1. the shills appear to believe that steel beams are not connected to steel columns by bolts.
No one of course has said anything like that
2. .....why then do you believe that one column failing will automatically cause the others to fail ........?
No suggestion has been made that this is automatic
3. ........at exactly the same time?
No one has said that.
See if you can grasp this: One column failing will transfer additional load on to one or more other columns. Those columns may or may not be able to sustain that additional load. If they cannot and fail, that may happen very quickly. Their failure is more likely if they are already bearing additional load through some other cause, or are themselves weakened.
Anything there you care to dispute?
Absolutely. For WTC7 to have collapsed in 6.5 seconds (excluding the east penthouse) with the walls remaining in the vertical plane as the building fell, the columns across the entire plan would have had to have failed instantaneously at exactly the same places. If they hadn't then a) the speed of collapse would have been distinctly slower, b) rotation of the building would have taken place c) the destruction would have been partial (as observed in every other fire in a high rise steel structure).
This is why the shill's theory is really suggesting that the buidings used some magic construction technique which meant that failure of one part would initiate immediate failure in the other parts and that in turn would lead to implosion. You may not have said this outright but there is no other explanation for your very silly theory about WTC7. Of course, if the answer were straight forward then NIST would have established it by now wouldn't they?
You use incredibly flowery language which shows clearly that you know nothing about the way buildings behave when set on fire or affected by structural damage. Which is why I find it so funny that you can claim to know anything about the reasons why WTC7 collapsed.
Come back when you can discuss this subject with some authority!
Oh look, another fire at the weekend and the structural framed roof remains intact......Picture 6 is quite good.
"Incredibly flowery language" - I suppose you are joking.
Leaving aside the speed of collapse, which is not in fact mentioned, do you dispute any part of the statement, taken on its own? _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
This is why the shill's theory is really suggesting that the buidings used some magic construction technique which meant that failure of one part would initiate immediate failure in the other parts and that in turn would lead to implosion. You may not have said this outright but there is no other explanation for your very silly theory about WTC7. Of course, if the answer were straight forward then NIST would have established it by now wouldn't they?
You use incredibly flowery language which shows clearly that you know nothing about the way buildings behave when set on fire or affected by structural damage. Which is why I find it so funny that you can claim to know anything about the reasons why WTC7 collapsed.
Come back when you can discuss this subject with some authority!
Why do you keep saying that simultaneous failure of all the columns is required to cause the observed collapse of the building?
We already know that the guts of the E side collapsed several seconds earlier than the rest, so your proposed "simultaneous" CD is already shown to be fallacious. _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
We already know that the guts of the E side collapsed several seconds earlier than the rest
We do? Oh that would be the side noone had a camera on right?
How do you explain the chain of squibs running from bottom to top along the right side of the building and the front face?
And the refusal of the networks to release original, high quality footage of any of the WTC events? Just curious... _________________ Make love, not money.
No because they are not connected in the same way that building columns are
Really, so the wheels of a car are not held on with bolts?
They're held onto the wheel hubs with bolts. The wheel hubs are connected to the suspension, the suspension is bolted to the front and read portions of the chassis. The front rear portions of the chassis are connected to the centre section of the chassis.
The columns in WTC 7 were connected to each other, because y'know, that's what holds the building up.
Quote:
I guess that tallies with the fact that the shills appear to believe that steel beams are not connected to steel columns by bolts either.
Who said that? Not making stuff up are you?
Quote:
At least you agree that one wheel won't affect the others in terms of support if it were to fail. So why then do you believe that one column failing will automatically cause the others to fail at exactly the same time?
Depends how stiff your suspension is. On a Formula one car, the failure of a front right for instance will raise the rear left into the air, giving you up to 50 % loss of support from a single wheel failure
Quote:
Can you see why I treat your theory as utter rubbish?
Because you don't understand it.
Quote:
Erm, that wasn't my argument so the best answer I can come up with is:
_________________
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
We already know that the guts of the E side collapsed several seconds earlier than the rest
We do? Oh that would be the side noone had a camera on right?
OMG!!!!1 IT WASN'T ON CAMERA SO WE CAN NEVER KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!!!!1 _________________
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
How do you explain the chain of squibs running from bottom to top along the right side of the building and the front face?
It is difficult if you think they are demolition squibs, isn't it? Unusually for demolition squibs they are visible after the building has started to collapse, both the penthouses have already fallen, and there are cracks, broken windows and distortions all over the front face of the building. They also seem to have been unaccompanied by the usual noise of explosions, and very oddly, they are at the top of a building which starts to collapse from the bottom up, and the areas where they are seen do not visibly collapse.
On the other hand, the falling penthouses are a clue that the roof and some top floors collapsed before the whole building fell, and collapsing floors require a lot of air to be expelled. If we view the squibs as a result of air being forced out between collapsing floors, then that explains everything we observe. Therefore that seems much more likely than demolition squibs, wouldn't you say? _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
How do you explain the chain of squibs running from bottom to top along the right side of the building and the front face?
Those are not "squibs".
The top seven floors of the Southwest corner of the building were already damaged before the collapse. Coincidentally, the "squibs" appear on the top seven floors of the Southwest corner of the building:
For a fuller explanation, please see the second half of the following page, under the heading "The NAIL in coffin of Jones' credibility":
http://debunking911.com/overp.htm
High resolution version of the collapse follows, showing the "squibs" to be very un-squib-like.
High res stills, frame-by-frame:
http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/wtc7/collaps_wtc7.htm _________________ "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
We already know that the guts of the E side collapsed several seconds earlier than the rest
We do? Oh that would be the side noone had a camera on right?
The side there are few pictures of is the South side. The images captured of the South side show smoke pouring from virtually every floor, obscuring clear details of the extent of damage on the face. Wide angle images of the site show an enormous plume of smoke drifting off to the South from the South face of the building.
The East penthouse collapse can be seen here:
Link _________________ "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
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: Good luck
Bushwacker wrote:
Yes, yes, all froth and no substance at all, apart from "the man in a cave" who of course was a man in an extensive headquarters with large sums of money at his disposal at the time the attacks were planned and executed.
Would you care to tackle the problems inherent in the conspiracist position that WTC7 was demolished?
1. What was the point of it? It added nothing to the spectacle of the towers coming down. We have had two suggestions a) an insurance fraud, despite Silverstein losing money on it, and b) to get rid of evidence of some kind, although it would be much less efficient and much more risky than a shredder. Can you do better?
2. What excuse could have been found for the demolition if debris from the towers had not happened to hit it, damaging it severely and causing fires?
3. If it is so implausible that fire would cause WTC7 to collapse, why did the firemen believe it was likely to happen?
4. How was it brought down, particularly since there is no evidence of any explosions? (apart from so-called squibs shooting out of the wrong floors after collapse had started)
You appear to believe you have physics and logic on your side here, but the two scientists who support you disagree fundamentally with each other. You have a professor of physics who says WTC7, like the towers, was brought down with thermite, but does not suggest how it was placed, how it survived the fires, or how thermite could destroy vertical pillars when it is only ever used on the horizontal. He also postulates a hitherto unknown derivative of thermite with, conveniently, the properties required. On the other hand you have a professor of mechanical engineering who rubbishes the thermite theory and says that only a high energy "star-wars" beam weapon fired from a satellite could account for the damage seen.
Then of course you have the Dutch demolition expert who was prepared to give his opinion that the building was demolished on the basis of watching a video and being given some inaccurate information about it. However he also is adamant that the towers were not demolished, and I presume you would accept that if one building was demolished, then they all were.
Do not just go for the "I don't know, that's why we need a new investigation" cop-out. We are not here talking about the bigger picture, we are talking specifically about WTC7. NIST are doing a very detailed investigation which has not yet reached a conclusion but has ruled out demolition. To persuade anyone to look at this again you need to either show substantial flaws in the NIST investigation or a plausible scenario that is more likely to have occurred than a collapse as a result of fire. So far this has not been done and all the abuse in the world will not substitute for it.
So let me get this straight having money allows you to fly in real time for over half an hour over US airspace and not be shot down?
Can you show me another precedent for such an event in history? Or does a man in a cave with money sum up your whole approach to everything. A conspiraloon is characterised primarily by his inability to justify ANY 9/11 event but to go round in circles just like you have done now.
You ask me how buildings were brought down. What am I a demolition expert? Next you might ask me to answer an algebra equation in order to prove 9/11 was an inside job. The question is pointless as to how it was brought down. A plane didn't do it, now did it? But if it was brought down in the same manner as the twin towers then how could it have been brought down without a plane crashing in it? So it must have been brought down just like the twin towers which proves that because no plane crashed into it, no planes brought down the twin towers.
That is what I would conclude from the whole event. Both experts agree the building was pulled down, not because they were connected to the twin towers. Hence the issue at stake isn't whether one is right or wrong or both are wrong but whether a building half the size of the twin towers was brought down on the same day yet hardly anyone knew about it.
So the only logical conclusion is this was the control room.
It seems strange to me that CTists will instantly jump all over Jowenko's opinion of WTC7 and completely ignore his opinion of WTC1 and WTC2. He can't both be a shill and a whistleblower, can he?
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: Re: Good luck
conspirator wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
Yes, yes, all froth and no substance at all, apart from "the man in a cave" who of course was a man in an extensive headquarters with large sums of money at his disposal at the time the attacks were planned and executed.
Would you care to tackle the problems inherent in the conspiracist position that WTC7 was demolished?
1. What was the point of it? It added nothing to the spectacle of the towers coming down. We have had two suggestions a) an insurance fraud, despite Silverstein losing money on it, and b) to get rid of evidence of some kind, although it would be much less efficient and much more risky than a shredder. Can you do better?
2. What excuse could have been found for the demolition if debris from the towers had not happened to hit it, damaging it severely and causing fires?
3. If it is so implausible that fire would cause WTC7 to collapse, why did the firemen believe it was likely to happen?
4. How was it brought down, particularly since there is no evidence of any explosions? (apart from so-called squibs shooting out of the wrong floors after collapse had started)
You appear to believe you have physics and logic on your side here, but the two scientists who support you disagree fundamentally with each other. You have a professor of physics who says WTC7, like the towers, was brought down with thermite, but does not suggest how it was placed, how it survived the fires, or how thermite could destroy vertical pillars when it is only ever used on the horizontal. He also postulates a hitherto unknown derivative of thermite with, conveniently, the properties required. On the other hand you have a professor of mechanical engineering who rubbishes the thermite theory and says that only a high energy "star-wars" beam weapon fired from a satellite could account for the damage seen.
Then of course you have the Dutch demolition expert who was prepared to give his opinion that the building was demolished on the basis of watching a video and being given some inaccurate information about it. However he also is adamant that the towers were not demolished, and I presume you would accept that if one building was demolished, then they all were.
Do not just go for the "I don't know, that's why we need a new investigation" cop-out. We are not here talking about the bigger picture, we are talking specifically about WTC7. NIST are doing a very detailed investigation which has not yet reached a conclusion but has ruled out demolition. To persuade anyone to look at this again you need to either show substantial flaws in the NIST investigation or a plausible scenario that is more likely to have occurred than a collapse as a result of fire. So far this has not been done and all the abuse in the world will not substitute for it.
Quote:
So let me get this straight having money allows you to fly in real time for over half an hour over US airspace and not be shot down?
Can you show me another precedent for such an event in history?
Yes, 4000 planes were in the air over the US at the time, none of them were shot down. In actual fact no plane has ever been shot down by NORAD over the US and what's more only one plane had ever previously been intercepted by NORAD over the US.
Quote:
Or does a man in a cave with money sum up your whole approach to everything. A conspiraloon is characterised primarily by his inability to justify ANY 9/11 event but to go round in circles just like you have done now.
He was not in a cave, was he? Not that it is relevant, but why keep lying about it? Does it make you feel more secure about your fantasies?
Quote:
You ask me how buildings were brought down. What am I a demolition expert? Next you might ask me to answer an algebra equation in order to prove 9/11 was an inside job.
It was you who claimed to have science and logic on your side. Now we see that you do not know whether they are on your side or not
Quote:
The question is pointless as to how it was brought down. A plane didn't do it, now did it? But if it was brought down in the same manner as the twin towers then how could it have been brought down without a plane crashing in it? So it must have been brought down just like the twin towers which proves that because no plane crashed into it, no planes brought down the twin towers.
No plane crashed into it, a 110 storey building fell on it and it burned unattended for 7 hours. The rest of your paragraph is merely a collection of words, making no kind of sense
Quote:
That is what I would conclude from the whole event. Both experts agree the building was pulled down, not because they were connected to the twin towers. Hence the issue at stake isn't whether one is right or wrong or both are wrong but whether a building half the size of the twin towers was brought down on the same day yet hardly anyone knew about it.
So the only logical conclusion is this was the control room.
Right, so you are giving up on physics and logic - probably just as well. As you say, hardly anyone knew about, so try answering at least the first of my questions to you, what was the point of it?
_________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:37 pm Post subject: Re: A circle expert
Bushwacker wrote:
Yes, 4000 planes were in the air over the US at the time, none of them were shot down. In actual fact no plane has ever been shot down by NORAD over the US and what's more only one plane had ever previously been intercepted by NORAD over the US.
So the headquarters of the US army the Pentagon was attacked by a plane and no response was forthcoming because there were... 4,000 planes in the air? There were another 8,000 planes in the air all over the world, what has that got to do with anything Bushlicker? Is it because there were mosquitoes in Africa? Try answering the point how in the age of the post-Cold War and Reagans Star Wars the USA had no air defences. Better still why don't you come up with a more plausible excuse like all the fighter pilots were on anti-terrorist training that morning and were instructed not to stop any targets.
He was not in a cave, was he? Not that it is relevant, but why keep lying about it? Does it make you feel more secure about your fantasies?
Bush stated Bin Liner was in a cave not me. But you haven't answered my point. The difference in being able to pull of a terrorist atrocity of such magnitude is money? So does money buy you immunity from other peoples security services? Just as plausible as arguing aliens did it...
It was you who claimed to have science and logic on your side. Now we see that you do not know whether they are on your side or not
Science doesn't involve explaining nonsense. I leave that to conspiraloon quacks like yourself.
No plane crashed into it, a 110 storey building fell on it and it burned unattended for 7 hours. The rest of your paragraph is merely a collection of words, making no kind of sense
The first kind of skyscraper that burnt in 7 hours, whilst the others burnt in 40 minutes. Didn't know jet fuel was that hot but hey presto in the land of make believe science is erased from reality. At what temperature do stell columns melt? 50degrees? Is that what they taught you in chemistry that you can light a fag and a concrete steel supported skyscraper will go down in ashes and collapse in minutes? You must have had a great Chemistry teacher? What did he specialise in? Home cooking?
Right, so you are giving up on physics and logic - probably just as well. As you say, hardly anyone knew about, so try answering at least the first of my questions to you, what was the point of it?
[/quote]
Answering your 'questions' are so ridiculous that any intelligent adult would find a flaw in almost all of them. I did originally say your speciality was going round in circles. Shame you werent on some of those hijacked planes cos I have heard testimony from ex-pilots that their circles in the air were even impossible to fulfill. But hey why stand in the face of facts, logic, experts.
Arabs who spent their time in strip bars according to official reports who had as much flying time as I have had, flew $150million planes with such dexterity, that it would make you dizzy just thinking about it. But not you of course. You specialise going round in circles.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject: Re: A circle expert
Quote:
Shame you werent on some of those hijacked planes cos I have heard testimony from ex-pilots that their circles in the air were even impossible to fulfill.
Another CT myth. One of my favorites because it's so easy to debunk.
Anyways, please provide the source to this testimony.
Quote:
But hey why stand in the face of facts, logic, experts.
You mean the flight-sim of the amateur pilot pulling the "impossible" maneuver effortlessly? Haha.
Quote:
Arabs who spent their time in strip bars according to official reports who had as much flying time as I have had, flew $150million planes with such dexterity, that it would make you dizzy just thinking about it. But not you of course. You specialise going round in circles.
You mean pull of a ridiculous 1.4 G turn. Holy cow! 1.4Gs! Commercial flight take-offs are almost 2Gs and those sure make me dizzy! What about the flight-sim of the amateur pilot pulling the "impossible" maneuver effortlessly? How do you explain away this?
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:55 pm Post subject: Re: A circle expert
[quote="conspirator"]
Bushwacker wrote:
Yes, 4000 planes were in the air over the US at the time, none of them were shot down. In actual fact no plane has ever been shot down by NORAD over the US and what's more only one plane had ever previously been intercepted by NORAD over the US.
So the headquarters of the US army the Pentagon was attacked by a plane and no response was forthcoming because there were... 4,000 planes in the air? There were another 8,000 planes in the air all over the world, what has that got to do with anything Bushlicker? Is it because there were mosquitoes in Africa? Try answering the point how in the age of the post-Cold War and Reagans Star Wars the USA had no air defences. Better still why don't you come up with a more plausible excuse like all the fighter pilots were on anti-terrorist training that morning and were instructed not to stop any targets.
He was not in a cave, was he? Not that it is relevant, but why keep lying about it? Does it make you feel more secure about your fantasies?
Bush stated Bin Liner was in a cave not me. But you haven't answered my point. The difference in being able to pull of a terrorist atrocity of such magnitude is money? So does money buy you immunity from other peoples security services? Just as plausible as arguing aliens did it...
It was you who claimed to have science and logic on your side. Now we see that you do not know whether they are on your side or not
Science doesn't involve explaining nonsense. I leave that to conspiraloon quacks like yourself.
No plane crashed into it, a 110 storey building fell on it and it burned unattended for 7 hours. The rest of your paragraph is merely a collection of words, making no kind of sense
The first kind of skyscraper that burnt in 7 hours, whilst the others burnt in 40 minutes. Didn't know jet fuel was that hot but hey presto in the land of make believe science is erased from reality. At what temperature do stell columns melt? 50degrees? Is that what they taught you in chemistry that you can light a fag and a concrete steel supported skyscraper will go down in ashes and collapse in minutes? You must have had a great Chemistry teacher? What did he specialise in? Home cooking?
Right, so you are giving up on physics and logic - probably just as well. As you say, hardly anyone knew about, so try answering at least the first of my questions to you, what was the point of it?
Quote:
Answering your 'questions' are so ridiculous that any intelligent adult would find a flaw in almost all of them. I did originally say your speciality was going round in circles. Shame you werent on some of those hijacked planes cos I have heard testimony from ex-pilots that their circles in the air were even impossible to fulfill. But hey why stand in the face of facts, logic, experts.
Arabs who spent their time in strip bars according to official reports who had as much flying time as I have had, flew $150million planes with such dexterity, that it would make you dizzy just thinking about it. But not you of course. You specialise going round in circles.
Oh dear, you are a disappointment. I had hopes of an intelligent response, an attempt at answering at least one question, but all you do is post wittering nonsense, and you have failed even to master the conspiracist brief properly. You are not equiped for this sort of discussion, and it is rather embarrassing to see you floundering quite so badly. I think you had better go away. Shoo! _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:34 am Post subject: Re: A circle expert
Anti-sophist wrote:
Quote:
Shame you werent on some of those hijacked planes cos I have heard testimony from ex-pilots that their circles in the air were even impossible to fulfill.
Another CT myth. One of my favorites because it's so easy to debunk.
Anyways, please provide the source to this testimony.
Quote:
But hey why stand in the face of facts, logic, experts.
You mean the flight-sim of the amateur pilot pulling the "impossible" maneuver effortlessly? Haha.
Quote:
Arabs who spent their time in strip bars according to official reports who had as much flying time as I have had, flew $150million planes with such dexterity, that it would make you dizzy just thinking about it. But not you of course. You specialise going round in circles.
You mean pull of a ridiculous 1.4 G turn. Holy cow! 1.4Gs! Commercial flight take-offs are almost 2Gs and those sure make me dizzy! What about the flight-sim of the amateur pilot pulling the "impossible" maneuver effortlessly? How do you explain away this?
Nice selective answers to issues.
You forgot to tell me how a steel building burnt because the other two apparently had jet fuel go through steel walls, enter a lift shaft (as the door were open and the walls were made of porous concrete) and burn the inner core leading to a collapse.
Some of the jet fuel obviously didn't burn made its way intact across the road to WTC7 and started a fire there burning the building to the ground in 7 hours. Whilst the owner said pull it he actually meant burn it to the ground.
And you both call yourself scientists with engineering degrees.
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:45 am Post subject: Re: A circle expert
conspirator wrote:
Some of the jet fuel obviously didn't burn made its way intact across the road to WTC7 and started a fire there burning the building to the ground in 7 hours. Whilst the owner said pull it he actually meant burn it to the ground.
I think anybody watching building 7 collapse would be rather curious. It just doesn't look right and then when you realise that it just went straight down, well you have to wonder. When physics professors start talking about “free fall speeds” and “the path of least resistance” you start to see the truth! _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:22 am Post subject: Re: A circle expert
conspirator wrote:
Anti-sophist wrote:
Quote:
Shame you werent on some of those hijacked planes cos I have heard testimony from ex-pilots that their circles in the air were even impossible to fulfill.
Another CT myth. One of my favorites because it's so easy to debunk.
Anyways, please provide the source to this testimony.
Quote:
But hey why stand in the face of facts, logic, experts.
You mean the flight-sim of the amateur pilot pulling the "impossible" maneuver effortlessly? Haha.
Quote:
Arabs who spent their time in strip bars according to official reports who had as much flying time as I have had, flew $150million planes with such dexterity, that it would make you dizzy just thinking about it. But not you of course. You specialise going round in circles.
You mean pull of a ridiculous 1.4 G turn. Holy cow! 1.4Gs! Commercial flight take-offs are almost 2Gs and those sure make me dizzy! What about the flight-sim of the amateur pilot pulling the "impossible" maneuver effortlessly? How do you explain away this?
Nice selective answers to issues.
You forgot to tell me how a steel building burnt because the other two apparently had jet fuel go through steel walls, enter a lift shaft (as the door were open and the walls were made of porous concrete) and burn the inner core leading to a collapse.
Some of the jet fuel obviously didn't burn made its way intact across the road to WTC7 and started a fire there burning the building to the ground in 7 hours. Whilst the owner said pull it he actually meant burn it to the ground.
And you both call yourself scientists with engineering degrees.
Quacks more like it. Of the highest order...
Look, I have told you that you are not equipped for this discussion, so stop embarrassing yourself. There were no steel walls, there were the outer perimeter columns that were penetrated by the planes, not the fuel. The lift shafts were made of plasterboard, not concrete of any kind, and would therefore crumble in the impact. WTC7 was hit by collapsing debris, not jet fuel, but it is interesting that you accept it was burnt to the ground, not demolished. _________________ ".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:22 am Post subject: Re: A circle expert
Patrick Brown wrote:
I think anybody watching building 7 collapse would be rather curious. It just doesn't look right and then when you realise that it just went straight down, well you have to wonder. When physics professors start talking about “free fall speeds” and “the path of least resistance” you start to see the truth!
Our resident conspiraloon quacks would have us believe anything and everything. That buildings made of steel and concrete burn to the groun some in half an hours others in more hours and they collapse in a controlled demolition manner, straight down.
Whilst other skyscrapers have burnt for even more hours they haven't collapsed. The twin towers made to withstand even stronger planes than the ones that allegedly crashed into them, which are made of light aluminium proved to be much stronger than the twin towers as jet fuel was able to travel on impact through a building and burn on the inside not the outside.
No wonder Bush is from the Texas bible belt. If you can believe jesus turned water into wine, you can believe jet fuel goes through concrete and steel and burns at the other end.
Joined: 19 Feb 2006 Posts: 237 Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:38 pm Post subject:
Quote:
When physics professors
Jones isn't a professor. He has retired rather than face the sack or not having his tenure renewed (as I predicted before you joined Patrick). Had he not talked rubbish (and not just about 9/11) he'd still have an appointment.
Ditto the unfortunate Judy Wood. I understand her tenure at Clemson was not renewed. Nothing to do with 9/11 everything to do with not cutting it as a 'professor'.
There are now no verifiable technocrats on the side of the conspiracy theorists with any credibility. A few claim to be engineers and physicists and spend their lives demonstrating they are not. I asked those on this site what their thousands of colleagues in their professional institutions thought of their ideas. I haven't noticed an answer. They are surely members of professional institutions. Let us hear it.
The 'Finnish military expert's' article discussing WTC nukes posted twice here. How an expert, where are his or her credentials? Finland and nukes? An 'expert' because he or she says what you guys and gals want to hear. Verifiable experts who tell you what you don't want to hear are dismissed out of hand. Go figure.
Conspirator, are you smoking something extra strong? _________________ "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:31 pm Post subject:
A Sharp Major wrote:
Quote:
When physics professors
Jones isn't a professor. He has retired rather than face the sack or not having his tenure renewed (as I predicted before you joined Patrick). Had he not talked rubbish (and not just about 9/11) he'd still have an appointment.
Ditto the unfortunate Judy Wood. I understand her tenure at Clemson was not renewed. Nothing to do with 9/11 everything to do with not cutting it as a 'professor'.
There are now no verifiable technocrats on the side of the conspiracy theorists with any credibility. A few claim to be engineers and physicists and spend their lives demonstrating they are not. I asked those on this site what their thousands of colleagues in their professional institutions thought of their ideas. I haven't noticed an answer. They are surely members of professional institutions. Let us hear it.
The 'Finnish military expert's' article discussing WTC nukes posted twice here. How an expert, where are his or her credentials? Finland and nukes? An 'expert' because he or she says what you guys and gals want to hear. Verifiable experts who tell you what you don't want to hear are dismissed out of hand. Go figure.
Conspirator, are you smoking something extra strong?
It 's highly amusing the way you punt this 'no scientists' myth as evidence that the OCT is just so rational it's all-conquering, rather than the shameful evidence of Bush's fascism-lite (for the moment anyway) invading all areas of public and corporate life.
America - the free country, oh yes.
Laughable really.
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject: Re: A circle expert
Bushwacker wrote:
Look, I have told you that you are not equipped for this discussion, so stop embarrassing yourself. There were no steel walls, there were the outer perimeter columns that were penetrated by the planes, not the fuel. The lift shafts were made of plasterboard, not concrete of any kind, and would therefore crumble in the impact. WTC7 was hit by collapsing debris, not jet fuel, but it is interesting that you accept it was burnt to the ground, not demolished.
There were steel columns surrounded by concrete walls not plasterboard.
When you explain how jet fuel got through them and burnt on the inside causing the first skyscrapers in history to collapse because of fires then I will say you have an argument.
Until then it isn't simply physics you lack, but basic common sense.
Like the sense your leaders lacked when they thought flowers would be given to them on arrival in Baghdad and instead they got RPG's...
It's amazing how much these guys cannot realize how self-contradictory their entire world-view. They will, in the same post, claim Bush pulled off the most masterful conspiracy in the history of the world, while laughing at his incompetence in Iraq.
It's also how telling how much they mix up conspiracy gibberish and just basic politics and anti-Americanism. It gives me hope that once Bush is gone, most of this driveling cross-wired emotion will go away, with it will go the truth movement.
t's amazing how much these guys cannot realize how self-contradictory their entire world-view. They will, in the same post, claim Bush pulled off the most masterful conspiracy in the history of the world, while laughing at his incompetence in Iraq.
It's also how telling how much they mix up conspiracy gibberish and just basic politics and anti-Americanism. It gives me hope that once Bush is gone, most of this driveling cross-wired emotion will go away, with it will go the truth movement.
Well, to be fair, a lot of folk don't necessarily think Bush orchestrated the 'inside job'. If there was a conspiracy and if he was in on it, he'd probably forgotten about it until it happened (maybe that's why he acted in such an inappropriate manner on the day!).
I'm not sure that your argument works particularly well for three reasons:
1/Some people believe Iraq is actually going to plan - engineered chaos - Iraq splits into three parts - Sunni, Shia and Kurd - under US supervision.
I don't particularly subscribe to that view myself (what's really going on out there is anyone's guess), but that view is consistent with a 'grand master plan' perspective. The very strange incident of the SAS guys dressed as arabs so heavy handedly busted out of prison a while back suggests some naughty antics are going down.
2/If you think it is out of control, there's a world of difference between a planned incident and a sustained guerilla campaign from an angry population. The invasion and bullsh!t machine that led up to it were planned rather well. However, even if post invasion planning was lacking, there is no way on earth you can adequately counter a well armed and well motivated population who are cross you've stolen their country. I assume most Iraqis are under no more illusion they are now a 'soveriegn nation' than many in the west. Add existing tensions and rivalries and you've got big problems. And militarily, guerilla warfare is the hardest to beat. 911 was one event on one day, not an attempt to control several million foriegners for an indefinite period. They just don't compare.
3/Assuming the inside job hypothesis, this would presumably be orchestrated by a small contingent of plotters. Open warfare involves overt involvement of many levels of state infrastructure. Iraq would be on the 'secret government agenda' but wouldn't be the job of the '911 plotters'
Three final points for you:
1/Please could you confirm that "gibberish" is your favourite word in the English language.
2/Could you explain what "Anti-Americanism" actually means. It's curious one never hears reference to "Anti-Iranianism", "Anti-NorthKoreanism", "Anti-Zimbabwaeism" and the like. I have a suspicion it's like "terror" or "democracy", words that have acquired a kind of newspeak status where they're trumpeted about in a "four legs good, two legs bad" kind of way without actually meaning anything tangible.
3/Who cares whether Bush is in power or not? What difference does it make if it's tweedledum or tweedledee? In case you haven't noticed, there is no fundamental difference between either party. As the saying goes - "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal". _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
I decided to look at Judy Wood's billiard ball fall-time graphs and math in more detail and I just have to laugh.
A bright high school physics student could find her mistake. I cannot honestly believe this woman has a PhD.
A stack of billiard balls wouldn't fall anything like her graphs show. She honestly thinks each ball starts from rest and free-falls into the next ball, knocking it loose. She thinks the ball that _got_hit_ from above starts from rest and goes into freefall. So every ball gets hit, then starts from rest, falls, and hits the ball below it, knocking it loose.
The first floor to hit the ground, in her calculation, is the top floor. The last floor that hits the ground is the bottom floor. Someone explain to me how billiard balls go -through- each other. That's obviously ludicrous. The reason is because she completely forgets to transfer the momentum on impact. Each ball that gets knocked loose doesn't start from rest, but inherets the speed of the ball that hit it (just like in normal billiards).
I am literally stunned at how wrong this is. Curiously, she chooses an elastic model, not an inelastic one.. and then amazingly, she manages to completely screw up the elastic model of collapse.
Joined: 19 Feb 2006 Posts: 237 Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:01 pm Post subject:
Quote:
It 's highly amusing the way you punt this 'no scientists' myth as evidence that the OCT is just so rational it's all-conquering,
I do Chek. AJ claims a degree in physics yet he got roasted on (what was it Andrew?) physorg.com. No conspiracy theorist claiming to be an engineer or scientist (and arguing the maths) is giving any details of what their professional institutions think of the alternate versions of 9/11. No-one is admitting membership. Now Jones and Wood have been busted who have you got? Some computer engineers and software developers. Hufschmid? Everything is a conspiracy or hoax to that guy.
'Finnish Military Expert'. Where is the evidence that he or she is? Pikey?
I'll let the engineers at NIST speak for me, they are better qualified than I am. My Professional Engineering Institution hasn't got a corporate view on 9/11 but individuals canvassed are happy with the official version.
However there may be one engineer on message. I suspect that there is an IMechE member on the conspiracy 'side' of this site. He may have already declared himself. It may of course be a coincidence and I'm wide of the mark. However, if I am getting warm, what do your colleagues at the IMechE think of the theories given legs here? _________________ "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:47 am Post subject: Blowing up a couple of buildings
Anti-sophist wrote:
It's amazing how much these guys cannot realize how self-contradictory their entire world-view. They will, in the same post, claim Bush pulled off the most masterful conspiracy in the history of the world, while laughing at his incompetence in Iraq.
It's also how telling how much they mix up conspiracy gibberish and just basic politics and anti-Americanism. It gives me hope that once Bush is gone, most of this driveling cross-wired emotion will go away, with it will go the truth movement.
and blaming it on Arabs is the history of Hollywood films.
The fact that a film was turned into 'reality' to justify a wholescale turn in foreign policy to pre-emptive interventions undermining essentially the cold war pacts with foreign powers, may seem to be 'self-contradictory'.
Bush was always going to lose the Iraq war as his soldiers cant fight. That is the achilees heel since Vietnam. Owning weapons or having money like a previous poster stated do not determine anything of any substance in the real world. They may provide you with some relative advantages (eg. blowing up towers or invading poor countries) but in the long run reality catches up with lies.
At least your true colours have been revealed as a Bush lickspittle after you used the phrase 'anti-americanism' and hopefully as you wish all will settle down after ...Bush is gone. If only life were that simple!
This is the beginning of the end of the USA. Daily even paid commentators admit to it. On the Arab street it is already reality. The US is going the way it did in Lebanon...
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:55 am Post subject: Complicated
wobbler wrote:
1/Some people believe Iraq is actually going to plan - engineered chaos - Iraq splits into three parts - Sunni, Shia and Kurd - under US supervision.
I don't particularly subscribe to that view myself (what's really going on out there is anyone's guess), but that view is consistent with a 'grand master plan' perspective. The very strange incident of the SAS guys dressed as arabs so heavy handedly busted out of prison a while back suggests some naughty antics are going down.
I woould concur
Iraq will not split into three parts without its neighbours getting involved directly. They wanted to control it with a limited amount of troops. This didn't happen because of the resistance. The view that the USA can do what it wants and everything that happens is because the USA deems it is clear nonsense. Dividing the country into three parts was the last option after the previous ones failed.
Turkey is severely against the creation of a Kurdistan.
Iran is concerned about attacks on Shias.
Baathist Syria is in solidarity with Sunni Iraq.
It is impossilbe to believe the Yanks will withdrew to the desserts in new bases instead of the Green zone. Their only option is out or a massive new invasion like Senator McCain is calling for. Another 100,000 troops!
It's amazing how much these guys cannot realize how self-contradictory their entire world-view. They will, in the same post, claim Bush pulled off the most masterful conspiracy in the history of the world, while laughing at his incompetence in Iraq.
It's also how telling how much they mix up conspiracy gibberish and just basic politics and anti-Americanism. It gives me hope that once Bush is gone, most of this driveling cross-wired emotion will go away, with it will go the truth movement.
It is doubtful that Bush had much to do with the planning of 9/11. According to Webster Tarpley in his book '9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA', he makes the case for Cheney being the architect of 9/11 and that Bush was in fact the subject of a coup attempt by Cheney to reduce his overall power - at least remind him of who the top dogs really are. Of course, you'll need to read the book to know what evidence Tarpley has which I know you won't.
If you look at the PNAC then GW isn't even a member. This suggests that Bush is pretty much left in the dark to me. Bush is just the monkey after all.
It's amazing how much these guys cannot realize how self-contradictory their entire world-view. They will, in the same post, claim Bush pulled off the most masterful conspiracy in the history of the world, while laughing at his incompetence in Iraq.
It's also how telling how much they mix up conspiracy gibberish and just basic politics and anti-Americanism. It gives me hope that once Bush is gone, most of this driveling cross-wired emotion will go away, with it will go the truth movement.
It is doubtful that Bush had much to do with the planning of 9/11. According to Webster Tarpley in his book'9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA', he makes the case for Cheney being the architect of 9/11 and that Bush was in fact the subject of a coup attempt by Cheney to reduce his overall power - at least remind him of who the top dogs really are. Of course, you'll need to read the book to know what evidence Tarpley has which I know you won't.
Funny how everyone with evidence about inside jobs has a book out...
Quote:
If you look at the PNAC then GW isn't even a member. This suggests that Bush is pretty much left in the dark to me. Bush is just the monkey after all.
Yeah, or maybe he's a member of the group that controls PNAC. Or maybe there isn't a shadowy overclass of people running the world.
But a chimpanzee isn't a monkey, so by your logic, Bush didn't do it. _________________
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
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
