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

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

The Loose Cannon of 9/11
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

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

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Mooter
Minor Poster

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 51
Location: Chester

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject:

Well done JP - you have yet again skirted around the issues and twisted words in order to try and disprove some key facts. The fact is that the official story does not add up and the actions taken by people since 9/11 that I believe perpetrated the crime merely add to this - I'm suffering deja-vu here - nothing you or the US government have offered has convinced me otherwise. From this day forward, I am not going to respond to anything else you have to say JP. Not because you are correct but because you are incapable of debating anything in a proper manner. MM - well done BTW. I like that way that you put your points across but be wary of spending too much time with people like JP. There's more important things to be done. _________________ "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton 1887 "Head to head, chest to chest. Which country is the very best? and in the land of rape and honey, you prey" Al Jourgensen

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject:

Mooter wrote:

Well done JP - you have yet again skirted around the issues and twisted words in order to try and disprove some key facts. The fact is that the official story does not add up and the actions taken by people since 9/11 that I believe perpetrated the crime merely add to this - I'm suffering deja-vu here - nothing you or the US government have offered has convinced me otherwise.
From this day forward, I am not going to respond to anything else you have to say JP. Not because you are correct but because you are incapable of debating anything in a proper manner.

Why don't you be honest and admit that nothing will convince you that 9/11 was not an inside job, because you have become so caught up in the lies, you can't tell what's real from what's not anymore.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

MiniMauve
Moderate Poster

Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Mooter wrote:

Why don't you be honest and admit that nothing will convince you that 9/11 was not an inside job, because you have become so caught up in the lies, you can't tell what's real from what's not anymore.

I don't have much time today but I will say this:

Why don't you be honest, JP, and admit that nothing will convince you that 9/11 was an inside job, because you have become so caught up in the official lies, you can't tell what's real from what's not anymore?

You do see how easy it is to make these types of pronouncements, yet how dishonest they are, don't you? It's a cheap trick, isn't conducive to honest debate, and is the reason people can't be bothered to continue discussions with you.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.

DaveyJ
Minor Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 94

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject:

one point your missing is that JP did prove alot of the those points wrong, not all of them to the point they couldnt be aruged back in a logical and inteligent way. but your only kidding yourself if you dont belive he didnt debunk a majortiy of points. He does it in a maner that some people might find offensive, only because its confrontational and assertive, and nobody likes to be proved wrong so they take it as a personal attack, which i dont think it it. One thing that is true is like he said, people become caught up in lies. Almost every person in the truth movment say the buldings collapsed in freefall into their own footsteps. this is not true - FACT. not an opinion, JP clearly posted evidence and images proving that the obove statment is a lie. Yet i will happily bet a large sum of money that within days someone else will post "BUT HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINT IN FREEFALL!!!1!" if people are willing perhaps a good way to brake the endless cycle of arugments would be provide a sticky thread with a list of reasons for 9/11 being an inside job. Not a list of vaugely relevant coincidences, but facts. Let people debate the point, then when a point has been proven one way or another, hilight it or delete it. ________ Honda CBR900RR Last edited by DaveyJ on Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:21 am; edited 1 time in total

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject:

MiniMauve wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Mooter wrote:

Why don't you be honest and admit that nothing will convince you that 9/11 was not an inside job, because you have become so caught up in the lies, you can't tell what's real from what's not anymore.

Wrong.

I posted this 3 days ago on the subject of what would change my mind:

Quote:

If we're talking on the level of conspiracy to let something happen, or nudge it through, some kind of evidence of action taken to further the aims of the plot, which couldn't be shown to be acts of ignorance, short sightedness, mistakes etc. Or if we're talking the whole explosives etc story, then I'd want specific characteristic patterns that determine such things, ie explosive residue, bomb parts, timing/detonator mechanisms, blast patterns on concrete/steel, means to plant explosives, estimates of amounts required. I'd want to see wreckage from the pentagon and Shanksville not matching their respective planes, as well as the damage being atypical for the impacts claimed.

That'd do for a start, to get me thinking about it. It also makes me think as to why the whole CT has to be so complicated. If the government wanted to make 9/11, all they had to do was not interfere in the plans of Al Qaeda, or to nudge them in the direction of the attack. That cuts out so many variables, but then at the same time, they have to keep the secret from their own people, who would still be investigating Al Qaeda and trying to prevent attacks, and still needs a motive. That'd be the final thing I'd want, a reason.

Post #10 on this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62468
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

MiniMauve
Moderate Poster

Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

MiniMauve wrote:

Impossible:
1) That jet fuel (much of which can be seen burning off in the air on impact) would burn long enough in WTC 1 & 2 to weaken the steel columns enough to cause a complete building collapse.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the fire in the Madrid building burned hot enough to weaken the steel. The plane impact also weakened the structure so that the fire would not need to burn for as long.

And as I've pointed out elsewhere, the Madrid fire was much hotter, burned much longer and covered a much larger proportion of the building than the WTC fires. Compare the two fires and you can clearly see that it is orders of magnitude hotter. And yet it still took 5 hours to weaken the steel to the point of a partial collapse. How many more iterations of this circular discussion do you wish to go through?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

2) That fires burning floor by floor in WTC 1,2 & 7would burn long enough or hot enough to weaken the steel columns enough to cause a complete building collapse.

Floor by floor? There were entire sections of building on fire. And again, hit by planes, weakened structure.

Yes, floor by floor, or area by area if you prefer, meaning the fire lacked fuel to continue burning long in any one area, as evidenced by the survivors perched in the gaping holes left by the planes and the lack of smoke issueing from these and other fire-damaged areas.

So, you're saying a tower designed to withstand hurricanes and earthquakes, suffered fatal structural damage top to bottom, causing a complate failure of all it's core steel columns, because of the impact of a plane? Impossible.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

3) That some sort of explosive did not create the large quantities of molten iron found under the wreckage of the towers. If not thermite explosives, then what?

What molten iron? There are unconfirmed stories of molten metal, not even necessarily iron or steel. Usually with the picture of the digger arm and some glowing metal. Except that molten metal is liquid, so how is the digger picking it up? Glowing metal is not unusual in a fire.

Unconfirmed? Not true. Numerous workers at ground zero reported the molten metal and the high temperatures from the molten metal which lasted weeks. The temperatures were also recorded by infrared imaging (by satellite, I presume).

Dr. Allison Geyh was on of a team of public health investigators who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."

I picked up from a Steve Jones interview that it's not actually steel but molten iron.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

4) That the "pancaking" of floors caused the towers to collapse at very near the speed of gravity.

I think the freefall rate is given as 9 and a bit seconds. Stopwatch and a video gives at least 15 seconds for the collapse. 15 seconds is half the freefall rate.

Which is very near the feefall rate when you consider each floor must start falling ONLY when the floor above it hits it, if you believe the 'pancaking' theory. A falling object does not start out at maximum speed when dropped, it must accelerate, so each floor must have started from a standing start and accelerated to freefall speed. So, you would be correct that 15 secs isn't near freefall speed if only ONE floor fell from the 110th story. But it didn't. Not according to the offical story. It had to hit the 109th floor, which hit the 108th and so on. Presumably, that impact would slow it's acceleration rate to zero, wouldn't you think? I mean, it can't go past the floor beneath it, who's rate is zero, can it? Judy Wood illutrates this all very well here:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/911/WTC-A3-150.jpg

Note: this is a collapse in 10 floor increments to simplify the graph. Below is a graph with all floors 'pancaking' in sequence.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/911/WTC-A4-150.jpg

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

5) That the energy of the collapse pulverized to dust everything except the steel columns inside the towers.

Not everything. A lot of items were recovered. That dust you see is mostly plaster board.

Not true.

"Most of the concrete from the WTC site was pulverized into dust in the Sept. 11 attacks. But huge amounts of structural steel remained scattered in tangled heaps, says Allen Morse, USACE chief debris expert and FEMA technical advisor.", taken from:

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/collapses/wasteage_clea nup.htm

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

6) That the 'exploding' of floors below the collapse wave (which can be seen in slow motion videos of the collapses of WTC 1 & 2) were not caused by some sort of high explosive.

The "exploding floors"? Do you mean the ones where clouds of dust shoot out? That's air pressure breaking the window and forcing dust out.

No, I mean the exploding of wall materials (and presumably room contents). This is something that can be clearly seen in slow motion closeups of the start of the collapses. I honestly could not think of a more accurate term than 'exploding' to describe what I can see happening on the videos.

Even if you think it's just dust, where did all this dust come from? This is happening below the collapse wave, so the 'plaster board' couldn't have been pulverized yet.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

7) That the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 would start at or near the tops and progess downwards without the use of controlled demolitions.

WTC 1 & 2 collapses started (surprise surprise) where the planes hit. Controlled demo destroys the internal structure, all at the start, not progressively.

But if a building is going to collapse to the ground, presumably it would start at the ground where the most stresses are. If the planes caused the collapse, why wasn't the collapse partial, starting where they hit and bringing the higher floors down? Why did the rest of the towers collapse? The collapse starts where the planes hit but then the collapse wave heads down, even before the upper floors have reached the collapsed area. In fact, the upper floors have barely started to tip and the collapse wave is already heading down.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

That the disintegration of the upper section of WTC1 as it starts it's collapse was not caused by controlled demolitions. You can see this clearly in videos.

Hit by a plane? Weakened structure? Fire? Unsurprisingly, explosives don't withstand fire, so how did they set them off after they had been destroyed?

I have to apologize here, I didn't check this close enough before I posted. I meant to state it as this, "That the disintegration of the upper section of WTC1 in mid-air, as it starts it's collapse was not caused by controlled demolitions.". Meaning that this upper section of WTC1 just disintegrated even though it has not come into contact with anything yet and actually seemed on the verge of toppling sideways off the rest of the tower (but of course it wouldn't, since buildings only have one way of collapsing, according to you).

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

9) That Flight 77 disintegrated on impact at the Pentagon, apparantly melting the wings, fusilage and engines yet leaving furniture intact in offices exposed by the blast.

It didn't. The plane was destroyed mainly by the impact, not vaporised as some claim. Where is this intact furniture?

You can see the furniture through the gap in the hole in the pentagon, on the upper floors. Why did all the debris (i.e. the flotsam of suitcases, clothes, seats, bodies, etc.) normally associated with passanger jet crashes get 'destroyed by the impact'?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

1) That the buildings would collapse so elegantly and uniformly into their own footprints.

They didn't. All the buildings in the WTC complex were hit by debris and destroyed beyond repair. Pretty big footprints.

That's relative. For the size of the buildings and the congestion in the area, you couldn't have asked for a much better collapse. Obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree or we'll be talking in circles for months. Oh wait, that's your whole strategy, isn't it?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

2) That the numerous eyewitness testimonies of seeing or hearing explosions (and in some cases even describing the injuries caused by the explosions) are all mistaken or faked.

No, those people heard explosions. That doesn't mean explosives. A car backfiring sounds like an explosion, it doesn't have TNT in the exhaust. There was electrical equipment in the WTC for the air con and elevators and other services. Electrical equipment makes a loud noise when it explodes, but electrical equipment does not contain C4.

Does a car backfiring blow your co-workers across the room, flay the skin off their bodies and break their bones? Does electrical equipment explode with enough force to do so, not to mention knocking facades off the walls of the lobby, which is a floor or more away? Or did the reverbations of the plane hits shake the lobby facades off the wall, plus somehow destroy a 50 ton hydraulic press in the basement? All of this was reported by witnesses who identified explosions as their cause.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

3) That a fireball from the plane hits rolled down the elevator shafts of the WTCs to cause damage in the basements and lobbies of the WTCs.

Why should you check a door to see if it is hot before opening it in a fire? Because when you open the door you introduce a fresh supply of oxygen to the fire, causing it to expand. Yes, just like the movie "Backdraft". Where is there a fresh supply of air? Down the elevator shafts. And before you say they were hermtically sealed as some claim, how did anyone ever breathe in the elevator shaft?

See above. How could a fireball do all that damage?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

4) That fighters were unable to intercept Flight 77 before it hit the pentagon after what happened at WTC.

Confusion. No pre-practiced plan of action

Hmmm, yeah. This a remarkably glib answer for you. I'd say it's pretty improbable that a screen of interceptors weren't knocking down anything that even thought about approaching the capital. Has the US military become that afraid to make a decision that they can't even defend the pentagon from an air attack? Have they become that moribund by beaurocrasy? That's sounds improbable to me.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

5) That the recovered Flight Data Recorders would have no usable data on them.

Some of the recorders did, but they're not invincible.

So what was the data?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

6) That all the Intelligence agencies who claim to have warned the US beforehand are lieing.

Not lying, no. They had indications of an attack, but no-one knew where, or when, or what.

But instead of heightening security, they decide to leave the East Coast air defence undermanned while they conduct drills that posit terrorists hijacking planes with boxcutters and flying them into the WTC. So, they knew the How but not the Where, When or What. Damn luck, eh?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

7) That all the indications of prior knowledge of the coming attacks are false. These include reports of warnings to people going to NY and/or WTC, cancellations of flight and/or travel plans by officials, short-selling activity in the stock market, etc..

Most of them are false or misrepresented.For example John Ashcrofts travel plans were changed due to a personal threat, against him, not the country. He also continued to fly on commercial airliners, but used government planes for work purposes. Short selling activity was traced to a single individual who sold but also bought several thousand shares in one of the airlines, and also a stock tip newsletter.

What about all the workers in the WTC that decided not to show up for work that day? People who were there reported that there was an unusually high number of workers who didn't go in that morning. I just read a story recently saying that NY officials have concluded that this is not an urban myth as these stories were first thought to be. I recall the day of 911 that the networks were estimating the death toll would be in the 20-30k range based on the numbers of workers normally in the towers on any given day. It's a blessing that so many were warned and didn't go that day but the question remains.... who knew this was going to happen and how did they know? How about the JCS meeting in NY for that day that was cancelled on the 10th? How about the calls to government officials warning them not to travel that day? I don't know about the stocks, but I doubt you do either. There is too much here to ignore.

I'd like to thank you, btw, JP. You've made me re-examine and confirm much of the evidence. I'm more confident in my conclusions now than I was prior to our discussion. This isn't meant as a dig. I do appreciate the questioning.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject:

MiniMauve wrote:

Just a few glaring omissions there: The Madrid structural steel wasn't supporting nearly as much weight, and critical supports were not damaged by a collision. That is just to name two differences between the situations.

Life just isn't as cut an dried as you seem to think it is. Just because both were large objects that were on fire doesn't mean that both would behave in exactly the same way.

Quote:

The vast majority of qualified experts disagree with you. Why should we listen to you and not them?

Quote:

You don't think it's possible for a public health investigator to mistake some other metal for steel? Or to use the word "steel" as a synonym for "metal"?

Quote:

I picked up from a Steve Jones interview that it's not actually steel but molten iron.

Steel is made of iron.

Quote:

Why would we think that? With each collapsing floor the mass of the material falling onto the next floor was increased by many tons, and at the same time the structural integrity of the building was being compromised. Without the concrete floors to hold the tube structure together, there was nothing to hold the concrete floors up. It was a viscious cycle.

The force of each "pancaking" event was many, many times greater than the maximum load of the individual floors. Even if the resistance offered by the floor was many times greater than the resistance of air alone, the crushing force was so much greater than either that the difference between the two was proportionally small. In other words, the individual floors wouldn't slow the collapse much more than air alone would.

Quote:

But if a building is going to collapse to the ground, presumably it would start at the ground where the most stresses are.

No, it would start at the weakest point.

Quote:

Meaning that this upper section of WTC1 just disintegrated even though it has not come into contact with anything yet and actually seemed on the verge of toppling sideways off the rest of the tower (but of course it wouldn't, since buildings only have one way of collapsing, according to you).

Buildings are not designed to withstand diagonal gravitational forces that would occur if it was, for instance, tipped over 20 or 30 degrees. Why would they be? What would be the point of keeping a building intact that was falling over?

Quote:

Does a car backfiring blow your co-workers across the room, flay the skin off their bodies and break their bones?

It does if it weighs as much as an airliner and crashes into a building at over 500 mph.

[ quote]
I'd say it's pretty improbable that a screen of interceptors weren't knocking down anything that even thought about approaching the capital.
[/quote]

Even the airliners trying to land at the airport just a stone's throw from the Pentagon?

Quote:

Has the US military become that afraid to make a decision that they can't even defend the pentagon from an air attack? Have they become that moribund by beaurocrasy? That's sounds improbable to me.

That's the scary thing, that so many conspiracy theorists seem to think that its no big deal to kill hundreds of innocent people. To them, it seems LIKELY that the government would do it secretly, and that the Air Force would casually shoot down civilian planes on the off chance that they might be piloted by terrorists. In the real world, a person would hesitate to knowingly kill civilians, even if he knew that he would be saving a thousand lives by doing it.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject:

MiniMauve wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

MiniMauve wrote:

Impossible:
1) That jet fuel (much of which can be seen burning off in the air on impact) would burn long enough in WTC 1 & 2 to weaken the steel columns enough to cause a complete building collapse.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the fire in the Madrid building burned hot enough to weaken the steel. The plane impact also weakened the structure so that the fire would not need to burn for as long.

What part of "Hit by a plane" do you fail to understand?

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

2) That fires burning floor by floor in WTC 1,2 & 7would burn long enough or hot enough to weaken the steel columns enough to cause a complete building collapse.

Floor by floor? There were entire sections of building on fire. And again, hit by planes, weakened structure.

No, the survivors perched in the only areas that weren't on fire. If you look at the tower, everything above them is an inferno. Did you stop to think that that gaping hole is the only source of fresh air to those people? If the fire isn't that bad and burned out on those floors, why aren't they escaping down the fire exit?

Quote:

So, you're saying a tower designed to withstand hurricanes and earthquakes, suffered fatal structural damage top to bottom, causing a complate failure of all it's core steel columns, because of the impact of a plane? Impossible.

Plane AND a fire.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

3) That some sort of explosive did not create the large quantities of molten iron found under the wreckage of the towers. If not thermite explosives, then what?

No, unconfirmed. Molten metal does not mean molten steel, aluminium melts at a much lower temperature than steel. How do they know it was even molten metal and not molten glass though? Yes the temperature was high, but that doesn't prove explosives/thermite/whatever. That's because there was a fire. A very very alrge fire.

Quote:

Dr. Allison Geyh was on of a team of public health investigators who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."

Public health investigators being experts on identifying liquid metal by looking at it of course.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

4) That the "pancaking" of floors caused the towers to collapse at very near the speed of gravity.

I think the freefall rate is given as 9 and a bit seconds. Stopwatch and a video gives at least 15 seconds for the collapse. 15 seconds is half the freefall rate.

Ah, Judy Wood. She's wrong. The floors don't impact the next and then stop. The floor impacts the next and accelerates it. The more mass you have hitting the floors, the quicker the acceleration. The fall of each floor does NOT start from zero each time.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

5) That the energy of the collapse pulverized to dust everything except the steel columns inside the towers.

Not everything. A lot of items were recovered. That dust you see is mostly plaster board.

You said it pulverised everything, now you're telling me "mostly"? Steel doesn't pulverise. What exactly is your point? That concrete breaks if you smash it?

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

6) That the 'exploding' of floors below the collapse wave (which can be seen in slow motion videos of the collapses of WTC 1 & 2) were not caused by some sort of high explosive.

The "exploding floors"? Do you mean the ones where clouds of dust shoot out? That's air pressure breaking the window and forcing dust out.

Dust from the upper floors?

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

7) That the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 would start at or near the tops and progess downwards without the use of controlled demolitions.

WTC 1 & 2 collapses started (surprise surprise) where the planes hit. Controlled demo destroys the internal structure, all at the start, not progressively.

The collapse starts where the planes hit because that was where the tower had been weakened. It continued because buildings aren't designed to have several thousand tonnes of steel and concrete fall on them.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

That the disintegration of the upper section of WTC1 as it starts it's collapse was not caused by controlled demolitions. You can see this clearly in videos.

Hit by a plane? Weakened structure? Fire? Unsurprisingly, explosives don't withstand fire, so how did they set them off after they had been destroyed?

Precisely, the building starts to topple, but this overstresses the supports on one side so it collapses downwards. That's why buildings don't topple over.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

9) That Flight 77 disintegrated on impact at the Pentagon, apparantly melting the wings, fusilage and engines yet leaving furniture intact in offices exposed by the blast.

It didn't. The plane was destroyed mainly by the impact, not vaporised as some claim. Where is this intact furniture?

As far as I can tell the only furniture is visible after the collapse of that section. That furniture wasn't burned because it was on the upper floor, away from the fire. The cargo, passengers etc were partly crushed, partly burned. There were still charred bodies though, still strapped into seats.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

1) That the buildings would collapse so elegantly and uniformly into their own footprints.

They didn't. All the buildings in the WTC complex were hit by debris and destroyed beyond repair. Pretty big footprints.

You are joking aren't you? You accuse me of circular arguments, and here you are quickly changing the definition of a buildings footprint?

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

2) That the numerous eyewitness testimonies of seeing or hearing explosions (and in some cases even describing the injuries caused by the explosions) are all mistaken or faked.

Explosions yes. NOT EXPLOSIVES. Have you never seen a natural gas explosion that blows a house to pieces?

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

3) That a fireball from the plane hits rolled down the elevator shafts of the WTCs to cause damage in the basements and lobbies of the WTCs.

See above. How could a fireball do all that damage?

Why do you think you shouldn't smoke at a petrol station? I mean, how could a fireball do all that damage?

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

4) That fighters were unable to intercept Flight 77 before it hit the pentagon after what happened at WTC.

Confusion. No pre-practiced plan of action

You wanna be the person that shot down the wrong aeroplane and killed 400 people? Hijackings have never been used for suicide missions before, hence the lack of planning. You also have to find the plane first. Air defence was notified of the hijacked plane 3 minutes before it crashed.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

5) That the recovered Flight Data Recorders would have no usable data on them.

Some of the recorders did, but they're not invincible.

So what was the data?

The Shanksville crash data, and the pentagon Crash data, also voice recordings were recovered.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

6) That all the Intelligence agencies who claim to have warned the US beforehand are lieing.

Not lying, no. They had indications of an attack, but no-one knew where, or when, or what.

East Coast Air defence was the same it had been for years. They had no indication of suicide hijackings, so why would they increase air defence? They did not carry out drills of suicide hijackings.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Yes, all those thousands of people knew before hand that the attacks were planned. Put another 20000 people on the conspiracy list. Soemtimes I feel like I'm the only person who's NOT in the conspiracy. The rumours aren't true. The number of people that were killed may have something to do with the fact that the first plane struck at 8:42, anyone on their way to work probably would've taken the day off if their building had just got hit. The majority of people below the impact zone were evacuated.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

MiniMauve
Moderate Poster

Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:07 am Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

I'll grant you that there was a difference in weight, but critical supports? So many criticial supports were damaged that it crashed to the ground even though the impact was 3/4 the way up the tower? This in a building designed to withstand hurricanes and earthquakes? I'm sorry, I don't believe that is possible.

aggle-rithm wrote:

Life just isn't as cut an dried as you seem to think it is. Just because both were large objects that were on fire doesn't mean that both would behave in exactly the same way.

At least we have some common ground then, life indeed isn't cut and dried, which is why I question everything I read including 'official' pronouncements. I didn't suddenly wake up one morning and decide that the official story was wrong. I accepted it like most people did. It wasn't until a couple of years later that I began to have doubts. Even so, I didn't come to realize the enormity of the crime until the last 6 months and that was because I actually began looking into the evidence.

aggle-rithm wrote:

Quote:

The vast majority of qualified experts disagree with you. Why should we listen to you and not them?

Because they have lost your trust, perhaps? I believe 'qualified experts' also said their was WMDs in Iraq. Forgive me if I look further than the words of 'qualified experts'.

Also, it's more accurate to say that the vast majority of qualified experts have not yet given an opinion, probably because, like me at first, they assumed that the official story was true and that the conspiracy theorists were just kooks. We can thank the media sheep and the vast american propaganda machine for that.

aggle-rithm wrote:

Quote:

You don't think it's possible for a public health investigator to mistake some other metal for steel? Or to use the word "steel" as a synonym for "metal"?

Quote:

I picked up from a Steve Jones interview that it's not actually steel but molten iron.

Steel is made of iron.

Um... that's my point, poorly explained obviously. Steve Jones, who is apparantly a physicist, tested samples that she said was "molten steel" and found that it was molten iron, which is not surprising because, yes, the steel columns were made from iron.

aggle-rithm wrote:

Quote:

It doesn't matter what the mass of the descending rubble is, each floor must start at zero because it's not moving UNTIL the rubble hits it. An apple and a cannonball will fall at the same rate according to the Law of Gravity. Mass is irrelevent. To achieve the actual time of collapse for the towers would require that each floor DID start falling separately, which means something other than the descending rubble must have triggered their collapse.

aggle-rithm wrote:

Quote:

But if a building is going to collapse to the ground, presumably it would start at the ground where the most stresses are.

No, it would start at the weakest point.

I'm no construction engineer but common sense tells me that the base of a building is built to withstand the weight of the building, even if it's falling apart and raining down. Therefore, for such a building to collapse completely, the core structure at it's base must be damaged. Even if I accept that a fireball of burning jet fuel came down a freight elevator shaft (the only shaft in the WTC that stretched from the bottom to the impacted floors) I do not believe it would have seriously damaged the core of the building. Nor do I believe that the core could have been damaged by an impact of a jet on the 78th floor, since these buildings were over-engineered to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes. Ergo, the base of the building suffered damage from some other source. This dovetails with the eyewitness accounts by workers in the basement who survived to describe explosions going off, LONG BEFORE the collapse started and some even described explosions going off seconds BEFORE the planes impacted.

aggle-rithm wrote:

Quote:

Well this gave me a good laugh. Buildings are now designed to disintegrate once they tip a certain degree off vertical, eh? What do they set the concrete for? 80 degrees? 85?

aggle-rithm wrote:

Quote:

Does a car backfiring blow your co-workers across the room, flay the skin off their bodies and break their bones?

It does if it weighs as much as an airliner and crashes into a building at over 500 mph.

Oh really? Even in the basement from a fireball that burned down from the 78th floor, thru the freight doors, blew apart fire doors, yet still had enough energy to destroy a 50 ton hydraulic press?

aggle-rithm wrote:

Quote:

I'd say it's pretty improbable that a screen of interceptors weren't knocking down anything that even thought about approaching the capital.

Even the airliners trying to land at the airport just a stone's throw from the Pentagon?

All aircraft had been ordered grounded by this point and radar was supposedly tracking Flight 77 as it neared Washington. Cheney was in a Whitehouse bunker recieving continual updates on the plane's distance and heading. It was exhibiting all the signs of a comandeered plane according to FAA guidelines (transponder turned off, not responding to calls, not following it's scheduled flight path, etc.). It did not sneak up on Washington and any other planes still in the air at that point would not have been a threat (except Flight 93, of course, which was also being tracked).

aggle-rithm wrote:

Quote:

Has the US military become that afraid to make a decision that they can't even defend the pentagon from an air attack? Have they become that moribund by beaurocrasy? That's sounds improbable to me.

Of course it's a big deal! Why would you suggest we wouldn't think that?! Anything I've read suggests that making these types of decisions are in fact what the pilots are trained for and probably screened for. I would certainly hope they are able to make the decision to kill 100 to save 1000 or 10000. Of course, it's not an easy decision but it is part of their training.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.

MiniMauve
Moderate Poster

Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:54 am Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

MiniMauve wrote:

What part of "Hit by a plane" do you fail to understand?

Spare me the feigned impatience. We both know I have already addressed this. To repeat, I do not believe that the plane impacts could have damaged the core of the buildings to the point of collapse EVEN with the fire damage because of the stated engineering goals of withstanding earthquakes and hurricanes, and the relatively weak fire characteristics. I have provided reasons why I have come to this conclusion. Your argument has not convinced me otherwise. Likewise, my argument has not convinced you to change your opinion. That's fine, but do NOT pretend that your disagreement erases the fact that I did respond to your argument.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Smoke and heat I would assume. Temperatures unhealthy for a human are still far below the temperatures needed to weaken steel. My point is that if temperatures had reached that required to weaken steel, these people would have been incinerated long ago. You will say they must have come from other floors. I will say yes, I agree that they may have come from other floors, but that in itself indicates that the fires were not burning fiercely enough to weaken the steel. Also, there is a tape of a firefighter who apparantly made it to the 78th (I think? not 100% sure, but made it to the impact area) and radioed that the fire were dieing or were died out and a couple of lines (hoses) should be enough to put it out.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

But this supposedly 'very very large fire' was burning at the top, not the basement where the molten metal was seen, underneath all the rubble. And if it wasn't steel/iron, what was it? Where did it come from in such quantities? Why did it take so long to cool?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Public health investigators being experts on identifying liquid metal by looking at it of course.

I don't see why one would need a scientific degree to identify liquid metal. People aren't stupid, particularly people who have ascended to her position. I'm sure I could tell molten metal from, say, molten glass. I'm certain I could even identify what type of metal it was once it cooled. Telling, say, aluminum from iron would certainly be obvious.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

This made me laugh. The collapse accelerated through the building, did it? I suppose the top floor reached the ground first, too. So if the fall of each floor did not start from zero, then you agree w/ me that they were already moving when the rubble from above struck them? Finally, a breakthrough!

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

You said it pulverised everything, now you're telling me "mostly"? Steel doesn't pulverise. What exactly is your point? That concrete breaks if you smash it?

No, actually, Allan Morse is telling you that. Judging by the pictures I've seen I'd say he is being kind, but I wasn't there so I'll accept 'mostly' if that means 99% dust. My point is that the concrete shouldn't have turned so thoroughly to dust under normal circumstances. What would happen if you dropped a concrete slab from 110 stories, would it turn to dust on impact? Maybe. What about from 50 stories? 20 stories? 5 stories? How did so much of the concrete get so thoroughly pulverized? There is a video of a firefighter describing how he couldn't find a piece of furniture or computer or phone larger than 4" square. Does that make sense? Wouldn't some piece of concrete or a chair or a monitor bounce out of the rubble relatively intact, like say a terrorist's passport can fly out of an incinerating plane?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Dust from the upper floors?

What? The dust from the collapse of the upper floors that hadn't occurred yet?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Yes, the pancaking theory. Unfortunately, this takes us back to the IMO unreasonably short time it took for the buildings to collapse. And round and round we go.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Precisely, the building starts to topple, but this overstresses the supports on one side so it collapses downwards. That's why buildings don't topple over.

You misunderstand me, perhaps deliberately. It's not that it ceased toppling and fell further down into the lower portion of the tower that confounds me. It's that it seems to disintegrate in mid-air before it has a chance to do so. Again, this can be clearly seen in the videos.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Oh really? Not according to any reports I've read.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

You are joking aren't you? You accuse me of circular arguments, and here you are quickly changing the definition of a buildings footprint?

You're going to quibble about the definition of a footprint? Fine, it's outside the true 'footprint' of the tower but it's a damn nice job for two 110 story buildings, wouldn't you say? Again, could controlled demolition experts hoped for a better collapse?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Explosions yes. NOT EXPLOSIVES. Have you never seen a natural gas explosion that blows a house to pieces?

Not even the official story suggests that this occurred, AFAIK. There was something about initial thoughts that there was a gas main under WTC but it was quickly found that this was not the case.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

How could a fireball do all that damage?

Why do you think you shouldn't smoke at a petrol station? I mean, how could a fireball do all that damage?

A flammable liquid such as jet fuel or petrol would not have sufficient explosive energy to destroy a 50 ton press, blow fire doors out of their frames, or knock facades off walls in rooms located floors away from the ignition. It wouldn't even burn that long unless it's source of fuel remained constant. Under certain conditions the fumes from the petrol or jet fuel might explosively ignite, but those conditions would be the right air/fuel mixture in a confined space. Hard to imagine that the jet fuel itself traveled 78+ floors along the freight elevator before finding a suitable confined space to ignite in, thus creating enough explosive energy to blow doors down. Or did the jet fuel explosion on impact somehow send a wave of energy down the elevator that still had enough umph to do the damage? Yeah, yeah, I know, gas explosion. See above.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Of course not, but if I'm fighter pilot tasked with defending the East Coast, or his commanding officer, I would have been aware that I might someday have to make that decision. NORAD did in fact have plans to defend against airplanes used as weapons. Hell, I remember reading about the possibility myself... before 911! Anyway, here is a link to a news story which shows they did indeed conceive that planes might be used as weapons in a terrorist attack:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

Are you going to tell me that the pilots and their commanders wouldn't have mentally prepared themselves to make the tough decisions, particularly after 2 planes were known to have hit the WTC?

Timing: According to this NYT article, they had one hour notice of Flight 77's hijacking.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70814F8345C0C768DDDA0 0894D9404482

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

5) That the recovered Flight Data Recorders would have no usable data on them.

Some of the recorders did, but they're not invincible.

So what was the data?

The Shanksville crash data, and the pentagon Crash data, also voice recordings were recovered.

Sorry, I meant the DFRs from the planes that hit the WTC. I read 3 of the 4 (2 per plane) were recovered. No data recoverable on any of them? I find that suspicious.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

East Coast Air defence was the same it had been for years. They had no indication of suicide hijackings, so why would they increase air defence? They did not carry out drills of suicide hijackings.

I've already included a link above showing they had an idea that suicide hijacking were a real possibility.

Link for story discussing drills:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/sfgate_exercise_08210 2.html

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Yes, all those thousands of people knew before hand that the attacks were planned. Put another 20000 people on the conspiracy list.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Soemtimes I feel like I'm the only person who's NOT in the conspiracy. The rumours aren't true. The number of people that were killed may have something to do with the fact that the first plane struck at 8:42, anyone on their way to work probably would've taken the day off if their building had just got hit. The majority of people below the impact zone were evacuated.

But, yeah, you are probably right here. I've read a lot of rumours about warnings to individuals but I can't track down anything substantive, so don't say I can't admit it when I realize I'm wrong.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:49 am Post subject:

MiniMauve wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

MiniMauve wrote:

What part of "Hit by a plane" do you fail to understand?

What you believe doesn't come in to this. This is a matter of science. not belief. Seeing as the fires in WTC 6 were hot enough to cause the steel columns to buckle, and as everyone is so fond of pointing out, they were'nt even hit by a plane. That was under normal loading, and still they buckle due to fire. This is not belief. This is real life.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

The majority of people in the North Tower were unaware that the South Tower had collapsed. So much for situational awareness. That was one fire on the lowest floor affected. How do you explain the acres of smoke still pouring from the building right up to its collapse? And the flames, still at every window, right up to the collapse?

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Don't liquids obey the laws of gravity? Why would explosives/ thermite cause molten metal in the basement, when the collapse started at the top, not the bottom?

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Public health investigators being experts on identifying liquid metal by looking at it of course.

Which of these are metal, and which are glass?

Which of these are aluminium, and which are steel?

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

No, as the moving rubble hits the next floor, the next floor is accelerated from rest by impact of that rubble. Judy Wood seems to think that when the floor hits, it is accelerated purely due to gravity. That's wrong.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

You said it pulverised everything, now you're telling me "mostly"? Steel doesn't pulverise. What exactly is your point? That concrete breaks if you smash it?

Do you know how fast a piece of concrete dropped from 110 stories would be traveling? 90 m/s That's 200 mph. Do you know how much debris the bottom floor would be hit by? 500,000 tonnes. What kind of concrete do you have that survives 200 mph impacts, and 500,000 tonnes being dropped on it? What kind of office furniture do you know that survives that?

The passport was ejected in the initial collision, it did not have to survive fires and collapse.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Dust from the upper floors?

What? The dust from the collapse of the upper floors that hadn't occurred yet?

The floors started crumbling before the collapse, and also there was smoke.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Yes, the pancaking theory. Unfortunately, this takes us back to the IMO unreasonably short time it took for the buildings to collapse. And round and round we go.

In your opinion as? A structural engineer? A physicist? Someone that knows how long buildings take to collapse? In the opinion of the people that do know, it's not a short time. And that's not one or two people, that's the entire scientific and engineering communities.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Precisely, the building starts to topple, but this overstresses the supports on one side so it collapses downwards. That's why buildings don't topple over.

And you are suggesting explosives for this? And how do they stay wired up, and in position if the building they are supposed to be connected to is no longer connected to itself?

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

You are joking aren't you? You accuse me of circular arguments, and here you are quickly changing the definition of a buildings footprint?

You started changing the definition, don't blame me. Controlled demolition experts could hope for better, yes. If this were done with controlled demolition there would've been no damage to other buildings. But I guess you're going to tell me it was designed to not look like controlled demolition.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Explosions yes. NOT EXPLOSIVES. Have you never seen a natural gas explosion that blows a house to pieces?

Not even the official story suggests that this occurred, AFAIK. There was something about initial thoughts that there was a gas main under WTC but it was quickly found that this was not the case.

I wasn't suggesting it was the case. I was pointing out the plain old natural gas explosions can level a building. No explosives required.

15kg of propane:

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

How could a fireball do all that damage?

Why do you think you shouldn't smoke at a petrol station? I mean, how could a fireball do all that damage?

Again, what is your basis for this idea? Fuel in air will always have the right mixture, because the fire will follow the source of more air. Down the elevator shaft. Hence the backdraft reference. It didn't need to find a space to ignite in, it was already ignited and building up pressure as it travelled down the shaft, more of the fuel burning as it finds more air.

Why do you think the military use fuel-air bombs to knock down buildings?

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Flight 77 disappeared from radar at 8:56, the controller in Indianapolis had no knowledge of the events in New York. They believed it had crashed, and didn't learn of the other hijackings until 9:20. The aircraft wasn't found again on radar until 9:32. A C-130 was able to get to the area in time to see it hit the Pentagon. Fighters were 150 miles away. There was no sufficient warning.

In the event of interception, the fighters have to confirm the aircraft's identity visually, inform the pilot that he should follow them, make sure the pilot understands, possibly be firing warning shots. Tey don't just turn up and shoot the plane down. They may be military, but they don't kill civilians. There's a world of difference between shooting down a bomber or a fighter, and killing several hundred civilians.

The NORAD exercises were based on planes coming from outside the US, not inside. It's one thing tracking an airliner coming in, its another tracking a airliner somewhere inside the US, amongst all the other airliners, when you don't even know where it's heading to.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

5) That the recovered Flight Data Recorders would have no usable data on them.

Some of the recorders did, but they're not invincible.

So what was the data?

The Shanksville crash data, and the pentagon Crash data, also voice recordings were recovered.

Sorry, I meant the DFRs from the planes that hit the WTC. I read 3 of the 4 (2 per plane) were recovered. No data recoverable on any of them? I find that suspicious.

Black boxes are tough, not invincible. I don't find that suspicious at all.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

East Coast Air defence was the same it had been for years. They had no indication of suicide hijackings, so why would they increase air defence? They did not carry out drills of suicide hijackings.

From outside the US flying in. That would give them time to track the target and launch fighters. Inside the US, they just didn't have the time.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Yes, all those thousands of people knew before hand that the attacks were planned. Put another 20000 people on the conspiracy list.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it.

Are you talking about the 4000 Jews/Israelis? That's not true either. There was no foreknowledge.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

But, yeah, you are probably right here. I've read a lot of rumours about warnings to individuals but I can't track down anything substantive, so don't say I can't admit it when I realize I'm wrong.

I too will admit when I'm wrong. But at the moment, I'm not.
_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject:

MiniMauve wrote:

I'm no construction engineer but common sense tells me that the base of a building is built to withstand the weight of the building, even if it's falling apart and raining down.

Thank GOD engineers use science, and not common sense, to design buildings, or collapses would be much more commonplace.

Quote:

Therefore, for such a building to collapse completely, the core structure at it's base must be damaged.

It was damaged quite heavily when the rest of the building fell on it.

Quote:

Even if I accept that a fireball of burning jet fuel came down a freight elevator shaft (the only shaft in the WTC that stretched from the bottom to the impacted floors) I do not believe it would have seriously damaged the core of the building. Nor do I believe that the core could have been damaged by an impact of a jet on the 78th floor, since these buildings were over-engineered to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes.

They're not OVER-engineered. They are built to withstand the stresses that they could be reasonably expected to endure. This includes aircraft impacts, though when the buildings were designed no one expected that such an impact would be a deliberate act of terrorism. (The difference is that an aircraft in an accidental crash would probably not be flying as fast and would probably not be fully loaded with fuel.)

Quote:

Ergo, the base of the building suffered damage from some other source. This dovetails with the eyewitness accounts by workers in the basement who survived to describe explosions going off, LONG BEFORE the collapse started and some even described explosions going off seconds BEFORE the planes impacted.

We're talking about events where a HUGE amount of potential energy was released, not only in the crash but in the collapse. I would be very surprised if there weren't loud noises.

Quote:

Well this gave me a good laugh. Buildings are now designed to disintegrate once they tip a certain degree off vertical, eh? What do they set the concrete for? 80 degrees? 85?

No. They aren't DESIGNED to disintegrate in these circumstances, they simply aren't designed NOT to disintegrate when the building is tilted. Of course, the buildings are designed to sway with the wind, but if it tilts enough that it might topple then you've got much bigger problems than keeping each floor intact.

Tall structures are designed to transfer weight to various support beams, then on down to the ground. If a tall structure is tilted, then the weight is transferred instead to the joints that hold the structure together, UNLESS SPECIAL MEASURES ARE TAKEN TO TRANSFER WEIGHT DIAGONALLY INSTEAD OF VERTICALLY. Most of the time, there isn't a reason to do this.

MiniMauve
Moderate Poster

Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220

Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:16 am Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

What you believe doesn't come in to this. This is a matter of science. not belief.

I agree, belief's shouldn't enter into an investigation of 911. So, let's have a full and transparant investigation of ALL the evidence, so that it goes through the process of a rigourous peer review. That way we can be sure all conclusions are subject to the strictest scientific scrutiny. Agreed?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Seeing as the fires in WTC 6 were hot enough to cause the steel columns to buckle, and as everyone is so fond of pointing out, they were'nt even hit by a plane. That was under normal loading, and still they buckle due to fire. This is not belief. This is real life.

Where did any of us say that steel columns would not eventally be weakened to the point of collapse by fire? WTC6 was severely damaged by fire (and falling debris) and burned for hours. When was this photo taken? How long had it burned at this point? This photo proves nothing except that, yes, steel will weaken, even buckle if the fire lasts long enough and burns hot enough.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

The majority of people in the North Tower were unaware that the South Tower had collapsed. So much for situational awareness.

Excuse me? Are you trying to say that the firefighter didn't know where he was? That's weak.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

That was one fire on the lowest floor affected. How do you explain the acres of smoke still pouring from the building right up to its collapse? And the flames, still at every window, right up to the collapse?

Have you ever made a campfire? It smokes more when it's not burning well. The thick smoke indicates an oxygen starved and relatively cool burning fire. Windows where flames do appear (and no they aren't at every window right up to collapse but rather seem to be moving floor by floor) have noticeably less smoke issueing from them.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Don't liquids obey the laws of gravity? Why would explosives/ thermite cause molten metal in the basement, when the collapse started at the top, not the bottom?

Don't deflect the question. Where did the all this molten metal come from? Why did it take so long to cool? If it wasn't steel/iron, what was it? That's an interesting point you bring up though, why indeed did the molten metal pool in the basement? Perhaps because it is a result of charges set off in the central core of the building or maybe because a large number of charges were set off to target the load bearing struts and girders in the basement? I don't know. How about the authorities settle these and other questions by commissioning a full, independant and transparant investigation?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Which of these are metal, and which are glass?

LOL, touche, I guess. hehehe. If the molten material still looked like it was pulled directly from the kiln and had no other external, contextual clues about it's origin, I would assume that it's metal using Occam's Razor as a guideline. The glass would likely have been largely found on outer walls and blown to pieces/scattered in the collapse, while metal would be more likely to have been concentrated in large enough mass to account for the quantity of molten material that was found.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Which of these are aluminium, and which are steel?

If I can weigh a piece in my hand or scratch the metal w/ something, I can tell you in a second.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Ah I see what you mean, sorry about that. I agree with you actually, her graph is flawed in that respect. It's more a demonstration of the range of time it would take for the top floor to fall at freefall vs each floor falling at freefall in turn. As you correctly point out, the acceleration of each floor would be more than 32.2 ft/sec2 depending on the force coming down. However, the floors and core structure should also slow the momentum of the descending rumble. Yet the structure of the towers seems to offer little resistance, even the structure that was undamaged by fire. Experts more knowledgable than you or I came to the conclusion that the collapses could not have occurred by fire and plane alone. Perhaps they are right, perhaps the 911 Commission's experts are right. A full, independant, transparant investigation should be conducted to clear up these and all other questions surrounding the 911 tragedy and subsequent commission, wouldn't you agree?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Except we can see that the dust is created DURING the collapse not on impact with the ground. In fact, huge amounts of dust are churned out at the very beginning collapse. What pulverized the concrete so thoroughly, so soon? Oh wait, that's plaster board dust, right? And yes, even given the amount of debris, I would have expected some chance pieces of concrete or furniture to rattle out of the rubble, particularly on the periphery of what you so eagerly assure me was an untidy collapse.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

passport was ejected in the initial collision, it did not have to survive fires and collapse.

That was supposed to be a joke. A poor one, I suppose.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Dust from the upper floors?

What? The dust from the collapse of the upper floors that hadn't occurred yet?

The floors started crumbling before the collapse, and also there was smoke.

No, it's not dust or smoke, I see in the videos. It's walls blowing outwards.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

Yes, the pancaking theory. Unfortunately, this takes us back to the IMO unreasonably short time it took for the buildings to collapse. And round and round we go.

As opposed to your opinion? Your opinion will continue to mean less and less if you continue to make statements like the above. The scientific and engineering community has largely remained out of the discussion. It would be interesting to see what an anonymous poll of scientists and engineers did think of the 911 official theory, though. It might surprise you.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

And you are suggesting explosives for this? And how do they stay wired up, and in position if the building they are supposed to be connected to is no longer connected to itself?

Radio controlled would seem easy enough. I have some experience with them. We send data via radio frequencies that is good to 2000'-3000' according to the radio manufacturers. We have tested them successfully at 1000' through 4-5 steel and cinderblock walls. And this is continuous data transfer, not just a "go" signal.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

No, I'm going to laugh at the thought that you think it would be easy to bring two 110-story buildings down into a perfect little pile without spilling out of it's footprint. You do understand that the controlled demolition gets more difficult with the height of the building, given a finite footprint? In other words, a collapsed 40 story building fits more easily in a given area than a collapsed 110 story building does in the same area.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

I wasn't suggesting it was the case. I was pointing out the plain old natural gas explosions can level a building. No explosives required.

Um... if you are not suggesting that a gas explosion took place than what is the relevance? Am I misunderstanding you?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

But the fuel source is finite. It's going to burn all the way down 78+ floors to the basement and not burn itself out before unleashing enough energy to blow fire doors off their hinges and destroy large machinery? How much fuel does one jet hold??? The fireball on impact with the towers doesn't make you think a significant portion of the fuel was consumed there? Or are you suggesting that the air in the elevator shaft itself continued to burn after the fuel was consumed?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Why do you think the military use fuel-air bombs to knock down buildings?

A jet fuel fire backdraft that expands through 78+ floors of elevatore shaft is comparable to a fuel-air bomb? Uh... no.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

The timing of all the communications between FAA and NORAD reguarding all the hijacked flights in 911 are in dispute between both officials of the two bodies and between different versions of the 911 commission report. The articles i put up links for indicate that there are differing reports of timing. A full, independant, transparant investigation will help clear up these matters, agreed?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

In the event of interception, the fighters have to confirm the aircraft's identity visually, inform the pilot that he should follow them, make sure the pilot understands, possibly be firing warning shots. Tey don't just turn up and shoot the plane down. They may be military, but they don't kill civilians. There's a world of difference between shooting down a bomber or a fighter, and killing several hundred civilians.

Of course. Nevertheless, given the knowledge of the attacks on the WTC that same morning, they should have and must have, been prepared to do so. Their is a protocol for exactly this situation which was in place long before 911. Are you telling me that the passangers of Flight 93 came to this realization that they would die if the hijackers weren't stopped, but that trained fighter pilots, and their commanders, tasked with the defence of the capital, did not?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

The NORAD exercises were based on planes coming from outside the US, not inside. It's one thing tracking an airliner coming in, its another tracking a airliner somewhere inside the US, amongst all the other airliners, when you don't even know where it's heading to.

They knew it was heading to Washington, and was 180 degrees and at least 45 minutes off it's scheduled flight plan.

Quote:

[quote="Johnny Pixels"]Black boxes are tough, not invincible. I don't find that suspicious at all.

Of course not.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Are you talking about the 4000 Jews/Israelis? That's not true either. There was no foreknowledge.

Jews?? Israelis??? What the **** are you talking about??? My point, which I btw did back off on due to lack of substantive evidence to support it, was meant to be that people, no matter who they are, will try to warn friends and loved ones. The people so warned would not have been complicit in the conspiracy, obviously (if they were involved in the conspiracy, then they wouldn't need the warning, would they?). I thought that this may have had a cascading affect when those friends warned their friends, etc. However, as I say, I found no substantive evidence to support this idea.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

I too will admit when I'm wrong. But at the moment, I'm not.

Of course not.

I'm about done with this particular discussion. You've brought up some interesting points but we seem to have pretty much got to the point of repeating ourselves to no benefit.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.

MiniMauve
Moderate Poster

Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220

Posted: Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:20 am Post subject:

Sorry, aggle-rithm, worked fairly late tonight so I don't have time to respond to your post. Most of what you speak about in your posts has already been discussed in my merry-go-round w/ JP, and, well, he was here first. /shrug, sorry. _________________ Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not.

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
Page 3 of 3

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