9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Convert me!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

pepik
Banned
Banned

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:06 am Post subject:

Quote:

Very true.

Both cases could almost be called "attempted deception" of the public on the part of the government, don't you agree? Conspiracy, even.

What do you think the consequences were of their false allegations?

I think you are confused here - a lot of truthers think they are the only ones who distrust government or oppose Bush. Well, you're not. There is no relevation here.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including:

Not that numerous Chek compared to the world establishment and none of them present any supported theories on what should have happened (to their minds) they just copy and paste old truther bleats (the real sheeple) about 'laws of physics', 'free fall', 'no plane' blah de blah...........'what does Willie Nelson think?'

None of them are anymore credible than Judy Wood or Steven Jones. But hey, this has been said already.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko

http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject:

A Sharp Major wrote:

Quote:

Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including:

Your perceptions appear to be ass backwards A#M - it's da troofers wot are repeating the engineers comments, not vice versa. That's why, as I explained to Alex, they're nothing new and sound so familiar.

And 'not numerous enough' and the attendant and unstated though implied 'not qualified enough' is meant to be taken as a serious challenge?

I suspect your heart isn't really in this charade you keep putting up A#M.
This isn't 2004 any more.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject:

Chek, I appreciate that some people are truthers, but to my mind the quotes you provide are meaningless soundbites - truthers don't need to prove that they are truthers, they need to actually prove the points of criticism that they have. I lean towards your view that military action against Iraq was planned before, and executed quickly after, 9/11. But that does not necessarily prove or support an inside job theory - it only describes America's (flawed and possibly unjust) reaction to the event. Surely you concede that Pepik's point is strong here - any inside job theory is flawed in this regard. I would still like to know why symmetrical collapse is suspicious or even proven to have taken place - I have never seen any substantial evidence on this matter. If it is only an opinion, and not a genuinely proven point, then it should be treated as such, and certainly merits no special mention in any analysis of the collapse on that basis.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject:

Alex_V wrote:

Chek,

I appreciate that some people are truthers, but to my mind the quotes you provide are meaningless soundbites - truthers don't need to prove that they are truthers, they need to actually prove the points of criticism that they have.

I lean towards your view that military action against Iraq was planned before, and executed quickly after, 9/11. But that does not necessarily prove or support an inside job theory - it only describes America's (flawed and possibly unjust) reaction to the event. Surely you concede that Pepik's point is strong here - any inside job theory is flawed in this regard.

Well we all have a view, but a reaction pre-planned and on the agenda from Inauguration Day suggests a certain urgency to me. Why should that be? In order to adhere to a timetable already in progress.

Alex_V wrote:

I would still like to know why symmetrical collapse is suspicious or even proven to have taken place - I have never seen any substantial evidence on this matter. If it is only an opinion, and not a genuinely proven point, then it should be treated as such, and certainly merits no special mention in any analysis of the collapse on that basis.

It's basic mechanics Alex, and the short answer is because of asymmetric loading.
Scattered fires, no matter how talked up they are into raging infernos will produce local failure, always assuming they were hot enough in the first place. Local failure will result in a weakened structure at that location, and should some collapse inevitably ensue, the building will lean towards that direction, because the unaffected areas maintain their original strength.

To produce a straight down collapse, all areas have to fail simultaneously - otherwise any remaining sound areas will produce a fulcrum that the building mass will rotate around.

To get a building to implode, in a WTC style construction, the inner core of the building must fall first (as we see with the penthouse) to allow the outer shell to collapse not only down but also fall inwards, which is what we see happen in classic CD style. The rubble pile according to FEMA measurements was WTC7's area plus 70ft.

MIT Prof Thomas Eager tried the 'it can only fall straight down' routine long ago. You don't hear much from the Eager camp these days.
You can be 110% certain NIST won't be attempting it either.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

jomper
Validated Poster

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 99

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:45 am Post subject:

pepik wrote:

Quote:

I think you are confused here - a lot of truthers think they are the only ones who distrust government or oppose Bush. Well, you're not. There is no relevation here.

Of course I'm not pretending to have a monopoly on distrust of governments; neither did I mention the notes Rumsfeld made on 9/11 because I think

pepik wrote:

they went to enormous lengths to create this giant, elaborate 911 conspiracy, but they forgot to implicate Iraq.

.

Look: obviously I don't imagine Rumsfeld's behaviour to be evidence for the "giant, elaborate 911 conspiracy" you're so desperate to ridicule - I made that clear in my first post on this thread, didn't I.

To be explicit: I am seeking in the first instance to establish the common ground between our allegedly polarised positions by discovering what the reported facts about the Defence Secretary's behaviour on 9/11 say to you.

I asked you what kind of a person you think Rumsfeld is, based on what we know about his behaviour on that day - although perhaps it would have been better to ask what you think his behaviour amounted to or how it could be characterised, based on what we know now.

Saying "it doesn't make sense" is stating the obvious, which you've already done.

pepik
Banned
Banned

Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:57 am Post subject:

My point is not that Rumsfeld's comments don't support 911 conspiracy theories, it is that they contradict them. They would have to be fake comments for the conspiracy theories to be true. So I don't see why my interpretation of comments you would have to consider fake is valuable. My view of Rumsfeld is that he was dishonest, incompetent, stupid, and hell bent on invading Iraq, like many others in the administration. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

jomper
Validated Poster

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 99

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject:

pepik wrote:

They would have to be fake comments for the conspiracy theories to be true. So I don't see why my interpretation of comments you would have to consider fake is valuable.

Again, and for the final time: I don't and didn't propose to move directly from considering Rumsfeld's notes to the suggestion that 9/11 was an inside job. But at the risk of getting diverted, and since as you have said Rumsfeld was

pepik wrote:

hell bent on invading Iraq

does it seem likely to you that he suddenly had a brainwave on the afternoon of 9/11 and decided from that point on it would be a good idea to spend his time trying to fit up Saddam Hussein instead of defending his country from terrorism?

I mean, that is your point, isn't it? That Rumsfeld's notes are incompatible with the idea he might've seen 9/11 coming?

If so, I agree with you, although I don't know why you feel you need to tell me what I have to believe is fake. I'm not attempting to turn you into a no-planer here or anything. I'm simply emphasising the fact that we know Rumsfeld wanted to trick the entire international community. But it seems from what you have said you accept this.

pepik wrote:

Rumsfeld was dishonest, incompetent [and] stupid... like many others in the administration.

Or to put it another way, Rumsfeld and the US administration were shown to be willing and able to collectively deceive the public (that is, conspire) in the pursuit of their own agenda.

There's nothing here you would disagree with, is there, Pepik?

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

In terms of a straight down collapse, this fulcrum is a key point obviously. In the case of WTC2, in which fires in the east side caused the building to lean before collapse, there is some evidence that as that side of the building failed, the other side provided such a fulcrum for a short time. Until the fulcrum itself failed (imo).

So for WTC2, is it not the case that collapse initiation was almost certainly not symmetrical (if it was indeed a collapse)? The main issue there is that the fulcrum is not on the east side (where the local damage was), but on the opposite side, causing the upper structure to actually pivot into itself, and not away.

From memory there is some evidence that WTC1 also suffered a much less noticable lean prior to collapse. So the same may have occured on a smaller scale.

If the fulcrum itself fails, does not a straight down collapse then inevitably occur?

In those terms, your basic argument that all areas have to fail simultaneously is untrue. All that needs to happen is for the fulcrum to fail for a straight-down collapse to follow.

Quote:

To get a building to implode, in a WTC style construction, the inner core of the building must fall first (as we see with the penthouse) to allow the outer shell to collapse not only down but also fall inwards, which is what we see happen in classic CD style. The rubble pile according to FEMA measurements was WTC7's area plus 70ft.

I don't think WTC7 was constructed in a similar way to the twin towers, so there is no uniform WTC-style construction.

You describe the way that WTC7 collapsed - this would be identical whether making the case for a CD or a collapse. As I have said many times before, this kind of CD is an artificially manufactured collapse, so the two are intrinsically linked. You cannot then use the manner of collapse to prove beyond doubt a CD, because all you are proving is that it is clearly a collapse initiated by a failure lower down in the building, whatever it was that caused the failure. So the point is moot.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject:

Alex_V wrote:

The question is - what makes the fulcrum fail as the force on it decreases as the moment angle is increasing?
Mmmm-mmm, that's a tricky one, I'm sure you'll agree.

Alex_V wrote:

In those terms, your basic argument that all areas have to fail simultaneously is untrue. All that needs to happen is for the fulcrum to fail for a straight-down collapse to follow.

Really? You mean we dun bin wrong all this time about how the dissociated debris wouldn't just slough off the sound part of the building like an avalanche of crud? Possibly a bit like that which I'm experiencing now?

Alex_V wrote:

I don't think WTC7 was constructed in a similar way to the twin towers, so there is no uniform WTC-style construction.

Ummm, yes it was. Different shape, same basic design.
Inner core, outer facade.
Man I haven't experienced this many red herrings since that Russian spy trawler was boarded.

Alex_V wrote:

You describe the way that WTC7 collapsed - this would be identical whether making the case for a CD or a collapse. As I have said many times before, this kind of CD is an artificially manufactured collapse, so the two are intrinsically linked. You cannot then use the manner of collapse to prove beyond doubt a CD, because all you are proving is that it is clearly a collapse initiated by a failure lower down in the building, whatever it was that caused the failure. So the point is moot.

Ya think? Maybe you should email that (short) semi paragraph to NIST tout suite. Oh and keep it very quiet.
The CD companies are milking a fortune from this obvious scam you've uncovered. Though - word to the wise - perhaps you should check the definition of 'simultaneous' (as opposed to 'sequential') first.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:12 am Post subject:

chek wrote:

Alex_V wrote:

The question is - what makes the fulcrum fail as the force on it decreases as the moment angle is increasing?
Mmmm-mmm, that's a tricky one, I'm sure you'll agree.

I'm struggling with the concept - could you explain it in layman's terms?

And, just to be clear, if the fulcrum fails, would the collapse go straight down?

Quote:

Alex_V wrote:

In those terms, your basic argument that all areas have to fail simultaneously is untrue. All that needs to happen is for the fulcrum to fail for a straight-down collapse to follow.

Well the OT is that the resistance of the floor(s) below could not arrest the falling mass. What makes you certain that the floor below could arrest the falling mass from above?

Quote:

Alex_V wrote:

I don't think WTC7 was constructed in a similar way to the twin towers, so there is no uniform WTC-style construction.

Ummm, yes it was. Different shape, same basic design.
Inner core, outer facade.
Man I haven't experienced this many red herrings since that Russian spy trawler was boarded.

Fair comment - very badly put by me.

Quote:

Alex_V wrote:

Don't really understand your point here. Which bit(s) of my paragraph did you disagree with, and why?

A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.

Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject:

Quote:

it's da troofers wot are repeating the engineers comments, not vice versa.

www.ae911truth.org (donate/buy me lunch) hit the ground dribbling on 1st January 2007. Are you telling readers that the tired, debunked pseudoscience that they peddle was not heard before that date, on this very forum? Okkkaaaaaaay.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/4

Quote:

Jan 1, 2007
Why are Architects and Engineers Re-examining the WTC Collapses?
— Editor

The 6 years since 9/11/01 has given us the time and space to emerge from the hypnotic trance of the shocks of these attacks and to rationally evaluate the existing and new evidence that has become available.

Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e., controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.

In addition, the shock that hit us on that date from the repeated attacks and staggering loss of life has limited our ability to rationally evaluate what really happened. We therefore found ourselves relying solely upon the judgment of outside "experts"... and, quite willing to, "go along" with the collective myth that has unfolded: that "the buildings failed structurally due to the aircraft impacts and resulting fires". After all, we saw the aircraft slam into the building, the resulting huge fireball, and the ensuing "collapses".

There is however a growing body of very solid evidence regarding these "collapses" that has emerged in the last couple of years - gaining ground even in the mainstream media. This new evidence casts grave doubt upon the theories of the 9/11 building collapse "experts" as well as the official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST.

It lays out a solid convincing case which architects & engineers will readily see: that the 3 WTC high-rise buildings were destroyed by both classic and novel forms of controlled demolition. You will find the evidence here in our website as well as at the linked websites. We hope you will find the courage and take the necessary time to review each section thoroughly.

After all, if in fact these buildings were professionally demolished with explosives, and since it takes months of planning and engineering to place the explosives, and since these buildings were highly secure from foreign terrorists, then we are presented with a horrible conclusion that we cannot deny: that this entire event must have been planned and orchestrated by a group other than those who are blamed by our Government. The questions raised are numerous and ominous that must be answered in the context of a truly independent unimpeachable congressional investigation with subpoena power.

We can play a very significant role as building professionals because we have the necessary technical credibility that Congress will respond to. Please join us in calling for a re-investigation.

Discerning readers will spot the contradictions, muddled thinking, pseudoscience, at least one basic arithmetical error, lack of alternatives (demonstrate what should have happened and support it) and breaches of engineering communication conventions therein. That will not matter to lay truthers but given the 'fact' that Gage is appealing to the engineering and architectural community, it makes him look like a tube. Show us what a pro you are Dick and we may listen. Four hundred and two architects and engineers (not all of whom pass verification checks) so only a few million to go. More than I'd hope of my allied professions but using the Stockhausen analogy goes some way to explaining it.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko

http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:44 am Post subject:

A Sharp Major wrote:

Quote:

it's da troofers wot are repeating the engineers comments, not vice versa.

No, that's only your rather muddled conclusion that the basic principles of the astonishing collapses were unknown to engineers before the founding of http://www.ae911truth.org/.
A fallacy as plain as your lazy mention of 'tired, debunked pseudoscience' as if your mere categorising of it as such makes it so.

A Sharp Major wrote:

I think it's more likely discerning readers will quickly tire of your assertions probably at a slightly faster rate than your insinuations.

Show us what a pro you are A#M by explaining to us how it was all perfectly normal behaviour for high rise buildings.

And as for your 'Stockhausen analogy', let's just say he's had more direct influence on popular culture than the humdrum artisans that your use of the analogy would lead me to believe you tend to favour.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject:

Alex_V wrote:

If the fulcrum itself fails, does not a straight down collapse then inevitably occur? I'm struggling with the concept - could you explain it in layman's terms? And, just to be clear, if the fulcrum fails, would the collapse go straight down?

If you imagine balancing a pole on your hand and then letting it tip over, the weight of the stick as applied to your hand will vary from it's entire weight when vertical to zero when horizontal.
It might then drop vertically, but only if its angular momentum (tipping motion) was arrested by some other force.

Alex_V wrote:

Well the OT is that the resistance of the floor(s) below could not arrest the falling mass. What makes you certain that the floor below could arrest the falling mass from above?

Rather than Bazant's postulated one piece hammer striking an allegedly fatal and unstoppable blow, disintegrated debris behaves differently. One analogy might be that it's the difference between dropping a solid 10lb brick on your head and pouring 10lbs of brick debris and dust over you.

Alex_V wrote:

chek wrote:

Alex_V wrote:

Don't really understand your point here. Which bit(s) of my paragraph did you disagree with, and why?

NIST seem to be relying on the 'single obscure column failure which proved fatal' theory. That may well be theoretically possible, but even so does not explain how that single point of failure propagates into simultaneous failure all around the undamaged parts of the structure, when a sequence of failures from the damaged portions later engulfing the undamaged (while defying gravity in the meantime) would be more probable.
You have to remember that NIST are desperately trying to find a mechanism that might 'naturally' simulate the appearance of CD, when in reality there isn't one.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Alex_V wrote:

If you imagine balancing a pole on your hand and then letting it tip over, the weight of the stick as applied to your hand will vary from it's entire weight when vertical to zero when horizontal.

Thx for the explanation. Presuming there was a fulcrum at the beginning of the collapse of WTC2, could the following have affected it's stability?

- Deformation due to the tipping angle? Are deforming steel columns able to operate as a fulcrum in a case like this?
- Was there destruction of weaker areas around the fulcrum? Was the structure strong enough to remain largely intact as it tipped?
- Were there shockwaves as the tipping section struck the floor below?
- What about the possible destruction of the support for the fulcrum as the floor collapses below? Ie if the floor below the fulcrum collapses, the fulcrum will collapse also.

I suppose the bottom line is if the top section was starting to disintegrate as it fell, either before or after the section hit the first floor below, then the idea of a fulcrum operating on a solid mass is a red herring to start with.

Quote:

It might then drop vertically, but only if its angular momentum (tipping motion) was arrested by some other force.

Surely once it begins to accelerate vertically, the gravitational force would surely take precedence over any lateral momentum, particularly if there is no fulcrum left to drive it. It woudn't be accelerating horizontally, but accelerating vertically, from the moment the fulcrum is removed.

Quote:

Alex_V wrote:

Well the OT is that the resistance of the floor(s) below could not arrest the falling mass. What makes you certain that the floor below could arrest the falling mass from above?

I don't agree with your criteria for dismissing Bazant out of hand.

Where is your evidence that the top section was 'already debris' by the time it struck the floor below? The claim is rather odd, since it only refutes a collapse theory on the basis that explosives are present. What if explosives weren't present? - then the top section wouldn't be debris, or not as much of it.

Even if visual evidence provides evidence of a lot of dust being expelled, how do you estimate what proportion of the building was dust when it hit the floor below? 90%? 80%? 70%? 50%? You seem to be assuming 0%. At what point does Bazant's 'hammer' become relevant? (Actually I'm not totally convinced it isn't relevant even if the top section is debris - it's still a huge mass falling on the floor below.)

Assuming that the top section was not exploded into debris on the way to hitting the floor below, the various papers that estimate the energy required to smash through that (weakened) floor then come into play. And all of them agree that there was more than enough energy available to do that. And so on right down the building in a swift vertical collapse.

Am I wrong then to rely on their findings? The only possible dispute with their findings comes from Gordon Ross, and his accusations are disputed and even dismissed by debunkers. Of course the debunkers may be wrong, and Bazant may be wrong. But to reject him out of hand?

In short, I don't see in a collapse scenario how the upper section could immediately be debris, and I don't see how it is proven by visual evidence or truthers. So Bazant is valid imo.

Quote:

Alex_V wrote:

chek wrote:

Alex_V wrote:

Don't really understand your point here. Which bit(s) of my paragraph did you disagree with, and why?

Again you are claiming that the failures had to be simultaneous, which I think is faulty logic. It is a stretch considering that all anyone has seen is the collapse from the top section of the building. And even that shows that the penthouse fell many seconds before the part of the exterior that we can see falling.

Can you prove that the failure was or had to be simultaneous? I don't see how you could.

If the core (or part of it) failed or collapsed, would the exterior areas stay standing? Surely not.

Would they collapse outward or inward? I think inward, pulled in by the collapsing middle area, to which the outer columns were connected.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:51 pm Post subject:

In my view, because an alternative theory has holes in it, it doesn't make the "official" theory any better. The official theory has failed to explain numerous strange events at all three 9/11 sites. Let's just pick one and see where we get to. After the collapse of the towers on 9/11, many vehicles were left burnt out - some of them a distance from the towers. This photograph here http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg indicates a car on fire while the dust from the collapses is still around (with WTC7 still standing). This is a closer view of the same area. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg So my question is - how does the official account of plane crash and gravity driven collapse account for the car fires?

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:53 pm Post subject:

KP50 wrote:

In my view, because an alternative theory has holes in it, it doesn't make the "official" theory any better. The official theory has failed to explain numerous strange events at all three 9/11 sites. Let's just pick one and see where we get to.

After the collapse of the towers on 9/11, many vehicles were left burnt out - some of them a distance from the towers. This photograph here

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg

indicates a car on fire while the dust from the collapses is still around (with WTC7 still standing). This is a closer view of the same area.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg

So my question is - how does the official account of plane crash and gravity driven collapse account for the car fires?

I don't really understand the accusation. During an event characterised by the biggest office fires in history, and the near or complete destruction of at least 6 large buildings, there needs to be special treatment of why a car was on fire nearby? The debris at ground zero stayed hot for weeks after the event, some of it red hot, yet a car cannot have caught fire?

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject:

Alex_V wrote:

KP50 wrote:

Accusation? It is observation so far.

Biggest office fires? Do you mean fires in the biggest offices as I am pretty sure the actual fires broke no records that day.

Leaving aside the extraordinary temperatures underground (which you can try to explain later), we are talking about one car on fire and many cars around it charred as can be seen in later photos. This car park did not seem to have much in the way of debris hitting it (it was a fair way from the towers) so what caused these cars to get so hot? It seems a natural forensic way of determining the cause of the collapses - whatever caused the collapses has to fit in with all of the observed events.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:13 pm Post subject:

KP50 wrote:

I can't even tell if it is a car that is on fire from pictures at that distance.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:05 am Post subject:

Alex_V wrote:

KP50 wrote:

I can't even tell if it is a car that is on fire from pictures at that distance.

Try this one

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/4764/19wtc108rj0.jpg

Same image - better resolution.

Wibble
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:07 am Post subject:

I really can not see any relevance to a few cars on fire to a conspiracy? CD would not have set cars on fire either so burning cars proves the offical storry more than CD.

Quote:

In what way did the outer shell collapse inwards?

Just to be clear, are you saying the inner core was destroyed first be CD?

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject:

Chek, you still considering your response, or have you excused yourself from debate again? I must say it's quite frustrating to discuss a subject, only to have your debater 'disappear' in the middle of it.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject:

Alex_V wrote:

Chek, you still considering your response, or have you excused yourself from debate again? I must say it's quite frustrating to discuss a subject, only to have your debater 'disappear' in the middle of it.

Sorry Alex, other priorities. Let's see what you've devised this time...

Alex_V wrote:

Again you are claiming that the failures had to be simultaneous, which I think is faulty logic.

Really.

Alex_V wrote:

It is a stretch considering that all anyone has seen is the collapse from the top section of the building. And even that shows that the penthouse fell many seconds before the part of the exterior that we can see falling.

Not sure I'm following you here. We have seen the interior core fail as evidenced by the penthouse, followed by the roofline of the building falling symmetrically, as if on a Tracy Island lift, in 6.5 seconds. Yet you're apparently postulating that something mysterious might have been happening out of sight that explains such suspicious CD-like behaviour?
With no evidence. Hmmm.

Alex_V wrote:

Can you prove that the failure was or had to be simultaneous? I don't see how you could.

Movement implies a direction, and an un-sequenced failure would modify that direction by applying unequal force(s), or 'unbalanced force' as Newton's first law expresses it. For the upper shape of the building to remain static until impact would require balanced forces, which are not what is expected in a chaotic situation.

Alex_V wrote:

If the core (or part of it) failed or collapsed, would the exterior areas stay standing? Surely not. Would they collapse outward or inward? I think inward, pulled in by the collapsing middle area, to which the outer columns were connected.

Again you're expecting symmetry of forces to just happen in a chaotic sequence of events (scattered fires, localised external damage), somehow affecting all areas of the structure equally.
Yet you offer no reason why that should be the case, or examples to illustrate your conjecture.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Show us what a pro you are A#M by explaining to us how it was all perfectly normal behaviour for high rise buildings.

My TORs are a matter of record here chek. I'm not here to convince you or your like and I'm not opposing NIST's explanation. Those who have something to offer should attend an NIST public forum and present their alternative. The truth movement hasn't scored well there preferring to 'shout' at the internet or bellowing in public at the behest of thickhead Alex Jones.

How thick? He doesn't know scientists let alone science like the rest of the truth movement, degrees or none.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rzJOGNevg_U
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko

http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:14 pm Post subject:

Wibble wrote:

I really can not see any relevance to a few cars on fire to a conspiracy? CD would not have set cars on fire either so burning cars proves the offical storry more than CD.

I can see Mr Logic and Mr Wibble have not been introduced. Your point seems to be that there is no way that cars could have been set on fire by a building collapse so that proves the official story? Are you sure you want to stand by that?

I would say that if the burning cars (not to mention the underground fires) cannot be explained by the official story then the official story is DEBUNKED.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:38 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Straw man. I am not expecting symmetry of forces - I am questioning why you insist that initiation has to be strictly symmetrical. How scattered were the fires? How localised was the external damage? You don't have any precise details of that any more than I do. I am not making any grand claims - it is not I that is saying that the building cannot collapse without demolition charges. Yet, with no precise knowledge of the damage or the fires, or any genuine scientific analysis of the structure in action, you are saying collapse is not possible - an extraordinary claim.

Quote:

We have seen the interior core fail as evidenced by the penthouse, followed by the roofline of the building falling symmetrically, as if on a Tracy Island lift, in 6.5 seconds. Yet you're apparently postulating that something mysterious might have been happening out of sight that explains such suspicious CD-like behaviour?
With no evidence. Hmmm.

I'm not postulating anything mysterious - I don't know the precise events within building 7, how could I?

But why, given a swift gravity driven collapse (the OT), should it be considered somehow mysterious that the building should collapse swiftly, and principally straight down?

This assertion of CD-like behaviour is nonsense - it is empty rhetoric. I could look at any video of any CD and say "my, that looks suspiciously like a collapse". The accusation means nothing without evidence.

Likewise appeals to reason that really make no precise accusation. Like this one...

Quote:

How static was the upper shape of the building until impact? Fairly static? How static should it look? How much was it's main direction (straight down) modified by unequal forces? A lot? A little? A bit inbetween. Is this sort of imprecise, unscientific guesswork really sufficient to make any grand claims? Of course not - this is sweeping speculation akin to guessing the number of sweets in a jar.

I reject the claims about the twin towers on a similar basis. The floor below the falling mass couldn't have given way, according to you, based on a few generalisations about some, much or all of it being debris, or the forces of the collapsing floors not directly and precisely a direct enough force on the structure below. Incoherent, speculative nonsense.

Wibble
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Dear oh dear, here we go again.

Are there no youtube videos showing possible ignition sources for cars? Oh look, here are some.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smKK8Tzhpso&feature=related

Or is that not fire shooting out of the WTC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbqHhtw7jMw&feature=related

There is no falling debris from a building that had been on fire for an hour? No chance of some debris heated by the fire falling on a car? No chance at all?

You are going to say it was CD aren't you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4w_AG2f8Lw&feature=related

See any cars on fire here? See any burning debris shoot out several hundred meters? Did you notice how the building started to collapse from the bottom and then the CD shot up the sides of the building? Completely different to the WTC that started to collapse from where the impact was near the top and of course had no CD shooting up the sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMkJmnyDuQ&feature=related

Notice how the vehicle in front of the building nor the people watching did not burst into flames? Notice how again the first explosions seen are at the bottom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyyHQQXX_0

Again no flames shooting out or setting fire to anything.

Are you starting see a theme here?

If you look here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-3ZOEXxdYg&feature=related

Amongst other stuff there are interviews with 2 people who were inside one of the towers when it collapsed. Yet neither state they saw or heard CD. So people in the towers did not see or hear CD. One was a trained and senior fireman who would naturally know what he is talking about yet no reports of CD. He lost a lot of friends that day so would be motivated to expose a cover up but of course there was not a cover up.

Yet lots of people who were not there will happily state it was CD because it fits in with their own blinkered view.

So who is it logical to believe? A trained fireman who was there when both towers collapsed. Who was inside one of the towers when it collapsed. Or you or any other truther?

Logic states you trust the Fire Chief.

PS Please note all the debris that truthers claim was not there because all turned to dust.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject:

Alex_V wrote:

Staw man back at you. The issue isn't just 'collapse' but the mnature of the collapse which as has been pointed out umpteen times before requires precise timing which is multi-millions-to-one unlikely given th easymmetric damage to WTC7.

Alex_V wrote:

So you arm-wavingly keep saying, but we know that engineering such collapses takes planning and precise placement of explosives. They don't 'just happen'.

Likewise appeals to reason that really make no precise accusation. Like this one...

Alex_V wrote:

Yawn. Empty, information free rhetoric.

Alex_V wrote:

I reject the claims about the twin towers on a similar basis. The floor below the falling mass couldn't have given way, according to you, based on a few generalisations about some, much or all of it being debris, or the forces of the collapsing floors not directly and precisely a direct enough force on the structure below. Incoherent, speculative nonsense.

Good for you. Sounds like you've taken your position. Enjoy.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:57 am Post subject:

Wibble wrote:

Quote:

You do know how far the cars are from the towers don't you? If not, I suggest you find an overhead photo and take a look. You do know there are large buildings between the towers and the cars? And that this appears to block all debris from reaching the cars?

Wibble
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:59 am Post subject:

Quote:

So there are building in the way that are taller than the the twin towers?

They "appear" to block all debris? Wow there is some concrete proof.

So lets assume these building did block all debris, would these same building not block these mystical flames are whatever you claim from the CD reaching the cars?

I like the way you ignore the CD video etc, nice. Typical truther ploy.

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum