Good? He's not even trying. This thread will most likely soon be moved to Critics' corner, where it should have been posted in the first place, so I'll just say this: Matthew Rothschild makes no effort to debunk the theories of Griffin and others. Instead, he quotes and paraphrases old and inconclusive statements that came from th US government and its agencies.
"First, Osama bin Laden has already claimed responsibility for the attack several times" - well *first* you have to show that the fat Bin Laden in that video (one, not many) is the same person as the gaunt Bin Laden we'd been shown on several occasions times before. See, the statement quoted above is false, or dubious at best. A true statement would be "According to the US government, Osama Bin Laden has already claimed responsibility for the attack several times". Now, that is true. Meanwhile, Mr Rothschild is like an attorney who says "My client didn't do it, because my client says he didn't do it". That's about as good as this is.
It is pretty cr*p actually. Rothschild is working for the globalists by trying to damage the arguments and evidence put forward by its strongest critics......i.e. those who would expose the truth about 9/11.
If a New World Order ever comes about Rothschild will be on the inside looking out, not vice versa. He is a fink.
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:47 am Post subject: now its november
The time for despair,mistrust,frustration and hopelessness will now rain down on all of us, making it ever so vital that people seeking the truth do react on their most loving feelings and not the evil of all evil:personal pride.
We dont need to question our believes anymore. _________________ "you can fool some people sometimes,
but you can`t fool all the people all the time."
"First, Osama bin Laden has already claimed responsibility for the attack several times" - well *first* you have to show that the fat Bin Laden in that video (one, not many) is the same person as the gaunt Bin Laden we'd been shown on several occasions times before. See, the statement quoted above is false, or dubious at best. A true statement would be "According to the US government, Osama Bin Laden has already claimed responsibility for the attack several times". Now, that is true. Meanwhile, Mr Rothschild is like an attorney who says "My client didn't do it, because my client says he didn't do it". That's about as good as this is.
Well, I'm sure the tapes were shown on Aljazeera, not released by the U.S. government.
What about any of the other quite convincing anti-conspiracy theory stuff in the article?
I genuinly used to buy this stuff, but now I can't believe that I ever did!! It just seems so utterly ridiculous.
Last edited by D E A N on Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: Re: Give it up!
kbo234 wrote:
It is pretty cr*p actually. Rothschild is working for the globalists by trying to damage the arguments and evidence put forward by its strongest critics......i.e. those who would expose the truth about 9/11.
If a New World Order ever comes about Rothschild will be on the inside looking out, not vice versa. He is a fink.
He is not working for the globalists! He's just a small, independant journalist who's speaking his mind.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:51 pm Post subject:
D E A N wrote:
I genuinly used to buy this stuff, but now I can't believe that I ever did!! It just seems so utterly ridiculous.
The WTC North tower is estimated to have collapsed with an acceleration that slightly exceeds that of gravity (i.e. faster than free-fall).
Assuming it fell without resistance at only free fall speed, ALL the gravitational energy is being converted into kinetic energy of motion.
Explain to me please, Dean, how BEFORE IT HIT THE GROUND (we all saw this) hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete were pulverised into fine powder. Where did the energy to do this come from?
Explain please, how 47 massive steel core columns were severed in hundreds of places (at an acute angle, so they could slide off each other and not delay the collapse) and the same for many more exterior columns.
Explain please Dean, where did the lake of molten steel that lay in the basement of this building for two months or so after 9/11, come from.
I teach physics Dean. I have studied this stuff and I have to admit that I have 'bought into it'. But hey, maybe I just don't get it. Wise me up on this please Dean. It is ugly stuff and i'd rather believe something different.
Really.
I'm just waiting for some smart guy like you to come along and shatter my delusive fantasies.
Do this for me and I will definitely say thank you. I'll even send you a present. How about that?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject: Re: Give it up!
D E A N wrote:
He is not working for the globalists! He's just a small, independant journalist who's speaking his mind.
If this article's an example, that's not saying much.
He seems to have regarded as 'research' repeating the weak and highly dubious assertions of the 'Official Conspiracy Theory' direct from the same suspect sources and it's supporters, with no examination of those disputed claims whatsoever.
But I expect he thinks he's now done his bit in support of the 'rational'.
To listen to Matthew Rothschild ("Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already", The Progressive, 14 September 2006), anyone who thinks that 9/11 was a conspiracy is profoundly irrational and unscientific. According to the government's official account, 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the world's most sophisticated air defense system and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Since conspiracies only require two or more persons collaborating in illegal acts, the official account is a conspiracy theory. Which means that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and their colleagues, who advocate this theory, are profoundly irrational and unscientific.
While I might agree with that conclusion, it is not because they are advocating a conspiracy theory but because the theory they advocate is inconsistent with and refuted by the available relevant evidence. Rothschild claims, "some of the best engineers in the country have studied these events and come up with (what he takes to be) perfectly logical, scientific explanations for what happened". But experts in physics, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, and aeronautical engineering have arrived at different conclusions. The question is not whether 9/11 involved a conspiracy but what kind of conspiracy brought about 9/11.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a non-partisan society of experts, students, and faculty, which is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11, has discovered that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of large airliners; that most of the jet fuel was consumed in those massive fireballs; that UL had certified the steel used in their construction up to 2,000 degrees F for at least three to four hours; that the fires, oxygen starved, averaged only 500 degrees F; that they only endured for one and one-and-a-half hours; that the buildings were blown-up from the top down; that there is no source of energy that can explain it on the official account; and that they "collapsed" at a rate faster than free fall.
Rothschild cites the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as his source, but he apparently has not visited our web site, st911.org, lately, or he would know that we have published several critiques of the latest from NIST at the top of our home page. Not only do these commentaries demonstrate that NIST has been "'faking it" and has no scientific foundation for its position but that the government is so insecure about the official account that, when invited to send a team of experts to debate a team from Scholars, NIST declined and conveyed the message that there were no circumstances under which it would participate in such an exchange. Rothschild didn't tell you, but then he probably doesn't even know.
Something he should know but doesn't mention is that President Bush recently acknowledged, during a press conference that was broadcast nationwide, that Saddam Hussein had "nothing to do" with 9/11. A recent Senate Intelligence Committee Report, widely reported in the media, has found that there were no links between Saddam and Osama. Indeed, two months ago, the FBI admitted it had "no hard evidence" relating Osama to the events of 9/11, a development Ed Haas first reported in THE MUCKRAKER REPORT and that Carol Brown of INN WORLD REPORTS confirmed. If neither Saddam nor Osama was responsible for 9/11, who carried out the attacks? The American people are entitled to know.
It is of more than passing interest that, the day before 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld reported to Congress that the Pentagon had lost track of $2.3 trillion and that Larry Silverstein, who had leased the World Trade Center, had insured it for $3.5 billion against terrorist attacks just six weeks earlier. And The Project for a New American Century wanted a "new Pearl Harbor" to motivate us into supporting an aggressive foreign policy, including wars in violation of international law, the UN Charter, and the US Constitution, that the public was otherwise unlikely to support.
We believe that discovering how and why the victims of 9/11 lost their lives is the highest form of respect that they could possibly be paid. To ignore what we have found and continue to embrace the official account would be rationally indefensible and morally irresponsible. The government has been lying to us about 9/11 from scratch. We know that Saddam was not responsible. There is no "hard evidence" Osama was involved. What we have found, I regret to say, leads in the direction of implicating some of the highest officials of our own government in treason and mass murder. No alternative explanation appears to be remotely reasonable.
I genuinly used to buy this stuff, but now I can't believe that I ever did!! It just seems so utterly ridiculous.
The WTC North tower is estimated to have collapsed with an acceleration that slightly exceeds that of gravity (i.e. faster than free-fall)........
.........I teach physics Dean........
You teach physics and you think the tower fell faster than free-fall?
Without rockets on the roof driving it down that could obviously not happen.
You should find another job, for the sake of your pupils,
Think of the children!
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject:
Bushwacker wrote:
kbo234 wrote:
D E A N wrote:
I genuinly used to buy this stuff, but now I can't believe that I ever did!! It just seems so utterly ridiculous.
The WTC North tower is estimated to have collapsed with an acceleration that slightly exceeds that of gravity (i.e. faster than free-fall)........
.........I teach physics Dean........
You teach physics and you think the tower fell faster than free-fall?
Without rockets on the roof driving it down that could obviously not happen.
You should find another job, for the sake of your pupils,
Think of the children!
If it is exploding from the top down (as happened) then this is quite possible for the bulk of the building. A net downwards force will create an additional downwards acceleration that must be added to the acceleration caused by the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth. There will, of course, always be some of the mass of the building (at the very top) that cannot fall faster than free-fall even in these circumstances.
Actually this fine point is irrelevant to the overall argument. I am quoting a particular estimate from the 'scholars for truth' page which is just that, an estimate. Such a carefully observed estimate, however, does demonstrate clearly that there can be no arguing with the fact that the building fell without resistance.....and this is an important point to prevent the government apologists wriggling around the facts....as they, and trolls like yourself, always try to do.
If a ball bearing is dropped from a height of 417 metres (height of the North tower) it would hit the ground in no less than 9.22 seconds. Quoted estimates for the North Tower collapse are '9 seconds'.
Come on Bushwacker, you clever boy, explain how this happened without the use of explosives?
Every government line I have read about the collapses ignores the issue of the speed of collapse. Perhaps you can do better.
I genuinly used to buy this stuff, but now I can't believe that I ever did!! It just seems so utterly ridiculous.
The WTC North tower is estimated to have collapsed with an acceleration that slightly exceeds that of gravity (i.e. faster than free-fall)........
.........I teach physics Dean........
You teach physics and you think the tower fell faster than free-fall?
Without rockets on the roof driving it down that could obviously not happen.
You should find another job, for the sake of your pupils,
Think of the children!
If it is exploding from the top down (as happened) then this is quite possible for the bulk of the building. A net downwards force will create an additional downwards acceleration that must be added to the acceleration caused by the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth. There will, of course, always be some of the mass of the building (at the very top) that cannot fall faster than free-fall even in these circumstances.
Actually this fine point is irrelevant to the overall argument. I am quoting a particular estimate from the 'scholars for truth' page which is just that, an estimate. Such a carefully observed estimate, however, does demonstrate clearly that there can be no arguing with the fact that the building fell without resistance.....and this is an important point to prevent the government apologists wriggling around the facts....as they, and trolls like yourself, always try to do.
If a ball bearing is dropped from a height of 417 metres (height of the North tower) it would hit the ground in no less than 9.22 seconds. Quoted estimates for the North Tower collapse are '9 seconds'.
Come on Bushwacker, you clever boy, explain how this happened without the use of explosives?
Every government line I have read about the collapses ignores the issue of the speed of collapse. Perhaps you can do better.
What "net downwards force" are you talking about? Why would cutting charges on the steel structure create a net downwards force? Are you sure you teach physics, not creative writing?
Here is NIST ignoring the speed of collapse, according to you:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:51 pm Post subject:
Bushwacker wrote:
kbo234 wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
kbo234 wrote:
D E A N wrote:
I genuinly used to buy this stuff, but now I can't believe that I ever did!! It just seems so utterly ridiculous.
The WTC North tower is estimated to have collapsed with an acceleration that slightly exceeds that of gravity (i.e. faster than free-fall)........
.........I teach physics Dean........
You teach physics and you think the tower fell faster than free-fall?
Without rockets on the roof driving it down that could obviously not happen.
You should find another job, for the sake of your pupils,
Think of the children!
If it is exploding from the top down (as happened) then this is quite possible for the bulk of the building. A net downwards force will create an additional downwards acceleration that must be added to the acceleration caused by the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth. There will, of course, always be some of the mass of the building (at the very top) that cannot fall faster than free-fall even in these circumstances.
Actually this fine point is irrelevant to the overall argument. I am quoting a particular estimate from the 'scholars for truth' page which is just that, an estimate. Such a carefully observed estimate, however, does demonstrate clearly that there can be no arguing with the fact that the building fell without resistance.....and this is an important point to prevent the government apologists wriggling around the facts....as they, and trolls like yourself, always try to do.
If a ball bearing is dropped from a height of 417 metres (height of the North tower) it would hit the ground in no less than 9.22 seconds. Quoted estimates for the North Tower collapse are '9 seconds'.
Come on Bushwacker, you clever boy, explain how this happened without the use of explosives?
Every government line I have read about the collapses ignores the issue of the speed of collapse. Perhaps you can do better.
What "net downwards force" are you talking about? Why would cutting charges on the steel structure create a net downwards force? Are you sure you teach physics, not creative writing?
Here is NIST ignoring the speed of collapse, according to you:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
And .... umm .... how can I put this gently...
After considering some unspecified 'conspiraloon theories' the above from NIST is what you chose to believe is the more reasonable 'explanation'?
Take your time, don't rush into anything.
And .... umm .... how can I put this gently...
After considering some unspecified 'conspiraloon theories' the above from NIST is what you chose to believe is the more reasonable 'explanation'?
Take your time, don't rush into anything.
Well, I did not actually say that, but it is indeed the case.
Which of the alternative theories do you find more reasonable, the one where thousands of pounds of a hitherto unknown derivative of thermite with very convenient properties are placed all over three occupied buildings without anyone noticing, in order to demolish the buildings using a method never before demonstrated, or the one where an unknown "star wars" weapon of immense force and power is unleashed on the buildings from an unseen hiding place? These are the two leading theories from the best scientific minds the "truth" movement can boast, are they not?
Do take as long as you like to consider the matter.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject:
Bushwacker wrote:
chek wrote:
And .... umm .... how can I put this gently...
After considering some unspecified 'conspiraloon theories' the above from NIST is what you chose to believe is the more reasonable 'explanation'?
Take your time, don't rush into anything.
Well, I did not actually say that, but it is indeed the case.
Which of the alternative theories do you find more reasonable, the one where thousands of pounds of a hitherto unknown derivative of thermite with very convenient properties are placed all over three occupied buildings without anyone noticing, in order to demolish the buildings using a method never before demonstrated, or the one where an unknown "star wars" weapon of immense force and power is unleashed on the buildings from an unseen hiding place? These are the two leading theories from the best scientific minds the "truth" movement can boast, are they not?
Do take as long as you like to consider the matter.
Well, ya see, here's the thing that you never seem to get.
We don't have to 'explain' anything! It's great!
We just have to know that the official explanation given is untrue.
Like when we're told matter can fall through the lower uncompromised portion of a steel and concrete building as fast as it can through air.
It's unbelieveable and furthermore, you don't have to be a physicist to understand that!
Let alone believe it!
If it is exploding from the top down (as happened) then this is quite possible for the bulk of the building. A net downwards force will create an additional downwards acceleration that must be added to the acceleration caused by the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth. There will, of course, always be some of the mass of the building (at the very top) that cannot fall faster than free-fall even in these circumstances.
Here are some videos of explosions. Look carefully and tell me if you see anything different between these and what was observed on 9/11.
Apparently, some sort of slow-moving explosive was used at the WTC. In fact, it appears to be slower than free-fall speed, which makes it somewhat difficult to accept your version of events.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject:
Bushwacker wrote:
Are you sure you teach physics, not creative writing?
Here is NIST ignoring the speed of collapse, according to you:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
Now this is what I would call creative writing.
The NIST report does acknowledge the undeniable but it completely fails to offer anything resembling a reasonable explanation for the free-fall nature of the collapses.
Accepting (the unacceptable) that the collapse initiated in a way that no steel-framed building in history had done before or since, the failure of the supports at each successive level would have caused collapse ....but ...... the law of conservation of momentum dictates that such successive collapses would have significantly increased the total time of each collapse. G. Ross (I think that was his name) carried out a lengthy analysis and concluded that given such failures as asserted by the NIST, then the total collapse time of the twin towers should have been in the region of 40 seconds.
A much bigger problem arises with the law of conservation of energy. As I said in a previous post, given that all the gravitational energy turned into kinetic energy (this is what happens during free-fall), where did the energy come from to pulverise the concrete, sever the columns and produce the pools of molten metal.
Another even larger problem is the dissonance the NIST 'explanations' create re the COMMON SENSE of the average human being.
The collapse of WTC7 is an OBVIOUS controlled demolition (as you well know....this is why it does not get shown on any mainstream media). The news blackout on WTC7, in particular weighs hugely on the consciousness of anyone who comes across film of this. The question screams itself out..... "Why have I not been shown this before!!!"
How could any collapse cause the destruction of a core of massive vertical steel beams....etc, etc.
The NIST is slippery 'sleight of hand' by persons who can truly be called creative writers. What they wrote in no way amounts to an analysis of the collapses. They address not a single one of the above serious questions about what happened in Manhattan on 9/11.
I genuinly used to buy this stuff, but now I can't believe that I ever did!! It just seems so utterly ridiculous.
The WTC North tower is estimated to have collapsed with an acceleration that slightly exceeds that of gravity (i.e. faster than free-fall).
:yawn: Even Jowenko says this is bullsh!t.
Quote:
Assuming it fell without resistance at only free fall speed, ALL the gravitational energy is being converted into kinetic energy of motion.
Explain to me please, Dean, how BEFORE IT HIT THE GROUND (we all saw this) hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete were pulverised into fine powder. Where did the energy to do this come from?
The fine powder came from tons of drywall being pulverized. Massive amounts of concrete were recovered in the rubble.
Quote:
Explain please, how 47 massive steel core columns were severed in hundreds of places (at an acute angle, so they could slide off each other and not delay the collapse) and the same for many more exterior columns.
They were severed by a "Death Ray" from the evil Jooish "Death Star".
Quote:
Explain please Dean, where did the lake of molten steel that lay in the basement of this building for two months or so after 9/11, come from.
Ooooh! The Lake of Molten Steel!!! How come no one saw said "lake"??? Don't you ever get tired of repeating nonsense?
Quote:
I teach physics Dean. I have studied this stuff and I have to admit that I have 'bought into it'. But hey, maybe I just don't get it. Wise me up on this please Dean. It is ugly stuff and i'd rather believe something different.
Really.
I'm just waiting for some smart guy like you to come along and shatter my delusive fantasies.
Do this for me and I will definitely say thank you. I'll even send you a present. How about that?
You are a self deluded moron. You don't teach physics; but you could give a clinic in dumbass.
-z _________________ "Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:02 pm Post subject:
aggle-rithm wrote:
Apparently, some sort of slow-moving explosive was used at the WTC. In fact, it appears to be slower than free-fall speed, which makes it somewhat difficult to accept your version of events.
Actually I rather lazily and thoughlessly quoted someone on 9/11 scholars for truth. I do not believe that the North Tower came down faster than free-fall although I can dream up reasons why it might have done.
The important thing is that at least one of the collapses was provably at free-fall speed.
That is all anyone should need to know, having seen film of the twin tower collapses, to understand what happened.
ONLY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION can explain the free-fall total collapse of the buildings.
I teach physics Dean. I have studied this stuff and I have to admit that I have 'bought into it'.....
kbo234 , could you explain this ? :
i.e pieces of WTC1 falling well ahead of the collapse zone, and yet you claim :
"The WTC North tower is estimated to have collapsed with an acceleration that slightly exceeds that of gravity (i.e. faster than free-fall). "
You are not a physics teacher. You're a liar.
(change tack now, start a different line of discussion - it's the lying CT way) _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
And .... umm .... how can I put this gently...
After considering some unspecified 'conspiraloon theories' the above from NIST is what you chose to believe is the more reasonable 'explanation'?
Take your time, don't rush into anything.
Well, I did not actually say that, but it is indeed the case.
Which of the alternative theories do you find more reasonable, the one where thousands of pounds of a hitherto unknown derivative of thermite with very convenient properties are placed all over three occupied buildings without anyone noticing, in order to demolish the buildings using a method never before demonstrated, or the one where an unknown "star wars" weapon of immense force and power is unleashed on the buildings from an unseen hiding place? These are the two leading theories from the best scientific minds the "truth" movement can boast, are they not?
Do take as long as you like to consider the matter.
Well, ya see, here's the thing that you never seem to get.
We don't have to 'explain' anything! It's great!
We just have to know that the official explanation given is untrue.
Like when we're told matter can fall through the lower uncompromised portion of a steel and concrete building as fast as it can through air.
It's unbelieveable and furthermore, you don't have to be a physicist to understand that!
Let alone believe it!
Well it was you who asked which was more reasonable, not me. To me the NIST explanation is much more reasonable than the other two. You prefer not to decide, that's OK with me, perhaps you are hoping that a better theory will turn up some day, who knows?
But you will have some difficulty convincing the great British public, I fear.
One can imagine the scene:
Chek: Look, the towers fell down too fast!
Great British Public: Yeah, and so?
Chek: That means we have been told lies!
GBP: So what did happen?
Chek: Bush blew them up!
GBP: How'd he do that, then?
Chek: I don't have to explain anything! It's great! Please sign my petition.
GBP: Push off, nutter.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject:
Bushwacker wrote:
chek wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
chek wrote:
And .... umm .... how can I put this gently...
After considering some unspecified 'conspiraloon theories' the above from NIST is what you chose to believe is the more reasonable 'explanation'?
Take your time, don't rush into anything.
Well, I did not actually say that, but it is indeed the case.
Which of the alternative theories do you find more reasonable, the one where thousands of pounds of a hitherto unknown derivative of thermite with very convenient properties are placed all over three occupied buildings without anyone noticing, in order to demolish the buildings using a method never before demonstrated, or the one where an unknown "star wars" weapon of immense force and power is unleashed on the buildings from an unseen hiding place? These are the two leading theories from the best scientific minds the "truth" movement can boast, are they not?
Do take as long as you like to consider the matter.
Well, ya see, here's the thing that you never seem to get.
We don't have to 'explain' anything! It's great!
We just have to know that the official explanation given is untrue.
Like when we're told matter can fall through the lower uncompromised portion of a steel and concrete building as fast as it can through air.
It's unbelieveable and furthermore, you don't have to be a physicist to understand that!
Let alone believe it!
Well it was you who asked which was more reasonable, not me. To me the NIST explanation is much more reasonable than the other two. You prefer not to decide, that's OK with me, perhaps you are hoping that a better theory will turn up some day, who knows?
But you will have some difficulty convincing the great British public, I fear.
One can imagine the scene:
Chek: Look, the towers fell down too fast!
Great British Public: Yeah, and so?
Chek: That means we have been told lies!
GBP: So what did happen?
Chek: Bush blew them up!
GBP: How'd he do that, then?
Chek: I don't have to explain anything! It's great! Please sign my petition.
GBP: Push off, nutter.
More straw than a scarecrow.
The OCT cannot be true, and most people don't need convinced that their governments would lie to them.
The only answer of course, is a real investigation - not the OCT white washes and not even much in the way of partial truths we've had so far.
Look at Ignatz photo - trailing smoke.
From 'gravity'.
Of course it is.
Apparently, some sort of slow-moving explosive was used at the WTC. In fact, it appears to be slower than free-fall speed, which makes it somewhat difficult to accept your version of events.
Actually I rather lazily and thoughlessly quoted someone on 9/11 scholars for truth. I do not believe that the North Tower came down faster than free-fall although I can dream up reasons why it might have done.
Ah - so "Scholars <roflmao> For Truth" claim something that defies the laws of physics, and you a physics teacher <roflmao> quote it lazily ?
You are no physics teacher. You are a liar. _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject:
Ignatz wrote:
......i.e pieces of WTC1 falling well ahead of the collapse zone, and yet you claim :
"The WTC North tower is estimated to have collapsed with an acceleration that slightly exceeds that of gravity (i.e. faster than free-fall). "
You are not a physics teacher. You're a liar.
(change tack now, start a different line of discussion - it's the lying CT way)
I have never seen this photo before and coming from you, particularly, I do not trust it. Let us assume though that it is genuine. It would seem, superficially at least, to contradict the claim of free-fall time for this tower. Maybe this is a photo of the South tower (collapse time 11 sec). If this tower took a couple of seconds longer than free fall this might explain the photo.
The point in this argument, though, is that I don't have to make the case for free-fall speed collapse of one tower at least.
....and 9/11 truthers only need free-fall collapse established for one of the 3 towers to have pure unchallengeable certainty that this building, and therefore the rest, were brought down by controlled demolitions.
Total collapse in 9 seconds is free-fall speed. This is accepted by everybody including NIST.
I did not mention the fact that I teach physics as a boast (it doesn't mean much, other than I am not a complete fool), rather as a defensive reaction to the pontifications of an individual who is either genuinely stupid or genuinely dishonest.......like yourself.
....and 9/11 truthers only need free-fall collapse established for one of the 3 towers to have pure unchallengeable certainty that this building, and therefore the rest, were brought down by controlled demolitions.
Rofl. That's up there with the all-time dumbest things I've read on this board.
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
