. Do i have to give evidence of contrary opinion about every subject to you?bonkey wrote:SO I'd suggest that you're right. No inbvestigation can be achieved without evidence, and so far you're showing that you don't have the evidence to call NISTs findings into question, nor do you know whether or not they have the evidence to have made their claims in the first place.
I'll be more careful voicing my opionions next time.
Why do i think these horrible, inconcievable things about that day? Because building 7 came down in a matter of seconds in the same manner as buildings 1 and 2. Charges would have taken months to plan, but no, "fire" caused it to collapse... yeah.. sure.
If you can prove to me that building 7 came down by fire or by any other means than explosive charges, then i'll consider the NIST report being sound! Other than that, you have to (you dont have to, but you might!) consider that 1 and 2 might have been brought down in the same unexplained and unbelievable way. Albiet in a more advanced way than building 7 taken into consideration your wonders about detonation means, which i now wonder about myself.
You ask how no one noticed explosives being placed in 1 and 2? Why did they not notice 7? If it did indeed come down by detonation.... *cough*
it did, of course it did!
The wind didn't knock it down, unless this new winds force was focused on it from above by those aliens you were talking about earlier. Well, i interviewed the both of them, here is an excerpt:
Me: "Wind, did you knock building 7 with some unimaginable force from above?"
Teh Wind:"No i Didn't, the aliens did it, i swear... tttt talk to them!"
Me:"Aliens, you were playing along with the wind weren't you? Look at me, you did it!!!
Aliens: "Stop hitting me please, i swear i didn't do it!!"
I believed them, after my trademark electrodes to the balls torture, no one can withstand that!
I WONT EXPECT ANYONE TO DO THIS. I am not trying to preach to many, or anyone!! Im just trying to understand what the fluck happened in my own way!!! These days, its just yourself, tunaman, oscarbravo and myself debating here. Not exactly a massive congregation or anything. Im sorry for having an opinion.. seriously, im sorry!bonkey wrote:One can refuse to believe them all one like - belief is a personal perogative - but don't expect many to put your faith over their science.
I haven't accepted anything, i was just thinking that these methods couldnt draw a totally valid conclusion. Dont make conclusions about my trail of thought,and everyone who disagrees with you, please.bonkey wrote:On the other hand, it does mean that you've accepted that no counter-theory can be considered scientific or valid while it limits itself to these methods....so thats about 99% of CT-believers and CT-arguments done away with.
Below quote link (interesting, worth a read)[FONT=arial,helvetica] Now this whole controversy between the "melted steel" scenario and the detonation scenario is one that could be very easily resolved. All we have to do is dig up the steel beams and examine each and everyone of them. If an explosive device caused the steel to fail, there will be tell-tale indications for the engineers to see. But if it was intense heat that caused the steel to "melt" or "buckle", there will be tell-tale signs of that as well. All we have to do to put an end to this controversy is to closely examine the steel. Right? [/FONT]
Especially when you are dealing with the cores, which, oddly enough, are inside the buildingbonkey wrote:Incidentally, while I agree its not sufficient to do everything, there's quite a lot that can be scientifically determined from exterior-based data. Thats because when you look in fine enough detail (e.g. frame-by-frame in video, measuring angles, speeds, etc. accurately is possible and one is no longer dealing with "looks like".
Lets just consider that it might "not look like freefall". Then why the hell did the speed of collapse not start off slow, and finish fast (lol, a bit like meself!)? I do believe it started off pretty fast, in both cases. In fact, each building came down in around 10 seconds.bonkey wrote:Here's a simple example. People have posited that the buildings fell at (and sometimes faster than ) freefall speeds. One can identify, however, free-falling debris outside the footprint of the building, falling at a faster rate. As some MIHOPers have been wont to ask - did the laws oh physics stop working that day? Did these clearly-in-freefall objects fall and accelerate faster than freefall ? If not, then the only alternative is that the main body - which can be (and has been) shown to be falling and accelerating at a measureably slower rate - was not falling at freefall rates. This is based on nothing more than visual evidence, but is fully valid from a scientific perspective. So while it might look like freefall, one can scientifically determine that it isn't.....all from visual evidence only.
Look for yourself. This video asks about building 7 as well. I dont see a slow start for the WTC's. As the mass from underneath got pulverised from the top, it should have contributed to the speed on the way down. It should have took a few seconds more to get started at least. Every floor just seems to fail simultaneously. With feck all resistance.
The cores and floors below that were not affected by fire should have given some resistance even before the mass was substantial enough to crush the building.
And i do retract my 4.5 second 7 collapse. The link i gave seems to suggest it was 6.4 seconds. Im sorry for this earlier remark.0 -
This is a misconception based on a misunderstanding of the physics involved. People see the top part of the building "falling over", and wonder why it didn't land "beside" the wreckage of the building entire.Nick_oliveri wrote:I refer you to the south tower collapse pic
It's falling over to a side! Anyone would think that this part of the building would have tipped over and fell into the street below leaving a considerable amount of the upper floors still partially intact (until it hit the ground of course, covering a few blocks!). Before the rest of the building had a chance to "pancake".
Thought experiment once more (and I'm directing this at those who, unlike tunaman, seem to have some interest in the actual physics of the event). Whether caused by jet-fuel and office-furniture fire, or by any other means, imagine that a catastrophic structural failure has occurred as indicated in the photograph you posted. The top half of a huge 110-storey building collapses assymetrically, and starts to fall over sideways.
Now, in order for it to "fall off" the side of the skyscraper, it would have to effectively pivot on one side of the building. This would require that at least half the mass of the (still intact) top portion of the building travel upwards, around the pivot point, before it could topple over sideways and land beside the building. There is pretty much no physical force that could cause this to happen.
Look at the picture. It's obvious that there has been a massive structural failure on one side of the building. This has caused the top portion to pivot, as it is no longer supported on that side. Given that its mass hasn't been reduced (notwithstanding tunaman's alchemical theories), that means that all the mass of that top part of the building is being supported by one side of the structure. It shouldn't take too much of a leap of logic to conclude that that one side won't support it for long, and shortly after it starts to rotate, the whole support structure collapses, and the pancaking begins.
It doesn't just disintegrate spontaneously, it falls down through the building and disintegrates en route. That's not visually obvious as it quickly becomes obscured by dust clouds on the way down.Nick_oliveri wrote:The odd thing is though, that this part seems to just disintegrate as the rest of the building is falling, how could this happen unless all of the floors above the point of collapse failed simultaneuosly? Did it lean one way first, and then balance out somehow?
I never cease to be amazed by the people who talk about the top portion of the building "disintegrating" and "exploding", when the only clear visuals show that portion of the building intact up to the point where it becomes impossible to see what's happening to it.
I thought it was clear that massive structural damage as a result of two 110-storey buildings collapsing in an uncontrolled fashion right beside it caused it to collapse.Nick_oliveri wrote:Why do i think these horrible, inconcievable things about that day? Because building 7 came down in a matter of seconds in the same manner as buildings 1 and 2. Charges would have taken months to plan, but no, "fire" caused it to collapse... yeah.. sure.
Did it? bonkey posted a 400-plus page document explaining why 1 and 2 collapsed. Have you read it? Unless you have a similarly well-documented argument for 7 being demolished, then I'm sorry, but I'm not just going to take your word for it.Nick_oliveri wrote:You ask how no one noticed explosives being placed in 1 and 2? Why did they not notice 7? If it did indeed come down by detonation.... *cough*
it did, of course it did!
What does this prove? Do you have a scientifically valid case for saying that a spontaneous collapse of a badly-damaged 110-storey skyscraper couldn't possibly happen in 10 or so seconds?Nick_oliveri wrote:Lets just consider that it might "not look like freefall". Then why the hell did the speed of collapse not start off slow, and finish fast (lol, a bit like meself!)? I do believe it started off pretty fast, in both cases. In fact, each building came down in around 10 seconds.
Why?Nick_oliveri wrote:It should have took a few seconds more to get started at least.
It's perfectly visually obvious that the floors fail consecutively. Where the hell are you getting simultaneous failure from?Nick_oliveri wrote:Every floor just seems to fail simultaneously.
Yeah, the top floors were constructed from solidified helium. I mean, seriously: what is it about the top section of an enormous building that you guys consider too insubstantial to cause damage to the lower portion?Nick_oliveri wrote:The cores and floors below that were not affected by fire should have given some resistance even before the mass was substantial enough to crush the building.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
But there is no dispute that the towers fell as the result of a malicious act. The dispute is over what that malicious act entailed, and insider trading does nothing except suggest someone might have known the airline industry would be effected....which again is not in dispute (except perhaps by those who think they were Global Hawks, loaded with explosives, and with holographic cloaking devices to make them look like Boeings...no, really.)Nick_oliveri wrote:Someone, or lots of people? It just gives another, malicious viewpoint of why the buildings might have fell that day.
Its your opinion and you're entitled to it. It doesn't make me angry that you hold it at all. I'm just pointing out that its an opinion based on ignorance of the many of the very facts that are being criticised.Again bonkey, its my opinion, i am sorry if that still angers you. I was misinformed on the amount and quantity of samples they had available, thats all.
You question NISTs report, but (to date at least) have shown very little knowledge about what is in the detail of the report, how NIST carried out their investigation, nor how they arrived at their findings.
You're still perfectly entitled to believe its a work of fiction...but surely you have to admit that unless you can show that you know what you're talking about its unlikely that others will ever find your position convincing.
Isn't the entire dispute about what caused the collapse?and also concentrated on what caused the collapse, more than the actual collapse itself.
I wasn't aware that there was any dispute over the suggestions that the buildings fell. Are some people are claiming they still stand and can be seen in the Manhattan skyline.
Are you aware that the NIST report has already had, and will continue to have, a serious impact on how high-rise buildings are designed in the future?I think blueprints would have also stated if there was a problem in costruction in 1,2 and 7. Which there obviously was, particularly on that day.
Blueprints don't tell you about design-flaws. If they did, the design-flaws would have been spotted before the buildings were even built. Analyzing what caused the collapse initiation.
As for building 7 - there are a number of points you seem to overlook in coming to your "flawed design" conclusion:
1) NIST haven't completed their report on WTC7 yet...so I'm at a loss to understand what it is you're criticising them for about this building when they're still looking into it to make sure they do as thorough a job as they can.
2) There isn't a commercial building in the world who's design incorporates resistance to large chunks of another building falling on it from 50 stories above.This was the initial cause of damage to WTC7. Are you suggesting that this is an obvious design flaw that would have shown up in the blueprints?It's falling over to a side!
No, its not. Its pivoting as successive support columns fail from the point of impact (one corner) to the opposite. Once all support has failed, the pivoting ceases as gravity acts equally on both sides.
No...not anyone. Merely anyone who doesn't stop to think about the physics involved, or who doesn't have the required knowledge of physics in teh first place. Add to that anyone who is under the mistaken belief that single still photographs can give an accurate representation of the directions of movement.Anyone would think that this part of the building would have tipped over and fell into the street below
However, I'm delighted that someone has brought this point up again, arguing it just the way you have.
You allege that anyone would think it would fall off the building. If I may be so bold as to reword your allegation, then one could say that common sense tells us that it will fall off the building and hit the path. Clearly, what you believe anyone would think, or what I have reworded as "common sense" is - in this case - wrong. It doesn't imply that some sinister external forces were at work, no more than it implies that the laws of physics decided to go on coffee break. It implies that common sense - what you see as what anyone would think - is wrong.
Once you accept this, there are two things that should come out of it:
1) Common sense and/or what anyone would think is not a reliable basis on which to judge complex collapse scenarios.
2) We need tools other than common sense to back up an assertion before that assertion can have validity.
OB has already explained this. His explanation is (unsurprisingly) consistent with what the official report says happened. Successive collapse from the corner of plane-impact caused "sagging" where one side started to fall while the other side remained supported. Once all support failed, sagging stopped as gravity affected both sides equally.The odd thing is though, that this part seems to just disintegrate as the rest of the building is falling, how could this happen unless all of the floors above the point of collapse failed simultaneuosly? Did it lean one way first, and then balance out somehow?
In theory, were the "break off" portion large enough, its centre of gravity could end up outside the footprint of the building before the point where all connections between the top section and the rest of the building had severed. In such a scenario and only in such a scenario would it be expected for the mass to fall outside the building's footprint. Until the centre of gravity moves outside the buildings footprint, then it would require either a strong lateral force, or (as OB mentioned) that one side the building lift in order for this to happen. Thats not what happened - the top portion went exactly where the laws of physics said it should go. Whether or not common sense or what anyone would think agrees with them is only going to reflect on the correctness of common sense or what anyone might think in this case. It is not a reflection on the laws of physics.
I respect the report and the work that has gone into it. I see it as being a good example of what it is I respect about science. If you see my defence of this report as some sort of love-affair, then consider it a love-affair with science itself, and that I am protecting it from being ravaged by emotion-based reasoning that should have no place in determining what actually happened.Wow, you love this report.
I don't care whether you like it or not. I care that you repeatedly use your dislike of it to suggest that its flawed whilst simultaneously showing you know little if anything about the contents of the report.Im sorry that i dont like it bonkey, you'll just have to get over that fact. Im sure it was conducted in good faith. Do i have to give evidence of contrary opinion about every subject to you?
If you stop trying to suggest its flawed, I'm quite happy to stop showing that you have no solid logical basis on which to base that argument.
The report constitutes the fulfillment of BoP when it comes to the theory that airplanes and the resultant fire are what brought the towers down. If you want to refute that claim, then the burden is on you to prove the report wrong, either by showing there is something that it didn't explain or consider that can only be from a demolition, that its methods are flawed, or that its findings are demonstrably wrong. You can believe what you like, but at the end of the day you shouldn't be surprised that the cries of foul play fall on deaf ears from people who put science over belief when it comes to physical processes.
"Fire" didn't cause it to collapse. Massive structural damage caused by falling debris coupled with the resultant fires were the most likely primary causes.Why do i think these horrible, inconcievable things about that day? Because building 7 came down in a matter of seconds in the same manner as buildings 1 and 2. Charges would have taken months to plan, but no, "fire" caused it to collapse... yeah.. sure.
(ctd...)0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Oscar and bonkey, seeing as you are both singing from the same hymn sheet, there seems no point in replying to both of you seperately.
You claim I have not looked at the official NIST report, which is wrong, but it hasn't stopped you accusing me of not knowing the official story, which is also wrong.
I pointed out that the 9/11 commission claimed the south tower collapsed in 10 seconds, which is way out according to bonkey and his precious 911myths site, which tries to claim the collapse took more than 15 seconds.
So if the claim of 10 seconds from the US government is so far out, then how can you possibly claim their collapse time for building 7 is accurate?
As for looking at the damning evidence supporting the demolition theory, bonkey has twice ignored the documentary 911 eyewitness, which should appeal to both of you, as it is very scientific. Bonkey also claimed that no audio of any explosions were caught on tape, yet when I presented this documentary as proof that he was just blatantly wrong, he ignored it.
So here is a link again for the third time...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness
I know the evidence presented here is incredibly incriminating, and must be very hard for you guys to try to explain, but give it your best shot.
Here again is the slow motion clip of the top of the north tower. For a start notice the incredible symmetry of the collapse...
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/1199/ntower8gc.gif
This should make it easier to see how the top 18 floors disintegrated, before they had a chance to pancake down on the floors directly below...
http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/3992/ntower03gif7cf.gif
As for building 7, where is the raging inferno?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/reprehensor/wtc7-demolitionlg.gif
The official report should be able to tell us all what happened, right lads?
According to NIST they need to do more investigation, and the final report will be out at a later date...
Amazingly NOT one piece from building 7 was ever examined before it was cleared up incredibly quickly...
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/5530/wtc7cleaned1ag.jpg
Is it just another coincidence, or did they have something to hide?
Strange how the 9/11 commission never even mentioned the collapse of building 7...
What about able danger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger
What about all the war games on the morning of 9/11?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11%2C_2001
Incredibly the general in charge claimed the war games actually enhanced their ability to respond...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU&search=mckinney0 -
-
-
-
I actually took time out and sat through that. There's an hour and three quarters of my life I'll never get back.tunaman wrote:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness
I know the evidence presented here is incredibly incriminating, and must be very hard for you guys to try to explain, but give it your best shot.
I'll post just one image clipped from that video:
This is taken from the section where they explain why the pancake theory is impossible, because of Newton's laws of motion. They tell us that if the top of the building started to fall sideways, it must have landed in the street. To illustrate this, they use the schematic above, which clearly shows the top portion of the building toppling in such a way that one corner has risen way above its starting point (I've added the red line to illustrate this). This is clearly completely different from what actually happened, apart from being physically impossible.
This is the standard of "science" used throughout the video. Other examples include overlaying a parabolic arc on a freeze-frame of a debris cloud, completely ignoring the fact that the cloud itself is falling, as can clearly be seen when the video is playing, and measuring an approximate 100m difference between the height of WTC7 and a neighbouring building (with no regard for parallax) and using that as the basis for "proving" that the building fell faster than freefall.
What a load of crap.0 -
-
-
-
-
Probably about the same time I said it rotated back level.PaddyIrishMan2 wrote:When did i say it was freefalling?
Assume a spherical chicken of uniform density...PaddyIrishMan2 wrote:
It's BECAUSE it was collapsing into steel and concrete that you should be able to apply Newton's laws to it. What I'm saying is the fact that it did not continue rotating (because of the resistance of the steel & concrete) that this cannot be reconciled with Newton.
You've assumed a very specific reason for the observed rotation, and assumed that the forces involved remain constant throughout the collapse. Have you read the NIST report?
I was refuting tunaman's "scientific" film, which - as illustrated in my screenshot from it, shown above - made precisely this claim.PaddyIrishMan2 wrote:Also your previous claim that half the building would need to "travel upwards" in order for the top section to fall into the street is pretty weak.
Your first link is a schematic diagram, which doesn't provide any information. The second link is to a video clip which doesn't illustrate what you say it does. Having watched it several times, as well as clips from other angles, it looks to me like the rotation was the first stage in the collapse. But then, there's only so much that can be determined from a quick look at a video clip, which is why I set more store by the NIST report than by any conclusion drawn from a single visual source.PaddyIrishMan2 wrote:The tower first started falling straight down and then started rotating. Have another look:
http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/5191/wtc2mysteryig2.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoTEEkF2GrA0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement