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

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Attention Anti-Sophist!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

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

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject:

You can see the flashs here: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/download.php?id=338 _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

Anti-sophist wrote:

James C wrote:

aggle-rithm wrote:

James C wrote:

As I've said before. maths can be used to prove anything, but it's the initial concepts and data which are important. If you are not truthful with all the data then how can the maths be useful? Perhaps you should ask NIST about that.

Refresh my memory: What initial assumptions did NIST make that were faulty? I apologize if I'm asking you to repeat yourself; I just want to be clear on this.

This is what NIST states:

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

So what are the flashes seen above the 82nd floor of WTC2 in this clip?

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collap se.mpeg

Look carefully now, especially at the nearside corner at the point level with the base of the smoke on the north tower! Looks to me like the building only starts to collapse when these flashes appear. I hope they didn't just ignore these!

Please explain what these flashes are. Forget your own credentials. Forget what NIST says. Think for yourself and be honest. What are these flashes and subsequent flying debris?

You said "nearside", I assume you mean the bright-spot all the way on the right?

Well, this kind of proves it all. You really cannot observe very carefully can you? Obviously it's my trained eye which allows me to spot such obvious events.

I'll repeat, look carefully at the nearside corner at a point which is roughly level with the base of the smoke on the north tower. There is a very distinct flash and large puff of smoke and debris which happens at exactly the same time as the flash you have noticed on the right. It's so important that you do what I ask or else you cannot possibly hope to understand what I am saying.

If you cannot see it then read this thread where these flashes have been freeze framed for you.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5154&start=15

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:02 pm Post subject:

Hah, you mean 15 stories up? hahaha. It's fairly clear that the building is already collapsing in that frame, therefore why are there explosions happening after the collapse has started? Furthermore what evidence do you have that these flashes are caused by explosions? Last edited by Anti-sophist on Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:03 pm Post subject:

I'm waiting for an answer!

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject:

Anti-sophist wrote:

Hah, you mean 15 stories up? hahaha.

And your point is?

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject:

These "flashes" happened after the collapse has already been initiated. That pretty much submarines your entire argument, doesn't it?

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:08 pm Post subject:

Anti-sophist wrote:

These "flashes" happened after the collapse has already been initiated. That pretty much submarines your entire argument, doesn't it?

Sorry, you still are not looking very carefully are you? They happen at the same time as the collapse starts.

Still doesn't explain what these flashes are. I'll repeat. What are these flashes and puffs of smoke?

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject:

Hurry up. I'm getting bored!

Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic

Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:11 pm Post subject:

Anti-sophist wrote:

These "flashes" happened after the collapse has already been initiated. That pretty much submarines your entire argument, doesn't it?

You could try and dismiss the lower flash as a byproduct of the collapse. Unfortunately we have no reason to suppose the upper flash could have be caused by lower floor collapsing. Also the flashes are of similar intensity and appear at the same time i.e. At the time of collapse.
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:36 pm Post subject:

Any other shills want to answer the question above since Anti-Sophist has obviously abandoned ship? Looks like NIST is wrong in its assumption. And if the data going into their equations is wrong then their answers must be wrong.

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject:

The building is OBVIOUSLY already collapsing when the flashes happen. The entire "edge" is already well passed "straight", and the upper portion of the building has already torqued over quite a bit. Claiming these happened "at the same time" as the start of the collapse is just funny. The freeze frame in the other thread shows, without question, that they happened well after the actual collapse begun. Anything else I can clear up for you?

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

Any other shills want to answer the question above since Anti-Sophist has obviously abandoned ship?

Perhaps he was "submarined", which as I understand it is infinitely worse than being torpedoed, if those Tailhook rumours are anything to go by.

Still on the nautical theme, I wouldn't accept 'navigation lights' as an answer either. Smile

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

Still doesn't explain what these flashes are. I'll repeat. What are these flashes and puffs of smoke?

Oh, sorry, they are byproducts of a building on fire collapsing. Buildings that are collapsing produces alot of "puffs". And puffs of air can inflame fires and do other nasty things that produce flashes like this. Including blow out windows which can cause reflections and other things. This is clearly seen in the video as the debris gets lower toward the bottom of the screen.

Unfortunately, for you, they happened after the collapse already began, and they aren't accompined by any evidence they are from explosives. Sorry. None of this even touches the issue of why they would use explosives ABOVE the collapse zone, AFTER the collapse already begins.

Ok, now, anything else I can clear up?

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject:

Anti-sophist wrote:

There are flashes seen all over the place in the collapse debris as it goes toward the bottom of the screen. This is entirely reflections of falling glass/metal/etc.

Or video compression artifacts.

Quote:

There are also "bright spots" right at the collapse region, which are almost certainly just fires being fed alot of oxygen as air starts to rush out from the collapse.

There are several close-up shots of the collapses, guys. You're getting excited over a second-generation video of something that doesn't show up in other, better-quality videos.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject:

Anti-sophist wrote:

The building is OBVIOUSLY already collapsing when the flashes happen. The entire "edge" is already well passed "straight", and the upper portion of the building has already torqued over quite a bit.

Claiming these happened "at the same time" as the start of the collapse is just funny. The freeze frame in the other thread shows, without question, that they happened well after the actual collapse begun.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

Firstly, and to be fair to you I'll correct myself slightly here, the flash on the right happens just before the one on the corner. The flash on the corner occurs just after the building starts to rotate but the flash on the right happens just before the building begins to collapse. The freeze frame is not an accurate portrayal of the sequence of events here in that it shows the tail end of the right hand flash and the beginning of the corner flash. That freeze frame can only be used to show you that the flashes exist.

So what are these flashes and puffs of smoke and why does one appear above the 82nd floor? If the mass of the building is fully intact above the level of floor damage at the point of rotation, why would there be a flash way above this? Since you ask if you can clear anything else up for me then please do that because thus far you still have no explanation!

Why not look at the video clip again - a little more carefully this time so that you cannot pass off your poor observation as scientific fact.

Last edited by James C on Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

Or video compression artifacts.

I don't think, in this case, that is likely. I've done alot of work with video compression (including my highly feared master thesis), and I don't believe the video compression could have created these flashes.

It certainly distorted them, but I'm fairly certain that light was emitted from these regions in some form.

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:55 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

You should watch it again. Both happen well after the actual collapse has begun.

Quote:

So what are these flashes and puffs of smoke and why does one appear above the 82nd floor?

They are results of a building that has begun to collapse.

Quote:

If the mass of the building is fully intact above the level of floor damage at the point of rotation, why would there be a flash way above this?

I would agree that would be strange given your premise. However, I don't believe that the building is "fully intact". The vertical columns have failed previous to this moment, and that would have repercussions throughout the entire building.

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:58 pm Post subject:

Anti-sophist wrote:

James C wrote:

You should watch it again. Both happen well after the actual collapse has begun.

Quote:

So what are these flashes and puffs of smoke and why does one appear above the 82nd floor?

They are results of a building that has begun to collapse.

If the mass of the building is fully intact above the level of floor damage at the point of rotation, why would there be a flash way above this?

I don't believe that the building is "fully intact". The vertical columns have failed previous to this moment, and that would have repercussions throughout the entire building.[/quote]

You talk utter rubbish.

Firstly, the building only rotates after the right hand flash has started.

Secondly, the outer steelwork is clearly intact as rotation starts. So what would cause such an obvious flash?

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject:

There are many more flashes than just these two, as well, that all look roughly the same. Most of them happen in or below the debris as it goes toward the bottom of the screen. I believe that almost all of them are reflections off of broken/falling glass. The one that happens on the right seems to be the most unique because of it's duration, however the one that happens higher up looks identical to the ones that happen later (there is another one just right of center, near the very bottom of the screen, that happens just because the falling debris gets to it). There are many other flashes in the debris cloud itself that all look roughly the same.

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject:

Anti-sophist wrote:

There are many more flashes than just these two, as well, that all look roughly the same. Most of them happen in or below the debris as it goes toward the bottom of the screen.

I believe that almost all of them are reflections off of broken/falling glass.

The one that happens on the right seems to be the most unique because of it's duration, however the one that happens higher up looks identical to the ones that happen later (there is another one just right of center, near the very bottom of the screen, that happens just because the falling debris gets to it). There are many other flashes in the debris cloud itself that all look roughly the same.

So why would the upper part of the building produce flying debris as it falls? It is intact. There is no good reason for any part of the upper building to project debris outwards or produce sudden flashes.

Just for comparison. Here is a building which has been demolished by initiating a rotational collapse. Notice how intact it remains with no flying debris as it falls.

http://www.implosionworld.com/galvestonbftp.htm

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

Of course there is a good reason. The building was coming apart. Vertical columns were failing. All the floors were losing their vertical support and becoming unaligned relative to each other. Glass was breaking. Glass was reflecting light.

Quote:

Just for comparison. Here is a building which has been demolished by initiating a rotational collapse. Notice how intact it remains with no flying debris as it falls.

http://www.implosionworld.com/galvestonbftp.htm

It's amazing that you can pick two building collapse and just presume that they should look the same. Feel free to read that same sites take on your 9/11 conspiracy theory about demolition, and then get back to me about whether you want to quote them as a source.

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject:

Anti-sophist wrote:

James C wrote:

Quote:

Oh dear. What you say about the building coming apart isn't very good for the explanation that the towers collapsed due to the upper mass dropping onto the lower aprt of each tower. If this mass is breaking up before it even hits the lower building, how can it have caused such destruction? By definition, the mass is no longer as large or effective.

I think you need to re-read the Improbable Collapse thread because this is the crux of the shill's argument. Which is naive beyond imagination.

You still have not explained why there is such a definite flash and debris on the nearside corner. It certainly isn't flying glass so forget that argument.

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

Anti-sophist wrote:

James C wrote:

Quote:

Which is larger and more "effective":
one thirty-ton boulder or
thirty one-ton boulders?
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

Any other shills want to answer the question above since Anti-Sophist has obviously abandoned ship?

Looks like NIST is wrong in its assumption. And if the data going into their equations is wrong then their answers must be wrong.

I am utterly unconvinced by your "evidence". Try as I might, I could not see anything in that video that could be interpreted as an explosion. What kind of magical explosion would it be that could bring the building down, but not produce a noticeable shock wave? Even if you could explain away the lack of smoke from the blast itself, how did it fail to disturb the smoke of the surrounding fire?

The investigators at NIST are experts who evaluate actual evidence. You are some schmuck who looks at videos and sees what he wants to see. You can't claim they made invalid assumptions just because they didn't buy into your fantasy. They don't even know who you are, for heaven's sake!

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

James C wrote:

Why would such an explosion produce a visible shock wave. Where are the visible shock waves on the videos of controlled demolitions. Please show me instead of making your silly assumptions which you always do.

Why should the explosion have disturbed the fire? Again, where is your proof for this? This is my problem with you Mr Owl. You never offer anything which even resembles evidence to back up what you say. Calling me a schmuk is hardly going to convince me that I am wrong. As I said before, you wouldn't dare say that to my face so forget about it over the internet.

I have read the NIST reports with great interest. Their analysis is very thorough but is only based upon assumption. They have not been able to anaylize the steel columns as complete units or piece anything together. Their whole basis for investigation is to use the video evidence and witness statements. NIST also happens to be a government agency which is not going to tolerate the likes of me and others crying conspiracy. That won't look good for them.

And what exactly is my fantasy. I don't suppose you have the first clue about what I believe or why I believe 9/11 happened. If you were to take even a small step in the direction of my beliefs then you might just shut up. Then again, I doubt it, your ignorance makes you completely blind.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

Why should the explosion have disturbed the fire? Again, where is your proof for this? This is my problem with you Mr Owl. You never offer anything which even resembles evidence to back up what you say.

The fact that there was smoke and fire around the building when it collapsed is critical. If an explosion takes place in the vicinity of a visible gas, then the shock wave is visible as well. The reason you don't see this with controlled demolition is that the buildings being demolished are not usually on fire.

Take a look at these videos:

http://www.chemaxx.com/expolode1.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUVZ5ARH2G0 (30 secs in)

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/77569/huge_explosion/ (56 secs in)

Of course, you could argue that the explosions in the WTC were not this big, but then -- how were they able to destroy the buildings? The explosion on the Forrestal, as big as it was, did much less damage to that aircraft carrier than was done to the WTC.

Quote:

Calling me a schmuk is hardly going to convince me that I am wrong. As I said before, you wouldn't dare say that to my face so forget about it over the internet.

I often use "schmuck" as a fairly mild term, meaning an ordinary, non-descript person. The actual meaning is somewhat harsher than that, and that's not what I intended to get across. I apologize.

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject:

Anti-Sophist

Quote:

The "testimony" isn't very useful because Mineta is claiming that the military knew about things 50 minutes before impact. The FAA notified the military 13 minutes before impact. Under close scrutiny, the timelines in the quote you gave doesn't match reality.

The quote is verbatim and accurate to the testimony given:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Vs7KNlpXU

But where do you get 50 minutes from? He says 50 miles. I don't get you. Mind you, it's Friday evening when my brain powers down...

Quote:

One that I don't believe is entirely answered is what Cheney's orders were.. mostly because it's unclear when the orders were given

Aha!...yes, though they were clearly (according to Mineta) in place when the plane (assuming we're talking about flight 77) was 50 miles out.

Bushwacker -

Quote:

I would have thought it all too obvious that Bush cannot think on his feet, look at him lost for words when he is asked a question he does not expect during an interview. He has not the faintest idea what to do in a crisis, the "not to scare the kids" justification is total hogwash thought up later in an attempt to justify his paralysis. "Inept" hardly begins to cover it.

But this surely goes to prove he had no foreknowledge. If he had known what was going to happen he could have scripted a heroic role for himself, dramatic pictures of the Secret Service rushing him out of the school, a dash back to the White House, a strong leader risking further attacks to take command of a nation at war. Instead he looked like a man quite out of his depth in a crisis, a total idiot with no idea what to do, and when he finally reacted he rushed from one airbase to another like a frightened rabbit. Even he must have realised what a pathetic figure he appeared. There was no reason for him to do that if he knew in advance what was happening.

I totally agree with you. Though I don't think your point is necessarily damning to the CT, only if you assert Bush was a plotter (though I acknowledge they'd probably script his response, but then it depends on who your hypothetical plotters were). I don't think you need to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to assert that guy is NOT running America any more than Reagan was. What was it his dad said? something like "He has a good team of advisors"? You'd better believe it.That guy couldn't run my local chippy. I acknowledge I have a psychological need to believe what I just said...the idea he IS really fully in charge is just too hideous to contemplate...oh no, I thought it...I need a lie down...

Actually, Bushwacker, there's a book you might like. "The President of good and evil" by noted Aussie utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer. He actually takes Bush seriously according to his speeches and analyses his position philosophically. It's quite interesting.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:21 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

James C wrote:

Quote:

Calling me a schmuk is hardly going to convince me that I am wrong. As I said before, you wouldn't dare say that to my face so forget about it over the internet.

I often use "schmuck" as a fairly mild term, meaning an ordinary, non-descript person. The actual meaning is somewhat harsher than that, and that's not what I intended to get across. I apologize.

Thanks for your apology aggle-rithm. I'm sure you will agree that this debate should be conducted in a civilized manner.

I've looked at your videos. I can't quite see the connection between them and what you say being that two of them are examples of fires and explosions that are not in buildings. The only explosion in a building isn't actually a normal building at all but a fuel terminal, presumably loaded with kerosine.

The flashes and distinct puffs of smoke on the video I posted are not particularly big. The explosions on building demolitons are not particularly big either. There is no reason why they would have affected the fire or produced shock waves. The flash on the nearside corner is way above the fire and it produces distinct damage to the surrounding area - dust, smoke and debris.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

The flashes and distinct puffs of smoke on the video I posted are not particularly big.

That's an understatement. I can't even see them!

Quote:

The explosions on building demolitons are not particularly big either. There is no reason why they would have affected the fire or produced shock waves.

So, they're little, tiny explosions that don't produce a shock wave. What is the difference between saying that a building collapsed due to an airplane running into it and a couple of miniscule explosions, and saying simply that it collapsed due to an airplane? Why are the dwarf explosions even necessary?

Quote:

The flash on the nearside corner is way above the fire and it produces distinct damage to the surrounding area - dust, smoke and debris.

ABOVE the fire? What purpose did it serve?

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

James C wrote:

The flashes and distinct puffs of smoke on the video I posted are not particularly big.

That's an understatement. I can't even see them!

Quote:

The explosions on building demolitons are not particularly big either. There is no reason why they would have affected the fire or produced shock waves.

Quote:

The flash on the nearside corner is way above the fire and it produces distinct damage to the surrounding area - dust, smoke and debris.

ABOVE the fire? What purpose did it serve?

If you cannot see the flashes then you must be blind.

The explosions are necessary to bring the building down which is the whole principle for controlled demolition. The planes may have had nothing to do with it. Do you know for sure that the plane caused the towers to come down? An aircraft and subsequent fire didn't cause the ESB to collapse did it?

The flash on the corner above the fire shows that the whole building was wired. Unless the planes were directed to a certain spot then the plan would have had to rest on not knowing where each aircraft would strike. The aim would have been to bring the whole building down as completely as possible and so explosives over the whole building including the top floors would have achieved this. The impact point and fire was therefore not significant, unlike the view which NIST conforms to. The only significance the impact area and fire had in WTC2 was to cause the building to rotate slightly as it was demolished. That rotation stopped however as the lower part of the building dropped at the same speed as the upper mass. With no lower building in place, the upper part had nothing to rest on anymore and so nothing to continue rotating against. Hence the reason for it dropping and not rotating completely off the top of the structure, which would have been the likely outcome had the fire and aircraft damage alone caused structural failure at the point of impact.

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 Next
Page 2 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