Notices
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 787

Thread: 9/11 science

  1. #201  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, I'm curious: what, in a purely negativistic sense, not a positivistic sense, makes sabotage theory such a remote possibility that it doesn't deserve any attention? These other 3 you listed are obviously remote. Sabotage theory is not obviously remote in the same way as them, unless you blindly trust in human nature, or don't believe that politically targeted sabotage has ever occurred in human history.
    You think we should accept it because there's a remote chance it would be possible, despite there being no evidence to support it?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Someone explain to me why the sabateurs would bother flying planes into the buildings and rigging them with explosives. Even if the buildings had not fallen down the damage would likely been so severe that they would have had to have been demolished. The impact of that would in economic and morale terms have been more severe than the what actually happened. So where is the logic in using the two methods?
    If it was done for the twin towers why was it not done for the pentagon? After all if the claim is that this was a government conspiracy why not lace the pentagon with all kinds of incediary devices to get the fire going nicely and spreading rapidly? Answer me that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    because the pentagon was meant to survive the attack, Duh!

    Pure Sarcasm, mind you
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, I'm curious: what, in a purely negativistic sense, not a positivistic sense, makes sabotage theory such a remote possibility that it doesn't deserve any attention? These other 3 you listed are obviously remote. Sabotage theory is not obviously remote in the same way as them, unless you blindly trust in human nature, or don't believe that politically targeted sabotage has ever occurred in human history.
    You think we should accept it because there's a remote chance it would be possible, despite there being no evidence to support it?
    I've heard genius described as simply having the ability to entertain two mutually contradictory theories without choosing either one. That may not be the way most people think, but it's certainly something to aspire to.

    Whether you should entertain it seriously or not depends how remote the chance is, but as long as a reasonable possibility remains, the investigation is not over. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Would you prefer to convince yourself that the odds are zero, or continue to enquire until you can positively assure yourself of it? To me, I guess it's important enough to want to be sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Someone explain to me why the sabateurs would bother flying planes into the buildings and rigging them with explosives. Even if the buildings had not fallen down the damage would likely been so severe that they would have had to have been demolished. The impact of that would in economic and morale terms have been more severe than the what actually happened. So where is the logic in using the two methods?
    If it was done for the twin towers why was it not done for the pentagon? After all if the claim is that this was a government conspiracy why not lace the pentagon with all kinds of incediary devices to get the fire going nicely and spreading rapidly? Answer me that.
    For the same reason as a murderer might bother to forge a suicide note, and place it next to their victim, along with a gun that's been wiped down before being placed in the deceased person's hand.


    As for the Pentagon, you must still be thinking government wide conspiracy, at all levels, or something crazy like that. Any conspiracy around 911 would have been a handful of key players, not thousands of evil villains in the illuminati, or the skulls, or some other boogie man group. You need to avoid inflating your opponent's arguments. That's a straw man tactic.

    Think basic profit driven thuggery, and a handful of key players, not some sweeping massive brainwashing drive, with tin foil hats and aliens. Would a few people benefit by knowing in advance what massive portions of the stock market were going to do in the near term? What about someone who already owns a lot of stock in a few of the interests that would most benefit?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    I firmly believe that Dick Cheney planted the explosives himself. He is denying it of course.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I've heard genius described as simply having the ability to entertain two mutually contradictory theories without choosing either one. That may not be the way most people think, but it's certainly something to aspire to.

    Whether you should entertain it seriously or not depends how remote the chance is, but as long as a reasonable possibility remains, the investigation is not over. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Would you prefer to convince yourself that the odds are zero, or continue to enquire until you can positively assure yourself of it? To me, I guess it's important enough to want to be sure.
    One could also describe a genius as someone who doesn't waste time with foolish questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So, I'm curious: what, in a purely negativistic sense, not a positivistic sense, makes sabotage theory such a remote possibility that it doesn't deserve any attention? These other 3 you listed are obviously remote. Sabotage theory is not obviously remote in the same way as them, unless you blindly trust in human nature, or don't believe that politically targeted sabotage has ever occurred in human history.
    You think we should accept it because there's a remote chance it would be possible, despite there being no evidence to support it?
    I've heard genius described as simply having the ability to entertain two mutually contradictory theories without choosing either one. That may not be the way most people think, but it's certainly something to aspire to.

    Whether you should entertain it seriously or not depends how remote the chance is, but as long as a reasonable possibility remains, the investigation is not over. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Would you prefer to convince yourself that the odds are zero, or continue to enquire until you can positively assure yourself of it? To me, I guess it's important enough to want to be sure.
    Please note, I said there is a remote chance it is possible as a cause. I generally don't dismiss anything as impossible unless it actually is. But this does not mean that conspiracy theories should gain acceptance; you should provide evidence to achieve this aim.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    I've heard genius described as simply having the ability to entertain two mutually contradictory theories without choosing either one. That may not be the way most people think, but it's certainly something to aspire to.
    Weird. Sounds like religion to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Those are obviously less credible than sabotage theory. Why is sabotage theory obviously less credible than plane initiated collapse to you? Is it because you saw the plane, and you prefer to use an inductive process rather than a deductive one?
    How are they "obviously" less credible? Why is your sabotage theory more credible? Is it because its the only one that lets you believe in a conspiracy theory and still think you're being rational?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In deduction, you only rule out possibilities that are remote, or extremely unlikely, not possibilities that are reasonably high, but comparatively much smaller than others.

    So, I'm curious: what, in a purely negativistic sense, not a positivistic sense, makes sabotage theory such a remote possibility that it doesn't deserve any attention? These other 3 you listed are obviously remote. Sabotage theory is not obviously remote in the same way as them, unless you blindly trust in human nature, or don't believe that politically targeted sabotage has ever occurred in human history.
    I've already explained the extreme unlikelihood of a secret, building-wide demolition rigging that occurs over several months without being noticed by any office workers. Needless to say, expanding it across three buildings makes it even less likely. But still, the lack of evidence for anything that would indicate sabatage makes it even more remote of a possibility. So much so that I can say quite comfortably that it is impossible. Both you and Viper have been challenged repeatedly to provide any evidence to support your claims. You have both attempted this, but none of it has panned out.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The question of what's a "positive" or "negative" claim is just plain silly. They're both positive claims. Positively claiming either one is the same as negatively claiming against the other. And besides: in deductive reasoning, it's the negative claims that require all the evidence, because your goal is to thoroughly eliminate all but one possibility.
    Yes, they are both positive claims. And both require positive evidence. But the thing is, NIST's explanation has provided this evidence in great detail while the conspiracy theorists have provided nothing but red herrings and strawman arguments.

    By definition, a negative claim requires no evidence. In other words, the absence of evidence. Saying "it was not sabotage" would be corroborated by a lack of evidence for sabotage because if it was sabotage, then there would be evidence of sabotage. The fact that none has been discovered given how thoroughly people have looked, makes it very unlikely that the claim is true. It is as Drowsy Turtle said, you're trying to get everyone to admit that it is remotely possible so you can believe that it happened.

    And stop saying "NIST presented no evidence. Everyone believed them without it." We've been talking about the evidence provided by NIST for quite some time now. You're either suffering from memory loss, or you're desperately grasping at straws as your argument circles the drain.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    By your definition, the police should never investigate a suicide as a possible murder if there's a suicide note and a gun found near the victim with the victim's prints on it.
    Never said "never." Just that they shouldn't be required to address the kooky explanations. The disagreement here is that you seem to think that the conspiracy theory deserves more credibility than its actually worth.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Again: The difference is that I'm not trying to pass off my position as a proven fact. NIST is trying to do so.
    Please provide a quote from the NIST report where they specifically refer to it as "proven fact" or any derivation of that phrase. You can include this with your examples of "faith-based" assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I've heard genius described as simply having the ability to entertain two mutually contradictory theories without choosing either one.
    Congratulations, you've just made an actual argument from authority. In this case, the authority is obscurity. Like a proverb, we are all expected to agree with it without explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    For the same reason as a murderer might bother to forge a suicide note, and place it next to their victim, along with a gun that's been wiped down before being placed in the deceased person's hand.
    I rather like the murder investigation analogy, but I think your version has more than a few flaws. First of all, we both think that it was murder. We just disagree on who committed the murder and how. Since the person is lying in a pool of his own blood with three gaping holes in his chest and three bullets inside, I would say that it is pretty obvious that he died from gunshot wounds. Later, the bullets are removed and matched to a gun belonging to one of the victim's enemies. A person who has often expressed his desire to kill the victim. He has even publicly taken credit for the murder. This, in and of itself is pretty conclusive proof, but you have a different idea. You think that the victim was strangled by a family member, then shot afterward in an elaborate attempt to frame the suspect. The autopsy determines that the cause of death was the simultaneous puncturing of both lungs by three 9mm bullets resulting in the victim asphyxiating on his own blood. This is corroborated by the presence of large ammounts of blood in the victim's lungs as well as blood in and around his mouth (indicating that he choked on it.) But you are not satisfied by this. After all, you're a cop with a hunch and everything to prove (just like on TV.) You accuse the morgue doctors of being bias, asking "why didn't you look for signs of strangulation?" They explain to you that there was no bruising of the neck, no signs of a struggle, nor any other indicators of strangulation. But you still don't accept this. Confident that the doctors are wrong and you are right, you set out to find evidence of this strangulation by yourself (despite not having a medical degree.) When you cannot find this, you stop looking for evidence altogether and instead conclude that the family member must have strangled the victim in a manner that made it look as though they had died from gunshot wounds. But again, you'd rather not look for evidence of this, and instead imagine the evidence and try to appeal to get the other detectives to "accept the possibility" of this elaborate frame-job. When they laugh in your face, you accuse them of being narrow-minded.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Finger has a good point. You aren't arguing about the cover-up, you're arguing about the cause of death at this point.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Those are obviously less credible than sabotage theory. Why is sabotage theory obviously less credible than plane initiated collapse to you? Is it because you saw the plane, and you prefer to use an inductive process rather than a deductive one?
    How are they "obviously" less credible? Why is your sabotage theory more credible? Is it because its the only one that lets you believe in a conspiracy theory and still think you're being rational?
    The very existence of a Reichtag fire in human world history is absolute proof that such conspiracies can and do happen. There's nothing irrational about thinking that 911 might have been another Reichtag.

    Being absolutely certain that it did happen in this particular case, on the other hand, would be quite irrational. The evidence for it clearly doesn't justify certainty. (Because, of course, the existence of the Reichtag fire is not proof that it happened in this particular case, only that such things can, and do, happen.)

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In deduction, you only rule out possibilities that are remote, or extremely unlikely, not possibilities that are reasonably high, but comparatively much smaller than others.

    So, I'm curious: what, in a purely negativistic sense, not a positivistic sense, makes sabotage theory such a remote possibility that it doesn't deserve any attention? These other 3 you listed are obviously remote. Sabotage theory is not obviously remote in the same way as them, unless you blindly trust in human nature, or don't believe that politically targeted sabotage has ever occurred in human history.
    I've already explained the extreme unlikelihood of a secret, building-wide demolition rigging that occurs over several months without being noticed by any office workers. Needless to say, expanding it across three buildings makes it even less likely. But still, the lack of evidence for anything that would indicate sabatage makes it even more remote of a possibility. So much so that I can say quite comfortably that it is impossible. Both you and Viper have been challenged repeatedly to provide any evidence to support your claims. You have both attempted this, but none of it has panned out.
    You must think office workers are just incredibly observant, and always looking for places they can poke their nose into some neighboring company/tenant's business, whether they have reason to believe it would be polite to or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The question of what's a "positive" or "negative" claim is just plain silly. They're both positive claims. Positively claiming either one is the same as negatively claiming against the other. And besides: in deductive reasoning, it's the negative claims that require all the evidence, because your goal is to thoroughly eliminate all but one possibility.
    Yes, they are both positive claims. And both require positive evidence. But the thing is, NIST's explanation has provided this evidence in great detail while the conspiracy theorists have provided nothing but red herrings and strawman arguments.
    When have I straw manned NIST? What weak arguments of theirs have I attacked? What weak arguments have I attributed to them which they didn't make?

    I think you might be misunderstanding the definition of the term "straw man argument".

    By definition, a negative claim requires no evidence. In other words, the absence of evidence. Saying "it was not sabotage" would be corroborated by a lack of evidence for sabotage because if it was sabotage, then there would be evidence of sabotage. The fact that none has been discovered given how thoroughly people have looked, makes it very unlikely that the claim is true. It is as Drowsy Turtle said, you're trying to get everyone to admit that it is remotely possible so you can believe that it happened.
    "The plane wasn't the only factor in the building's fall"

    There, now sabotage is a "negative claim" too. Happy?


    And stop saying "NIST presented no evidence. Everyone believed them without it." We've been talking about the evidence provided by NIST for quite some time now. You're either suffering from memory loss, or you're desperately grasping at straws as your argument circles the drain.
    Nist presented a possible collapse scenario, and provided evidence up to the point where the 3 main floors that had been hit collapse. Trouble is, that's not what's in dispute. NIST presents wonderfully complete evidence for the un-disputed aspects of their claims, and very little for the disputed parts.


    After that point, in explaining how the collapse would be vertical and rapid, they don't provide very much at all. Nobody anywhere doubts a plane could have brought down a building of that size. What's dubious is the manner of the collapse itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    By your definition, the police should never investigate a suicide as a possible murder if there's a suicide note and a gun found near the victim with the victim's prints on it.
    Never said "never." Just that they shouldn't be required to address the kooky explanations. The disagreement here is that you seem to think that the conspiracy theory deserves more credibility than its actually worth.
    That actually frames our disagreement perfectly.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Again: The difference is that I'm not trying to pass off my position as a proven fact. NIST is trying to do so.
    Please provide a quote from the NIST report where they specifically refer to it as "proven fact" or any derivation of that phrase. You can include this with your examples of "faith-based" assumptions.
    Good point. They don't. So why do you? If NIST's conclusions aren't proof of anything, then why present them as proof?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I've heard genius described as simply having the ability to entertain two mutually contradictory theories without choosing either one.
    Congratulations, you've just made an actual argument from authority. In this case, the authority is obscurity. Like a proverb, we are all expected to agree with it without explanation.
    This is a whole separate argument of course, unless you want to take it as an argument in favor of my position instead of just a defense for my actions. It's ok to use an appeal to obscure moral authority in defending a choice, because the right or wrong of a choice is never a point of fact.

    If I were using the argument as evidence that the buildings were sabotaged, on the other hand, that would be an example of a situation where appeals to authority are not justified.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    For the same reason as a murderer might bother to forge a suicide note, and place it next to their victim, along with a gun that's been wiped down before being placed in the deceased person's hand.
    I rather like the murder investigation analogy, but I think your version has more than a few flaws. First of all, we both think that it was murder. We just disagree on who committed the murder and how. Since the person is lying in a pool of his own blood with three gaping holes in his chest and three bullets inside, I would say that it is pretty obvious that he died from gunshot wounds. Later, the bullets are removed and matched to a gun belonging to one of the victim's enemies.

    A person who has often expressed his desire to kill the victim. He has even publicly taken credit for the murder. This, in and of itself is pretty conclusive proof, but you have a different idea. You think that the victim was strangled by a family member, then shot afterward in an elaborate attempt to frame the suspect. The autopsy determines that the cause of death was the simultaneous puncturing of both lungs by three 9mm bullets resulting in the victim asphyxiating on his own blood....etc

    In other words, if the argument for the 19 terrorists were way, way stronger that it actually is, it would be pretty silly of me to doubt it.

    What metaphorical equivelent of an autopsy has been performed? And, a conclusive one? Remember that this particular victim's body was effectively shredded by a mulch machine into tiny pieces that even the mortuaries admit they have a hard time actually getting any real information out of.

    I don't know what metaphorical equivalent of matching ballistics to another person's gun happened here either. The claimed murder weapon (the 4 planes), actually belonged to the victim, not the accused assailant. Interesting that you'd bring up the possibility of both shooting someone and strangling them, however. So at least you understand what sort of thing is being suggested.

    We saw 19 Arabs (possibly terrorists) board the 4 planes (video from the airports), and a handful of cell phone calls were made, most of which we have to take the word of the recipients about. Interestingly, the largest number were made from the plane that didn't actually arrive at its target. (Which I point out because, in a conspiracy theory, it would probably have been planned for it to not hit a target)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The very existence of a Reichtag fire in human world history is absolute proof that such conspiracies can and do happen. There's nothing irrational about thinking that 911 might have been another Reichtag.

    Being absolutely certain that it did happen in this particular case, on the other hand, would be quite irrational. The evidence for it clearly doesn't justify certainty. (Because, of course, the existence of the Reichtag fire is not proof that it happened in this particular case, only that such things can, and do, happen.)
    There are quite a few less than subtle differences between the Reichstag fire and 9/11. Like the "first time in history" argument, the way conspiracy theorists bring it up completely ignores all the circumstances of each incident. First of all, the Reichstag fire was a fairly simple act. It involved several bundles of flammable material, a few hours to set up, and could have easily been carried out by one person. The cover-up would have involved a very small group of people and there's evidence to suggest that Hitler and other higher-ranking party members were not involved at all. 9/11 (as suggested by conspiracy theorists) is a extremely complicated plan that would require tens of thousands of pounds of explosives/thermite per building, several years of preparation and set up, and several hundred (possibly thousand) laborers to carry out. To cover up a plan of this magnitude means that every single one of these people must be 100% devoted to the conspiracy as not a single one has come forward. (Another noteworthy difference is that the Reichstag fire didn't kill anyone. So not even the Nazis were willing to kill their own people to gain power.)

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You must think office workers are just incredibly observant, and always looking for places they can poke their nose into some neighboring company/tenant's business, whether they have reason to believe it would be polite to or not.
    You must think office workers are just incredibly stupid. That they simply wouldn't notice men in hard hats busting up walls, planting explosives (or thermite,) and wiring the whole mess together in elaborate daisy chains. You also must think that the government/illuminate/Israel/whatever has legions comic-book quality henchmen lying around, skilled enough to plan and carry out such an elaborate demolition on three buildings, and morally deficient enough to not care that the buildings would be demolished with people inside. This isn't the movies.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    "The plane wasn't the only factor in the building's fall"

    There, now sabotage is a "negative claim" too. Happy?
    Not really. Nor am I sure what you're trying to accomplish by attempting to phrase your argument in the form of a negative claim. Do you think that doing so means you don't have to come up with evidence to support it? Either way you failed because that's still a positive claim. That phrase argues for the existence of "other factors."

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Nist presented a possible collapse scenario, and provided evidence up to the point where the 3 main floors that had been hit collapse. Trouble is, that's not what's in dispute. NIST presents wonderfully complete evidence for the un-disputed aspects of their claims, and very little for the disputed parts.
    I think you should be more specific. Which building are you talking about? Towers 1 and 2, or 7? And specifically what "disputed parts" do they provide no evidence for?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Good point. They don't. So why do you? If NIST's conclusions aren't proof of anything, then why present them as proof?
    I never said "proof" either. I said that it is the best explanation for the observable evidence and that I trust its findings because it has the full support of the structural engineering community as well as the scientific community in general. I would change that opinion if the so-called "sabotage theory" could reasonably explain everything NIST's explanation does and everything that it doesn't. But so far, none has been able to.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    What metaphorical equivelent of an autopsy has been performed? And, a conclusive one? Remember that this particular victim's body was effectively shredded by a mulch machine into tiny pieces that even the mortuaries admit they have a hard time actually getting any real information out of.
    The metaphore does not require the body to have been chopped into pieces. The death of the victim is what represents the collapse. But in the same way that medical examiners can determine the cause of death without having to rely on witnesses or video of the crime itself, structural engineers can determine the cause of a collapse without having to meticulously go through the rubble piece by piece (even though this was done anyway during the cleanup process.)

    As for being "conclusive," NISTs findings corroborate an earlier investigation by the American Society of Civil Engineers and has been accepted as the definitive explanation for the collapses by the structural engineering community. It made a number of discoveries regarding steel-framed buildings and those with wide-set vertical columns that are being incorporated into the designs of future buildings. So yes, I would say that the report is "conclusive" to the people who are qualified to give such an opinion. The experts in that feild. The only people who find it inconclusive are generally the least qualified to comment on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In other words, if the argument for the 19 terrorists were way, way stronger that it actually is, it would be pretty silly of me to doubt it.
    It is very strong. And yes, you are quite silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I don't know what metaphorical equivalent of matching ballistics to another person's gun happened here either. The claimed murder weapon (the 4 planes), actually belonged to the victim, not the accused assailant. Interesting that you'd bring up the possibility of both shooting someone and strangling them, however. So at least you understand what sort of thing is being suggested.
    The ballistics analysis, the witnesses to the suspect's intent, and the suspect's public admission all represent the 9/11 Commissions report in which a detailed link between Al Qaeda and every one of the 19 hijackers is established. This is also represented by the fact that numerous Al Qaeda members (and later, Bin Ladin himself) took responsibility for the attack on video and have made little secret of their involvement. That's the point of terrorism, they want people to know who did it. The only explanation for all of this I've heard conspiracy theorists come up with is either that the videos are all faked with look-alike actors, or that Al Qaeda itself is controlled by the US government/Illuminate/Israel.. ect.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    We saw 19 Arabs (possibly terrorists) board the 4 planes (video from the airports), and a handful of cell phone calls were made, most of which we have to take the word of the recipients about.
    The 19 hijackers were terrorists. Some of them were known terrorists but had gotten into the US under false identities and only avoided detection due to a combination of laxed security standards and a lack of cooperation between the CIA and the FBI. They and the other hijackers had maintained a small level of communication with one another as they prepared for the attack (flying lessons, close-quarters martial arts classes, ect.) And investigations have determined quite a bit about their past, from when they each became interested in radical Islam, to when they were each recruited by Al Qaeda. They've even been named by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Interestingly, the largest number were made from the plane that didn't actually arrive at its target. (Which I point out because, in a conspiracy theory, it would probably have been planned for it to not hit a target)
    Not sure how that would be interesting. Why would the government stage more calls on this flight than any of the others? Its actually expected that the only plane to try and retake control would have a higher number of cell phone calls.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The very existence of a Reichtag fire in human world history is absolute proof that such conspiracies can and do happen. There's nothing irrational about thinking that 911 might have been another Reichtag.

    Being absolutely certain that it did happen in this particular case, on the other hand, would be quite irrational. The evidence for it clearly doesn't justify certainty. (Because, of course, the existence of the Reichtag fire is not proof that it happened in this particular case, only that such things can, and do, happen.)
    There are quite a few less than subtle differences between the Reichstag fire and 9/11. Like the "first time in history" argument, the way conspiracy theorists bring it up completely ignores all the circumstances of each incident. First of all, the Reichstag fire was a fairly simple act. It involved several bundles of flammable material, a few hours to set up, and could have easily been carried out by one person. The cover-up would have involved a very small group of people and there's evidence to suggest that Hitler and other higher-ranking party members were not involved at all. 9/11 (as suggested by conspiracy theorists) is a extremely complicated plan that would require tens of thousands of pounds of explosives/thermite per building, several years of preparation and set up, and several hundred (possibly thousand) laborers to carry out.
    That's an interesting assumption. If your interpretation of events requires years of preparation to set up and several hundred laborers then it would indeed be impossible for anyone to do it.

    What evidence is there for that assumption? We're talking about a building that even NIST believes only needed 3 floors worth of failure in order to fall. If it was a controlled demolition, it was obviously a slapstick job, not a carefully planned and executed construction project. Just good enough to get the job done.

    I rather doubt your colossal requirements are justified. Just like the Reichtag fire, it might have only taken a few people, provided they had the right equipment and enough knowledge.


    To cover up a plan of this magnitude means that every single one of these people must be 100% devoted to the conspiracy as not a single one has come forward. (Another noteworthy difference is that the Reichstag fire didn't kill anyone. So not even the Nazis were willing to kill their own people to gain power.)
    Well, assassination is always an option if you're doubting somebody's loyalty. Partial conspirators (people who only know one narrow part of the bigger whole) are unlikely to come forward because they don't actually have enough evidence to prove their claims, and so they won't make valuable enough witnesses to avoid jail time. And, if they're not in communication with each other, then they don't know how many of their fellow conspirators got paid vs. killed.

    It's also possible to have some participants who honestly have no idea they're participating. For example: a technician who's called in to make some interesting alterations to an aircraft might feel there was something suspicious about it all, but if they signed a non-disclosure agreement (standard procedure for any R&D project in the corporate world today), they're not going to want to risk full on legal action over something that was only suspicious.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You must think office workers are just incredibly observant, and always looking for places they can poke their nose into some neighboring company/tenant's business, whether they have reason to believe it would be polite to or not.
    You must think office workers are just incredibly stupid. That they simply wouldn't notice men in hard hats busting up walls, planting explosives (or thermite,) and wiring the whole mess together in elaborate daisy chains. You also must think that the government/illuminate/Israel/whatever has legions comic-book quality henchmen lying around, skilled enough to plan and carry out such an elaborate demolition on three buildings, and morally deficient enough to not care that the buildings would be demolished with people inside. This isn't the movies.
    Hard hats? So now the conspirators are troubling themselves to conform with OSHA safety regulations?

    What if a team of say... 5 people... is going into disused office areas (with no tenants in them), lifting up ordinary access panels to enter the crawl space so they can set thermite packs on the horizontal supports, and then bringing big carts of what look like building supplies into the area, which actually contain explosives to be mounted against the outer vertical columns.

    If anyone asks what they're doing, they just say the place is about to be rented, and the new tenants want some remodeling done. (Maybe a few walls set up, maybe a few walls torn down. ) It's standard in the business world for new tenants to want alterations made before they move in, so ..... what would be suspicious about it?



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    "The plane wasn't the only factor in the building's fall"

    There, now sabotage is a "negative claim" too. Happy?
    Not really. Nor am I sure what you're trying to accomplish by attempting to phrase your argument in the form of a negative claim. Do you think that doing so means you don't have to come up with evidence to support it? Either way you failed because that's still a positive claim. That phrase argues for the existence of "other factors."
    Are you suggesting that, because you decided to phrase your position as a negative "There was no sabotage", that you are to be automatically believed without any evidence?


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Nist presented a possible collapse scenario, and provided evidence up to the point where the 3 main floors that had been hit collapse. Trouble is, that's not what's in dispute. NIST presents wonderfully complete evidence for the un-disputed aspects of their claims, and very little for the disputed parts.
    I think you should be more specific. Which building are you talking about? Towers 1 and 2, or 7? And specifically what "disputed parts" do they provide no evidence for?
    Yeah, I'm focusing on WTC 1 & 2. After explaining how the 3 main floors that were hit would give out, the NIST report starts getting much more vague. Very little actual examination of either footage or wreckage is introduced after that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Good point. They don't. So why do you? If NIST's conclusions aren't proof of anything, then why present them as proof?
    I never said "proof" either. I said that it is the best explanation for the observable evidence and that I trust its findings because it has the full support of the structural engineering community as well as the scientific community in general. I would change that opinion if the so-called "sabotage theory" could reasonably explain everything NIST's explanation does and everything that it doesn't. But so far, none has been able to.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    What metaphorical equivelent of an autopsy has been performed? And, a conclusive one? Remember that this particular victim's body was effectively shredded by a mulch machine into tiny pieces that even the mortuaries admit they have a hard time actually getting any real information out of.
    The metaphore does not require the body to have been chopped into pieces. The death of the victim is what represents the collapse. But in the same way that medical examiners can determine the cause of death without having to rely on witnesses or video of the crime itself, structural engineers can determine the cause of a collapse without having to meticulously go through the rubble piece by piece (even though this was done anyway during the cleanup process.)
    The corpse being described by the metaphor is a building, right? And that building was chopped into pieces, as it turns out. It didn't just topple sideways, leaving most of the structure intact. It didn't collapse gradually through itself so that any large portions would be available for a good examination. Instead, it very rapidly smashed itself mostly into powder.


    As for being "conclusive," NISTs findings corroborate an earlier investigation by the American Society of Civil Engineers and has been accepted as the definitive explanation for the collapses by the structural engineering community. It made a number of discoveries regarding steel-framed buildings and those with wide-set vertical columns that are being incorporated into the designs of future buildings. So yes, I would say that the report is "conclusive" to the people who are qualified to give such an opinion. The experts in that feild. The only people who find it inconclusive are generally the least qualified to comment on it.
    So, if more people look at the same very sparse evidence, and arrive at the same conclusions, that makes their final report conclusive?

    If they make recommendations that are later adapted, I guess that indicates that other people must have believed them. However, if the number of people that believe you is evidence of something, I guess the Pope must be right.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In other words, if the argument for the 19 terrorists were way, way stronger that it actually is, it would be pretty silly of me to doubt it.
    It is very strong. And yes, you are quite silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I don't know what metaphorical equivalent of matching ballistics to another person's gun happened here either. The claimed murder weapon (the 4 planes), actually belonged to the victim, not the accused assailant. Interesting that you'd bring up the possibility of both shooting someone and strangling them, however. So at least you understand what sort of thing is being suggested.
    The ballistics analysis, the witnesses to the suspect's intent, and the suspect's public admission all represent the 9/11 Commissions report in which a detailed link between Al Qaeda and every one of the 19 hijackers is established. This is also represented by the fact that numerous Al Qaeda members (and later, Bin Ladin himself) took responsibility for the attack on video and have made little secret of their involvement. That's the point of terrorism, they want people to know who did it. The only explanation for all of this I've heard conspiracy theorists come up with is either that the videos are all faked with look-alike actors, or that Al Qaeda itself is controlled by the US government/Illuminate/Israel.. ect.
    Terrorists very frequently claim responsibility for things they haven't done. For any given attack, there might be 10 or 20 terrorist groups who all claim responsibility. Does that mean that all of them simultaneously did it?


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    We saw 19 Arabs (possibly terrorists) board the 4 planes (video from the airports), and a handful of cell phone calls were made, most of which we have to take the word of the recipients about.
    The 19 hijackers were terrorists. Some of them were known terrorists but had gotten into the US under false identities and only avoided detection due to a combination of laxed security standards and a lack of cooperation between the CIA and the FBI. They and the other hijackers had maintained a small level of communication with one another as they prepared for the attack (flying lessons, close-quarters martial arts classes, ect.) And investigations have determined quite a bit about their past, from when they each became interested in radical Islam, to when they were each recruited by Al Qaeda. They've even been named by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed himself.
    Right. "Known Terrorists"

    Of course Sadaam also had strong links to Al Quaida (wink), as does every bad or mean dictator on Earth, if the USA wants an excuse to invade them. Links like that are not very hard to create and/or manufacture, especially when you've got an administration that very badly wants to go around oil drilling.

    I'm not even suggesting the Bush Administration need have had any role whatsoever in the attack. However, after it happened, they clearly tried very hard to spin it into an excuse to attack Iraq.

    That same administration concluded unequivocally that there were WMD's in Iraq, meaning they were either A: totally incompetent, or B: willing to manufacture evidence. Either A, or B would be fully sufficient reason for me to doubt whatever "links" they might draw between some Arab guy and Al Quaida.

    And if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has named them, then.... dear god... I'd better believe it cause y'know... he'd never dis-inform us. That's the most honest guy on Earth, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Interestingly, the largest number were made from the plane that didn't actually arrive at its target. (Which I point out because, in a conspiracy theory, it would probably have been planned for it to not hit a target)
    Not sure how that would be interesting. Why would the government stage more calls on this flight than any of the others? Its actually expected that the only plane to try and retake control would have a higher number of cell phone calls.
    Well, not needing to find a way to actually crash the plane into a building means you can use real hijackers. 4 Mercernaries who look like Arabs hijack your plane, foolishly decide to leave you all totally unsupervised while they go up front, and some passenger gets the idea to call the police on his cell...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Wow. If it weren't for this thread, your post would be the single most hilarious thing I've read in a while. You're just making everything up as you go along. Its like watching a really bad science fiction movie. Taking the time to respond to it point-by-point would just be inane and tedious. It doesn't even deserve aknowledgement.

    All I'm going to do is ask you one very simple question. Do you have any evidence that exclusively suggests sabotage and nothing else? No imaginary "what if" scenarios. No elaborate rationalizations. No stupid arguments from precedent or probability. What physical evidence supports sabotage?
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Wow. If it weren't for this thread, your post would be the single most hilarious thing I've read in a while. You're just making everything up as you go along. Its like watching a really bad science fiction movie. Taking the time to respond to it point-by-point would just be inane and tedious. It doesn't even deserve aknowledgement.

    All I'm going to do is ask you one very simple question. Do you have any evidence that exclusively suggests sabotage and nothing else? No imaginary "what if" scenarios. No elaborate rationalizations. No stupid arguments from precedent or probability. What physical evidence supports sabotage?
    You say that as though there is some massive burden of evidence that should have to be met before you can so much as suspect anything.

    Going back to something I shouldn't have overlooked:

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The very existence of a Reichtag fire in human world history is absolute proof that such conspiracies can and do happen. There's nothing irrational about thinking that 911 might have been another Reichtag.

    Being absolutely certain that it did happen in this particular case, on the other hand, would be quite irrational. The evidence for it clearly doesn't justify certainty. (Because, of course, the existence of the Reichtag fire is not proof that it happened in this particular case, only that such things can, and do, happen.)
    There are quite a few less than subtle differences between the Reichstag fire and 9/11. Like the "first time in history" argument, the way conspiracy theorists bring it up completely ignores all the circumstances of each incident. First of all, the Reichstag fire was a fairly simple act. It involved several bundles of flammable material, a few hours to set up, and could have easily been carried out by one person. The cover-up would have involved a very small group of people and there's evidence to suggest that Hitler and other higher-ranking party members were not involved at all. 9/11 (as suggested by conspiracy theorists) is a extremely complicated plan that would require tens of thousands of pounds of explosives/thermite per building, several years of preparation and set up, and several hundred (possibly thousand) laborers to carry out. To cover up a plan of this magnitude means that every single one of these people must be 100% devoted to the conspiracy as not a single one has come forward. (Another noteworthy difference is that the Reichstag fire didn't kill anyone. So not even the Nazis were willing to kill their own people to gain power.)
    If you really are assuming that these requirements you're setting are minimal requirements, then what you're doing is making an argument to impossibility.

    You're saying that without a certain minimum of resources, the given task would be totally impossible. What justification is there for these minimums? Are you confident enough in your own understanding of structural engineering that you can safely impose limits on other peoples' ingenuity?

    Or is it that, if we allow that the saboteur is smarter than your average joe, then the conspiracy starts to seem too loony? I mean....there are some things we have to assume a conspirator would not have access to. They're not going to have 1000's of henchmen embedded in every government on Earth. They can't be expected to spend more (of their own) money on the plan that what it's likely to make back for them, but.... you consider it insane to even allow that they might have a high IQ going for them?

    My perspective is that, if I can think of a way to do something, then probably someone else could think of it too. Prior to beginning any conspiracy to destroy those buildings, and conspirator would know the following things in foresight (not needing hindsight):

    1) - They'd know what obstacles stand between them and the setting of the bombs/thermites/whatever.

    2) - They'd know what obstacles stand between them and commandeering a plane, and causing it to crash into a building.

    3) - They'd know what obstacles stand between them and making money off of the venture.

    They'd never take their first step until they were already confident they could overcome each of those obstacles. The question we should be asking is: faced with such a task, would anyone ever be confident enough in their ability to carry it out that they'd actually put the plan in motion?

    In other words: could anyone ever invent a method of doing it that was sure to work?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    So the answer is no. You don't have any evidence. Your entire argument is: "I can imagine a conspiracy, so there is one."
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    So the answer is no. You don't have any evidence. Your entire argument is: "I can imagine a conspiracy, so there is one."
    The best evidence is actually what I posted on the Structural, Mechanical, and Chemical engineering forum. Nobody's attempted to refute it.

    If the collapse times are to be considered anywhere near as short as they're typically represented to be. (I don't pretend to know what an "authoritative" time is, since there've been so many different ones, and even the number in the fully official 911 report might actually be shorter than the reality.)

    Anyway, if the WTC 1,2 buildings actually fell anywhere near freefall, then NIST has not explained how that is possible. Indeed, absent an explanation it should really be totally impossible. Not because I'm trying to overestimate the strength of the materials, but there's a problem of momentum exchange.

    The proof is in the physics. Rather than repeat it, why don't I actually link you to it, and for the first time in the more than 2 weeks since I posted it, maybe it will get a response?

    It's the physics evidence that convinces me. Always has been. In fact, nothing else ever convinced me at all. All of the conjecture I've been presenting these last 2 pages is just how I fill in the details. (Which is exactly what most of NIST's report looks like to me as well, an attempt to fill in the details around a basic conclusion. Except my conclusion is different from theirs. )


    Edit: Forgot the link: http://www.thescienceforum.com/Questions-about-the-WTC-collapse-(on-9-11-01)-18699t.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    In his paper, "Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse," Dr. Frank Greening calculates the expected collapse times of each tower incorperating the expected momentum vs. the expected resistance of the floors below. His calculations brought him to 12.6 seconds for WTC 1 and 11.5 seconds for WTC 2. Both of these are still well above freefall time (9.1 seconds) and well below the actual observed fall time for each building (which, according to NIST, took as long as 15 to 25 seconds.)
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    yep. That's spot on. Exactly as expected from the collapse of a building due to any cause.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    In his paper, "Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse," Dr. Frank Greening calculates the expected collapse times of each tower incorperating the expected momentum vs. the expected resistance of the floors below. His calculations brought him to 12.6 seconds for WTC 1 and 11.5 seconds for WTC 2. Both of these are still well above freefall time (9.1 seconds) and well below the actual observed fall time for each building (which, according to NIST, took as long as 15 to 25 seconds.)
    You know, I didn't want to respond until I crunched the numbers myself, but he's right. I was neglecting the clumping effect, where the mass of a floor that had initially opposed the fall when it collides with the falling mass from above it, turns around and helps the fall afterward by becoming part of that mass.

    I misinterpreted what the inelasticity of the collisions meant. The number I got for the fall of WTC 1, using his assumptions, was 10.54.

    Anyway, collapse time has always been 9/10 of the reason I ever believed in demolition theory to begin with. I already know enough about the structure to understand why it would fold without a lot of resistance, just made a bit more out of the momentum exchanges than I should have. I'll check my work later just to make sure, but it looks like a reasonably short fall time would be possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Alright, as a final note. Now that I've had time to compress the data, here is a succinct response one can make to conspiracy theory claims that focus on the collapse time:

    The energy of deformation (energy required to break the construction materials) of a tall building grows proportionally to the amount of material. In other words it grows proportional to the mass, which grows proportionally to the height multiplied by the area of the base.

    E(deform) = H * Area * (Strength and density of the materials)


    The potential energy from a fall grows proportional to H^2

    E (potential) = H * M * g

    Where g is the gravitational constant, M is the mass, and H is the height.

    However, Mass is proportional to the size.

    M = H * (Area of the base) * (Density of materials)

    So really, the potential energy equation is:

    E (potential) = H * ( H * [area of the base] * [density of materials]) * g

    There's 2 occurrences of H

    ------------------------

    So in conclusion: As buildings get taller, the ratio between their potential energy of collapse, and the energy of deformation of their materials gets worse and worse and worse. Tall buildings are more likely to collapse at near free fall speed than short buildings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    29
    True...The taller a building is the more potential energy it has, the more momentum can be reached.

    However, do you really believe the those buildings could have fallen as fast as they did without any assistance? If you do, then you may want to re-calculate free fall rates versus the rate of the two towers. It is too close a number to be true since it was a building made of steel!

    Just my opinion though...you can keep believing what you want to about it :wink:
    Fringe Girl
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by FringeGirl
    True...The taller a building is the more potential energy it has, the more momentum can be reached.

    However, do you really believe the those buildings could have fallen as fast as they did without any assistance? If you do, then you may want to re-calculate free fall rates versus the rate of the two towers. It is too close a number to be true since it was a building made of steel!

    Just my opinion though...you can keep believing what you want to about it :wink:
    Got any calculations of your own to validate that opinion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    FringeGirl, it has already been pointed out a few times in this thread that the building's did not fall "fast." In my last post, I references a paper that determined the buildings actually fell a few seconds slower than what was mathematically expected.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    One of the things I learned while reading through posts about 9/11 conspiracy enthusiasts is that the buildings broke into pieces. So what does it mean that the building fell? Different people use differing definitions. Different definitions lead to different times.

    1. Is it from the time the collapse starts to the collapse ending?
    2. Is it from the time the collapse starts to when the first pieces hit the ground?
    3. Is it from the time the collapse starts to when pieces from the top floors hit the ground?
    4. Is it based on seismic evidence or videos?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Of the conspiracy theorists who have actually watched video of the two towers' collapse and timed it themseleves, they almost always stop the timer as soon as the first debris hits the ground (after about 9 seconds.) So they conclude that it fell at freefall speed even though about 50 stories are still standing at this point.

    In the case of tower 7, they always start the timer early ignoring the interior collapse of the east penthouses and focus entirely on the collapse of the outer shell.

    Most people never check into this and the conspiracy theorists know it. So they just keep repeating the same falsehoods over and over so many thimes that people like FringeGirl assume that their "fast" collapse is common knowledge. The ironic thing here is that the conspiracy theorists are the ones who claim that the "official" story relies on propaganda while they regularly exploit every propagandist trick in the book.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by FringeGirl
    True...The taller a building is the more potential energy it has, the more momentum can be reached.

    However, do you really believe the those buildings could have fallen as fast as they did without any assistance? If you do, then you may want to re-calculate free fall rates versus the rate of the two towers. It is too close a number to be true since it was a building made of steel!

    Just my opinion though...you can keep believing what you want to about it :wink:
    It's the power of exponents. Height (squared) vs. Height (not squared) means that one force is insanely larger than the other. Not just by a little bit, but by a lot. The force of the falling debris would be overwhelming.

    The other thing that's often misunderstood is how the building was designed. The vertical supports would be really strong against a perfectly vertical force, but if you acted on the diagonally, or horizontally, then they were only as strong as the bolts that held them together.

    Any given vertical support column isn't all one big long steel bar. It's multiple bars bolted together at the ends, to make one very long bar. As long as the force on them is 100% vertical, the strength of the bolts doesn't matter, because they're stacked directly on top of each other. But..... that's only so long as the force on them is 100% vertical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Learn to read and loose the teenage angst.
    I am giving you advice on how to put together a better argument. I can't be blamed if you are too self obsessed to take advantage of it.

    You stated that you had no link for the burning steel building. You did not say you would provide that link or reference later. You said you did not have it. That is unacceptable.

    Then we have classics like this "I have a hard time figuring out why you need evidence that the building fell faster than has ever been seen before without a demolition."

    So you have a hard time figuring out why we need evidence for what is a) disputed b) a central point, if not the central point in your whole argument. I mean how can you seriously have such a thought. And no, I am not bullying you, I am simply expressing justifiable amazement that any one could make such a statement.

    Finger is doing a perfectly fine job of dealing with your alleged 'facts'. I shall continue to deal with your weak argument structure. You cold benefit immensely by listening to both of us.
    Hey as insulted by that as I once was, that's actually good advice. I must have not read the whole thing almost a year ago. There's an obvious teenage angst all through what I was writing. To be fair I worked at a call center at the time, and often on edge as the job was shitty (and I sucked at debating). Maybe some mental instability. I still believe 9/11 was an inside job, though.

    I came to this forum for something unrelated and remembered joining a long time ago. After reading my comments I am very surprised to find I'm not banned when I try to sign in hahaha.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Oh, someone once also said that WTC 7 was heavily damaged on one side of the building which 9/11 truth videos never show. There's lots of smoke, but considering the incredible amount of damage to other buildings, and long lasting fires, they didn't even come close to collapse. This is just observation based on what the other affected buildings did that day, and what we typically see in building damage.

    Whenever there is buckling that causes a collapse there is a portion of structure in tact causing some amount of resistance, and a portion of structure not in tact (buckled) causing no resistance. When the damaged portion gives way (with the aid of fire as we were told) the immediate direction would be to the area that has less resistance.

    The large argument presented by non-truthers is that when the building began to collapse, because of the incredible amount of potential energy these buildings had (granted) the collapse of the top portion would gain so much energy the floors, only able to withstand 13 million newtons of energy each, collapsed one by one.

    My question is how the in tact portion would give was just as fast, and with as little resistance as the buckled portion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Good to see that you're making a conscious effort to be more reasonable about this. That's the first step.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Oh, someone once also said that WTC 7 was heavily damaged on one side of the building which 9/11 truth videos never show. There's lots of smoke, but considering the incredible amount of damage to other buildings, and long lasting fires, they didn't even come close to collapse. This is just observation based on what the other affected buildings did that day, and what we typically see in building damage.
    Tower 7 was the third largest building of the World Trade Center, 47 stories tall. The next largest was WTC 3 (The Marriot) which stood 22 stories tall. All the rest of the buildings in the center were only 9 stories tall. That the three largest buildings were the only ones to collapse is not surprising at all. Larger buildings are more prone to progressive collapses for the same reason it's easier to build a small house of cards than it is a large one. One must also keep in mind the unique nature of WTC7's design. Because large lobbies are a highly sought-after feature in office buildings, Tower 7 had an unusually wide placement of vertical supports, which would make it less structurally sound than any other building its size.

    But I'd like to ask a question about WTC7 that I have asked many times, but have yet to receive a reasonable answer to. Why does Tower 7 even matter? Suppose the government did demolish Towers 1 and 2, killing 3,000 Americans in order to unite the country in grief. Why then would they secretly demolish a third building that's already been evacuated several hours later? It doesn't make any sense in the context of the conspiracy theory. The only reason any truther I've talked to has ever brought it up is as a red herring. Because "it contradicts the official story," they think it automatically proves their conspiracy theory by default even though it isn't even explained by their conspiracy theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Whenever there is buckling that causes a collapse there is a portion of structure in tact causing some amount of resistance, and a portion of structure not in tact (buckled) causing no resistance. When the damaged portion gives way (with the aid of fire as we were told) the immediate direction would be to the area that has less resistance.

    The large argument presented by non-truthers is that when the building began to collapse, because of the incredible amount of potential energy these buildings had (granted) the collapse of the top portion would gain so much energy the floors, only able to withstand 13 million newtons of energy each, collapsed one by one.

    My question is how the in tact portion would give was just as fast, and with as little resistance as the buckled portion.
    If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the undamaged portions of the building directly below the damaged portions should have offered more resistance than the ones that had been weakened by the fire. You are correct, they did offer more resistance. That resistance simply wasn't enough to stop or even slow the collapse. That section of the building was designed to withstand the static weight of the floors above it, not the massive, uneven force of the upper section collapsing onto it.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Good to see that you're making a conscious effort to be more reasonable about this. That's the first step.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Oh, someone once also said that WTC 7 was heavily damaged on one side of the building which 9/11 truth videos never show. There's lots of smoke, but considering the incredible amount of damage to other buildings, and long lasting fires, they didn't even come close to collapse. This is just observation based on what the other affected buildings did that day, and what we typically see in building damage.
    Tower 7 was the third largest building of the World Trade Center, 47 stories tall. The next largest was WTC 3 (The Marriot) which stood 22 stories tall. All the rest of the buildings in the center were only 9 stories tall. That the three largest buildings were the only ones to collapse is not surprising at all. Larger buildings are more prone to progressive collapses for the same reason it's easier to build a small house of cards than it is a large one. One must also keep in mind the unique nature of WTC7's design. Because large lobbies are a highly sought-after feature in office buildings, Tower 7 had an unusually wide placement of vertical supports, which would make it less structurally sound than any other building its size.

    But I'd like to ask a question about WTC7 that I have asked many times, but have yet to receive a reasonable answer to. Why does Tower 7 even matter? Suppose the government did demolish Towers 1 and 2, killing 3,000 Americans in order to unite the country in grief. Why then would they secretly demolish a third building that's already been evacuated several hours later? It doesn't make any sense in the context of the conspiracy theory. The only reason any truther I've talked to has ever brought it up is as a red herring. Because "it contradicts the official story," they think it automatically proves their conspiracy theory by default even though it isn't even explained by their conspiracy theory.
    The reasoning would probably have been insurance. Just because the money ultimately gets spent rebuilding doesn't mean somebody doesn't profit (such as whoever is getting paid to rebuild). With dollar amounts of that magnitude, the different ways you can get rich just by shifting it around in the right ways are beyond enticing.

    Just the fact the construction won't be done in a day, but takes time to complete, allows a shrewd investor to grab some investment profits while they're waiting to pay it out to the contractor. It all depends on the way things are paid out. The financial world is almost always more complicated than it looks on the surface.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The reasoning would probably have been insurance. Just because the money ultimately gets spent rebuilding doesn't mean somebody doesn't profit (such as whoever is getting paid to rebuild). With dollar amounts of that magnitude, the different ways you can get rich just by shifting it around in the right ways are beyond enticing.

    Just the fact the construction won't be done in a day, but takes time to complete, allows a shrewd investor to grab some investment profits while they're waiting to pay it out to the contractor. It all depends on the way things are paid out. The financial world is almost always more complicated than it looks on the surface.
    I will remind you that this isn't the movies. Fraud isn't nearly as profitable as Lex Luthor makes it seem, especially not with already profitable property like the World Trade Center. It makes zero business sense to give up a steady income for a relatively small one-time gain (killing the goose that lays the golden egg.) Billionaire businessmen, of all people, know not to do this. Duh, that's why they're billionaires.

    And now you're bringing construction companies into this? Ok, sure. Why not? The conspiracy already includes governments, the media, the NYC police and fire departments, the Port Authority, Larry Silverstein, the ground zero cleanup crews, and the entire high-rise architectural community. So yeah, just throw a few more in there. It makes perfect sense if you're committed to making up explanations instead of looking for them.

    You're also forgetting that Tower 7 was already irreparably damaged when Tower 1 fell on it. Even if it hadn't collapsed, 7 still would have been demolished the old fashioned way like towers 4, 5, and 6 were.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The reasoning would probably have been insurance. Just because the money ultimately gets spent rebuilding doesn't mean somebody doesn't profit (such as whoever is getting paid to rebuild). With dollar amounts of that magnitude, the different ways you can get rich just by shifting it around in the right ways are beyond enticing.

    Just the fact the construction won't be done in a day, but takes time to complete, allows a shrewd investor to grab some investment profits while they're waiting to pay it out to the contractor. It all depends on the way things are paid out. The financial world is almost always more complicated than it looks on the surface.
    I will remind you that this isn't the movies. Fraud isn't nearly as profitable as Lex Luthor makes it seem, especially not with already profitable property like the World Trade Center.
    In the first place, it really wasn't that profitable:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvers...d_Trade_Center

    A lot of the reason the city leased it to Silverstein in the first place is because they were suffering from high vacancy rates. Like any other business asset, it's a wonderful thing to own if you can find customers, but only "if".

    In the second place:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#Lease

    Does it strike you as even just a little tiny bit suspicious that the deal (including the insurance policy) had only been final for 18 days when the attack happened? I know coincidences don't impress you much, because you seem to prefer to live in a universe that is governed by the laws of certainty, rather than the laws of probability, but still.... doesn't that at least kind of make you wonder?

    31 years the building stood. All but 18 days of that time, it was city property with (presumably) no insurance on it. (Or at least insurance that no individual could collect.) The terrorists just so happen to wait until that crucial moment, when somebody could profit from its destruction?



    You're also forgetting that Tower 7 was already irreparably damaged when Tower 1 fell on it. Even if it hadn't collapsed, 7 still would have been demolished the old fashioned way like towers 4, 5, and 6 were.
    That is actually a very good point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In the first place, it really wasn't that profitable:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvers...d_Trade_Center

    A lot of the reason the city leased it to Silverstein in the first place is because they were suffering from high vacancy rates. Like any other business asset, it's a wonderful thing to own if you can find customers, but only "if".
    The low tenancy mentioned in your Wikipedia article is for 1995. If you check with the Port Authority, you'll notice that immediately after 1995, the Center's tenancy began to rise and did not stop until September 11, 2001.

    From a February, 2001 Port Authority press release:
    As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center\'s mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.
    It was actually pretty profitable. The income from the mall alone was expected to reach record highs by the end of that year.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In the second place:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#Lease

    Does it strike you as even just a little tiny bit suspicious that the deal (including the insurance policy) had only been final for 18 days when the attack happened? I know coincidences don't impress you much, because you seem to prefer to live in a universe that is governed by the laws of certainty, rather than the laws of probability, but still.... doesn't that at least kind of make you wonder?

    31 years the building stood. All but 18 days of that time, it was city property with (presumably) no insurance on it. (Or at least insurance that no individual could collect.) The terrorists just so happen to wait until that crucial moment, when somebody could profit from its destruction?
    On the morning of September 11, 2001, Seth MacFarlane, creator, star, and executive producer of the then canceled animated television show Family Guy, was booked to fly on American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to be hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center. But instead of dying in the tragic attack, MacFarlane just so happened to miss his flight. Three years later, he just so happened to restart his cancled show (a show that I just so happen to hate) and it just so happened to become even more successful than before. He then just so happened to create two spin-offs that I also just so happen to hate. Obviously, the 9/11 conspirators warned Mr. MacFarlane about the attack so that he could fill Fox's Sunday night schedule with shows that annoy me. If you think otherwise, you're narrow-minded.

    Coincidences happen, and we are biologically programmed to find patterns in everything whether a pattern actually exists or not. Unless there's a practical reason to believe that a given coincidence represents a pattern, it is far more probable that it's just a coincidence.

    And no, I don't think our knowledge of the universe is, or even can be, absolutely certain. But I don't use that as an excuse to abandon reason for purely speculative, paranoid, delusion. So far, that's all you and the "truth" movement have been able to present.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In the first place, it really wasn't that profitable:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvers...d_Trade_Center

    A lot of the reason the city leased it to Silverstein in the first place is because they were suffering from high vacancy rates. Like any other business asset, it's a wonderful thing to own if you can find customers, but only "if".
    The low tenancy mentioned in your Wikipedia article is for 1995. If you check with the Port Authority, you'll notice that immediately after 1995, the Center's tenancy began to rise and did not stop until September 11, 2001.

    From a February, 2001 Port Authority press release:
    As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center\'s mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.
    It was actually pretty profitable. The income from the mall alone was expected to reach record highs by the end of that year.
    I have to agree that's not bad. I wouldn't blow up a 98% rented building. This also makes it less plausible that anyone could have rigged thermite, because there would be employees in almost every space who could see what you were doing.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In the second place:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#Lease

    Does it strike you as even just a little tiny bit suspicious that the deal (including the insurance policy) had only been final for 18 days when the attack happened? I know coincidences don't impress you much, because you seem to prefer to live in a universe that is governed by the laws of certainty, rather than the laws of probability, but still.... doesn't that at least kind of make you wonder?

    31 years the building stood. All but 18 days of that time, it was city property with (presumably) no insurance on it. (Or at least insurance that no individual could collect.) The terrorists just so happen to wait until that crucial moment, when somebody could profit from its destruction?
    On the morning of September 11, 2001, Seth MacFarlane, creator, star, and executive producer of the then canceled animated television show Family Guy, was booked to fly on American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to be hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center. But instead of dying in the tragic attack, MacFarlane just so happened to miss his flight. Three years later, he just so happened to restart his cancled show (a show that I just so happen to hate) and it just so happened to become even more successful than before. He then just so happened to create two spin-offs that I also just so happen to hate. Obviously, the 9/11 conspirators warned Mr. MacFarlane about the attack so that he could fill Fox's Sunday night schedule with shows that annoy me. If you think otherwise, you're narrow-minded.

    Coincidences happen, and we are biologically programmed to find patterns in everything whether a pattern actually exists or not. Unless there's a practical reason to believe that a given coincidence represents a pattern, it is far more probable that it's just a coincidence.
    Since we're on pseudo, sometimes things like this make me wonder if people really do have minor psychic experiences. One of the "truth movement's" main gripes about the attack is the stocks that changed hands immediately before the attack. It could be that someone is taking ordinary transactions out of context, or .... maybe some investors work off their gut instinct, and just sort of "felt" the attack coming in some way.


    And no, I don't think our knowledge of the universe is, or even can be, absolutely certain. But I don't use that as an excuse to abandon reason for purely speculative, paranoid, delusion. So far, that's all you and the "truth" movement have been able to present.
    That's because of the presumption of guilt/innocence difference. Some people expect others to believe the government's official story about things unless they can prove that story to be false.

    However, the presumption of truth about things the government tells us is not a valid presumption. If nothing else, Iran-Contra should prove to anyone's satisfaction that government officials can and will lie about things, only to reverse themselves later and confess to the lie. So to call the movement "paranoia" really isn't very accurate. They may be wrong, but there's nothing wrong with wanting affirming proof of that. People don't need to believe a government that isn't willing to try and prove its case.

    Anyway, I am glad the movement is mostly proving to be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I have to agree that's not bad. I wouldn't blow up a 98% rented building. This also makes it less plausible that anyone could have rigged thermite, because there would be employees in almost every space who could see what you were doing.
    Not just implausible, or highly improbable. I would argue that it's practically impossible. Especially since no one has even been able to demonstrate that thermite even could cut through a steel column, let alone a vertical steel column, let alone remotely, let alone on multiple floors in perfectly timed intervals. Even if all this could be done, the amounts of thermite required would be unbelievably high. Everything the truthers say about thermite is just pure nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Since we're on pseudo, sometimes things like this make me wonder if people really do have minor psychic experiences. One of the "truth movement's" main gripes about the attack is the stocks that changed hands immediately before the attack. It could be that someone is taking ordinary transactions out of context, or .... maybe some investors work off their gut instinct, and just sort of "felt" the attack coming in some way.
    And maybe they were warned by a time-traveling space alien from the planet Gallifrey. It makes as much sense as psychic powers.

    Seth MacFarlane missed his flight because he was hung over after a night of drinking. That detail sort of ruins the whole mystique, doesn't it? This is apophenia in action. The less focused the image is, the more likely you are to see a face in it.

    This is why pseudoscientists work best on incomplete knowledge. And why your admittedly pseudoscientific speculations only make sense in the absence of knowledge. It's not a search for truth, it's a way for people to pretend like they're coming up with answers without the bother of having to make sure they're right.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That's because of the presumption of guilt/innocence difference. Some people expect others to believe the government's official story about things unless they can prove that story to be false.

    However, the presumption of truth about things the government tells us is not a valid presumption. If nothing else, Iran-Contra should prove to anyone's satisfaction that government officials can and will lie about things, only to reverse themselves later and confess to the lie. So to call the movement "paranoia" really isn't very accurate. They may be wrong, but there's nothing wrong with wanting affirming proof of that. People don't need to believe a government that isn't willing to try and prove its case.

    Anyway, I am glad the movement is mostly proving to be wrong.
    Well, good for you. They've only been unable to produce a single substantial claim for eight years.

    And yes it is paranoia. I'll explain why. First, it's not really the "government's" story, it's the established story. They just call it the "government's" story or the "official" story because they want to create the illusion that you are committing a logical fallacy by accepting it. But the truth is that after the first plane hit, news agencies didn't wait for the CIA to make an official statement. They immediately started piecing things together themselves. Talking to the Airliners, talking to structural experts, exploiting vast networks of middle-east contacts.. you know, what any good journalist would do. They ended up cumulatively developing a fairly accurate picture of what had happened. The "official" government investigations came later and ended up confirming much of what the media reported, but contradicting some of it. Focusing the picture just a little bit more. Since then, other independent agencies have gone into more detail on specific parts of the investigation. Some of it has been contradicted, but there's no reason to think that the main facts (that Islamic extremists hijacked and flew planes into buildings, some of which collapsed from the damage that ensued) are wrong or falsified.

    But the conspiracy theorists who started the "truth" movement rejected all of this long before they even knew about it. For years prior to 9/11, they proudly declared that they would blame the government for any future terrorist attacks, no matter what, because they believed that a shadow government called the "New World Order" was actively trying to turn every country in the world into Nazi Germany. If that isn't paranoia, I don't know what is. Sure, you're average truther probably doesn't believe this, but there's no doubt that this is where the truth movement came from. It's a lot like religion. They downplay the more radical beliefs so they can appeal to more people, but once they have someone hooked, they start getting them into the more extreme beliefs. By then, the person is so immersed in their dogma and bullshit that they can't think intelligently anymore. This is why they haven't been able to produce a single piece of evidence supporting their claims (though they think they have.) Why they haven't been able or willing to perform any experiments that would test their claims (and they think they shouldn't have to.) Why they always only ever rely on propaganda aimed at the uneducated masses (and they think the established story does too.) They don't care about figuring things out, they only care about convincing people. That's all pseudoscience is.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Of the conspiracy theorists who have actually watched video of the two towers' collapse and timed it themseleves, they almost always stop the timer as soon as the first debris hits the ground (after about 9 seconds.) So they conclude that it fell at freefall speed even though about 50 stories are still standing at this point.

    In the case of tower 7, they always start the timer early ignoring the interior collapse of the east penthouses and focus entirely on the collapse of the outer shell.

    Most people never check into this and the conspiracy theorists know it. So they just keep repeating the same falsehoods over and over so many thimes that people like FringeGirl assume that their "fast" collapse is common knowledge. The ironic thing here is that the conspiracy theorists are the ones who claim that the "official" story relies on propaganda while they regularly exploit every propagandist trick in the book.
    Those are old conspiracy theories based on personal video made by random youtube users. The real information is gathered by experts. There are so many ways to explain the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 but only if it involves lying about the construction of the buildings, namely the claim that there was no inner structure designed to hold the weight of the buildings, that the buildings in the center was hallow, filled with stair wells and elevator shafts. The collapse that cannot be explained is WTC 7. Granted, partial collapse is what may be expected when buckling occurs, or toppling over, but a full collapse at free-fall speed for nearly 100 ft resulting in a pile of rubble no higher than 6 stories is not what should be expected. Explosives were used, there's no question in my mind at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I have to agree that's not bad. I wouldn't blow up a 98% rented building. This also makes it less plausible that anyone could have rigged thermite, because there would be employees in almost every space who could see what you were doing.
    Not just implausible, or highly improbable. I would argue that it's practically impossible. Especially since no one has even been able to demonstrate that thermite even could cut through a steel column, let alone a vertical steel column, let alone remotely, let alone on multiple floors in perfectly timed intervals. Even if all this could be done, the amounts of thermite required would be unbelievably high. Everything the truthers say about thermite is just pure nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Since we're on pseudo, sometimes things like this make me wonder if people really do have minor psychic experiences. One of the "truth movement's" main gripes about the attack is the stocks that changed hands immediately before the attack. It could be that someone is taking ordinary transactions out of context, or .... maybe some investors work off their gut instinct, and just sort of "felt" the attack coming in some way.
    And maybe they were warned by a time-traveling space alien from the planet Gallifrey. It makes as much sense as psychic powers.

    Seth MacFarlane missed his flight because he was hung over after a night of drinking. That detail sort of ruins the whole mystique, doesn't it? This is apophenia in action. The less focused the image is, the more likely you are to see a face in it.

    This is why pseudoscientists work best on incomplete knowledge. And why your admittedly pseudoscientific speculations only make sense in the absence of knowledge. It's not a search for truth, it's a way for people to pretend like they're coming up with answers without the bother of having to make sure they're right.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That's because of the presumption of guilt/innocence difference. Some people expect others to believe the government's official story about things unless they can prove that story to be false.

    However, the presumption of truth about things the government tells us is not a valid presumption. If nothing else, Iran-Contra should prove to anyone's satisfaction that government officials can and will lie about things, only to reverse themselves later and confess to the lie. So to call the movement "paranoia" really isn't very accurate. They may be wrong, but there's nothing wrong with wanting affirming proof of that. People don't need to believe a government that isn't willing to try and prove its case.

    Anyway, I am glad the movement is mostly proving to be wrong.
    Well, good for you. They've only been unable to produce a single substantial claim for eight years.

    And yes it is paranoia. I'll explain why. First, it's not really the "government's" story, it's the established story. They just call it the "government's" story or the "official" story because they want to create the illusion that you are committing a logical fallacy by accepting it. But the truth is that after the first plane hit, news agencies didn't wait for the CIA to make an official statement. They immediately started piecing things together themselves. Talking to the Airliners, talking to structural experts, exploiting vast networks of middle-east contacts.. you know, what any good journalist would do. They ended up cumulatively developing a fairly accurate picture of what had happened. The "official" government investigations came later and ended up confirming much of what the media reported, but contradicting some of it. Focusing the picture just a little bit more. Since then, other independent agencies have gone into more detail on specific parts of the investigation. Some of it has been contradicted, but there's no reason to think that the main facts (that Islamic extremists hijacked and flew planes into buildings, some of which collapsed from the damage that ensued) are wrong or falsified.

    But the conspiracy theorists who started the "truth" movement rejected all of this long before they even knew about it. For years prior to 9/11, they proudly declared that they would blame the government for any future terrorist attacks, no matter what, because they believed that a shadow government called the "New World Order" was actively trying to turn every country in the world into Nazi Germany. If that isn't paranoia, I don't know what is. Sure, you're average truther probably doesn't believe this, but there's no doubt that this is where the truth movement came from. It's a lot like religion. They downplay the more radical beliefs so they can appeal to more people, but once they have someone hooked, they start getting them into the more extreme beliefs. By then, the person is so immersed in their dogma and bullshit that they can't think intelligently anymore. This is why they haven't been able to produce a single piece of evidence supporting their claims (though they think they have.) Why they haven't been able or willing to perform any experiments that would test their claims (and they think they shouldn't have to.) Why they always only ever rely on propaganda aimed at the uneducated masses (and they think the established story does too.) They don't care about figuring things out, they only care about convincing people. That's all pseudoscience is.
    You are certainly mislead as to why 9/11 truthers deny the official story. It's not because it's simply the established story. Also, there have been many substantial claims made by 9/11 "conspiracy theorists". Denying them any credibility because of a bias does not rule them out as fact. I personally am not, nor is any conspiracy theorist I know, trying to spread the paranoid propaganda you're speaking of.

    You actually seem to be the paranoid one. You've certainly thought a lot about conspiracy theorists and managed to alienate them all into one outcast group, as you see them. This doesn't surprise me when there are news reports of crazed gunmen lighting up on the pentagon while paying main attention to a single post made weeks prior about the 9/11 inside job.

    ...Instead of focusing on this mans obvious mental disorder, they deemed him a conspiracy 9/11 nut job and placed him into a group, suggesting 9/11 truthers are a part of some crazed cult. They've done well in brainwashing a limited but weak group of people into taking on this perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Since we're on pseudo, sometimes things like this make me wonder if people really do have minor psychic experiences. One of the "truth movement's" main gripes about the attack is the stocks that changed hands immediately before the attack. It could be that someone is taking ordinary transactions out of context, or .... maybe some investors work off their gut instinct, and just sort of "felt" the attack coming in some way.
    If this is possible, then I'll admit 9/11 may have not been an inside job.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Those are old conspiracy theories based on personal video made by random youtube users. The real information is gathered by experts.
    What experts? I have yet to see any of the truther "experts" present any argument that isn't based on either incomplete, misinterpreted, or made up information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    There are so many ways to explain the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 but only if it involves lying about the construction of the buildings, namely the claim that there was no inner structure designed to hold the weight of the buildings, that the buildings in the center was hallow, filled with stair wells and elevator shafts.
    Please be more specific. Exactly what "lies" are these? Who is speaking them? How do you know that they are false? How do you know that the ones speaking them knew they were false when they spoke them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The collapse that cannot be explained is WTC 7. Granted, partial collapse is what may be expected when buckling occurs, or toppling over, but a full collapse at free-fall speed for nearly 100 ft resulting in a pile of rubble no higher than 6 stories is not what should be expected.
    Why? Exactly what is it about the damage to the building that would cause it to only partially collapse or to topple? We know there were severe fires on several floors of the building. We know that the collapse began in the center of the building. We know that progressive collapses happen. What's the problem?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Explosives were used, there's no question in my mind at least.
    Actual explosives and demolition experts strongly disagree with you. Not only are there no audible indications of explosives, there are no visible indications of explosives either. (0:14) -- I still find it interesting that NIST is the only organization willing to show the whole collapse from that angle. -- Compare those to an actual demolition of a building similar in size to WTC7. We see massive ejections on every floor and we hear a series of timed, ear-splitting explosions moments before the collapse starts. Where are these indicators on WTC7?

    But this doesn't even touch on the questions of how they managed to plant explosives in a busy office building without a single person noticing, how they were able to prevent the fires from detonating their charges prematurely, or why Tower 7 even matters to the conspiracy theory in the first place (still waiting on an answer for that one.) The only reason you think explosives are even plausible is because you apparently have no idea what a project like that would entail. Your picture of the situation is so out of focus that you can only see a face.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Also, there have been many substantial claims made by 9/11 "conspiracy theorists".
    Name one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Denying them any credibility because of a bias does not rule them out as fact.
    Yes it does. Conformational bias is a very good reason to discredit someone and the claims they make. It calls into question their ability to objectively asses the information they gather.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I personally am not, nor is any conspiracy theorist I know, trying to spread the paranoid propaganda you're speaking of.
    So we've never heard of Loose Change or Zeitgeist, have we?
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Those are old conspiracy theories based on personal video made by random youtube users. The real information is gathered by experts.
    What experts? I have yet to see any of the truther "experts" present any argument that isn't based on either incomplete, misinterpreted, or made up information.
    AE/911 truth is filled with not only questionable and arguable claims, but a lot of credible analysis also. Much of it is easy to understand if you'd take the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    There are so many ways to explain the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 but only if it involves lying about the construction of the buildings, namely the claim that there was no inner structure designed to hold the weight of the buildings, that the buildings in the center was hallow, filled with stair wells and elevator shafts.
    Please be more specific. Exactly what "lies" are these? Who is speaking them? How do you know that they are false? How do you know that the ones speaking them knew they were false when they spoke them?
    These lies that I've mentioned about the construction of the buildings. Claims were made by NIST and the USGS that the center of the WTC buildings were basically hollow, filled with stairs and elevator shafts used to explain the possibility of the impossible collapse, but I'm only repeating myself.




    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The collapse that cannot be explained is WTC 7. Granted, partial collapse is what may be expected when buckling occurs, or toppling over, but a full collapse at free-fall speed for nearly 100 ft resulting in a pile of rubble no higher than 6 stories is not what should be expected.
    Why? Exactly what is it about the damage to the building that would cause it to only partially collapse or to topple? We know there were severe fires on several floors of the building. We know that the collapse began in the center of the building. We know that progressive collapses happen. What's the problem?
    The reason it would only partially collapse (as it did, before collapsing entirely moments later, but this did not stop NIST from measuring the beginning of collapse when the partial collapse occurred, lengthening the total collapse time unrealistically *a lie on collapse time* ) is because the building suffered partial damage. The amount of resistance of the lower floors would have pushed the higher portions to the side of damage before the force caused by the falling structure could crush the bottom portions. We're talking about buildings which primarily consist of metal. The metal structure is what gives the buildings their weight. To think that each supporting column (as all experts seem to agree whether for or against the conspiracy) gave in, completely and simultaneously, under their own weight, as to account for even momentary free fall speed and complete destruction of a building is ridiculous. That's why it's never happened before, and still hasn't happened unless you want to pretend building #7 came down from MASSIVE damage that you cannot see on ANY angle.

    Some people will go as far as to say "Well no video camera was pointed at the damaged side of #7." Well there were, and they're not hard to find. These lies are continued by those who refuse to research, just ridicule. There's simply no reason #7 should have fallen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Explosives were used, there's no question in my mind at least.
    Actual explosives and demolition experts strongly disagree with you. Not only are there no audible indications of explosives, there are no visible indications of explosives either. (0:14) -- I still find it interesting that NIST is the only organization willing to show the whole collapse from that angle. -- Compare those to an actual demolition of a building similar in size to WTC7. We see massive ejections on every floor and we hear a series of timed, ear-splitting explosions moments before the collapse starts. Where are these indicators on WTC7?
    In several high definition videos of the towers collapsing we do hear a series of explosions, you can find these videos very easily on youtube. Search "Newly released 9/11 footage". Members of the FDNY will attest to the series of explosions they heard. Some reasons why you might have trouble hearing a series of explosions are:

    - The series of explosions were not separated far enough apart to be audible given circumstances.

    - Many video cameras were far away as to explain augmented sound that would make hearing separated explosions impossible. What you hear instead is a constant rumble.

    - Many videos we not taken close enough to hear anything. Ones that were close enough, were typically cell phone cams... Come on.

    Do you really think that if this was an inside job, there would be a demolition crew carrying out a standard, obvious demolition in plain sight?

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    But this doesn't even touch on the questions of how they managed to plant explosives in a busy office building without a single person noticing, how they were able to prevent the fires from detonating their charges prematurely, or why Tower 7 even matters to the conspiracy theory in the first place (still waiting on an answer for that one.) The only reason you think explosives are even plausible is because you apparently have no idea what a project like that would entail. Your picture of the situation is so out of focus that you can only see a face.
    That's merely speculation, not evidence, and answerable many ways but who is to know for sure. Dead end speculative questions are the reasons people avoid real questions. All one needs to ask is "Oh why would our own Govt. do this" and all other questions are rendered null to that person.

    Why does tower 7 matter? Because after the second WT tower came down, and #7 followed, it ceased to be, to many of the most unobservant individuals, a physical anomaly, and became what is obviously controlled by man. What part of the collapse do you think is possible? Oh wait, #7 doesn't even matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Also, there have been many substantial claims made by 9/11 "conspiracy theorists".
    Name one.
    The fact you don't agree with them, does not make them unsubstantial. I've supported evidence, if you want to personally discredit them without offering any of your own analysis or evidence be my guest but you're only fooling yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Denying them any credibility because of a bias does not rule them out as fact.
    Yes it does. Conformational bias is a very good reason to discredit someone and the claims they make. It calls into question their ability to objectively asses the information they gather.
    No, I mean of your biases, not their own biases, obviously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I personally am not, nor is any conspiracy theorist I know, trying to spread the paranoid propaganda you're speaking of.
    So we've never heard of Loose Change or Zeitgeist, have we?
    I'm sure we have.

    So, we've never understood the word "personally", have we? I don't know the makers of those films.

    You're not the one who ridiculed my debating skills several months ago, are you? I could swear it was you but I'm having a hard time believing it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    On the morning of September 11, 2001, Seth MacFarlane, creator, star, and executive producer of the then canceled animated television show Family Guy, was booked to fly on American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to be hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center. But instead of dying in the tragic attack, MacFarlane just so happened to miss his flight. Three years later, he just so happened to restart his cancled show (a show that I just so happen to hate) and it just so happened to become even more successful than before. He then just so happened to create two spin-offs that I also just so happen to hate. Obviously, the 9/11 conspirators warned Mr. MacFarlane about the attack so that he could fill Fox's Sunday night schedule with shows that annoy me. If you think otherwise, you're narrow-minded.
    You gave a series of events that for some reason annoy you... It appears it's not that you don't believe in coincidences, rather you believe only in coincidences. Even when a series of coincidences happen that obtain to the same thing, and all coincide with each other that seem to lead to one unquestionable goal, there is no reason for observation. Even a series of coincidences that grant extreme power to the American Govt., allowing the American Govt. to invade countries that the American citizens would have scrutinized the Govt. for otherwise, are merely coincidences? What if they're not coincidences< and you're wrong? I'd say youtube 9/11 coincidences but I'm sure you won't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4
    This building was built like no other high rise built before. Its support was in the from an external interlocked steel pillar perimeter only. It had little other major internal support. It unzipped like a zipper on a coat.
    Once the horizontal perimeter strength was compromised, with the great weight of the floors above, it just finally started pealing away like a banana, and with little other support structure within the building, once started, there wasn’t much to stop the continued collapse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    AE/911 truth is filled with not only questionable and arguable claims, but a lot of credible analysis also. Much of it is easy to understand if you'd take the time.
    If it's "filled", then you shouldn't have trouble providing a link. You're still making the same mistake you made months ago. Refusing to support anything you say, instead demanding that others do your research for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    These lies that I've mentioned about the construction of the buildings. Claims were made by NIST and the USGS that the center of the WTC buildings were basically hollow, filled with stairs and elevator shafts used to explain the possibility of the impossible collapse, but I'm only repeating myself.
    Where do they say this? Be specific. Point out a part of the NIST report that "lies" about the structure of the World Trade Center.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The reason it would only partially collapse (as it did, before collapsing entirely moments later, but this did not stop NIST from measuring the beginning of collapse when the partial collapse occurred, lengthening the total collapse time unrealistically *a lie on collapse time* )
    What? The interior of the building is part of the building. Including the first stage of the collapse when determining the total collapse time of the building is dishonest? Are you serious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    ...is because the building suffered partial damage. The amount of resistance of the lower floors would have pushed the higher portions to the side of damage before the force caused by the falling structure could crush the bottom portions. We're talking about buildings which primarily consist of metal. The metal structure is what gives the buildings their weight. To think that each supporting column (as all experts seem to agree whether for or against the conspiracy) gave in, completely and simultaneously, under their own weight, as to account for even momentary free fall speed and complete destruction of a building is ridiculous.
    Which is why no one thinks that happened. If the damage done to the building by falling debris were enough to make it collapse, it would have done so immediately. Instead it stood for seven hours. The apparent cause of the collapse was the fire which had spread to 10 of the lower floors, weakening them until they eventually collapsed. Since floors are crucial to the strength of the vertical columns, some of them collapsed under the weight of the floors above. This even further weakened the entire structure, triggering a chain reaction known as a progressive collapse. What about this argument is unsound? It explains why the roof would cave in several seconds before the facade, it explains the apparent suddenness of the collapse of the facade, it explains why it took seven hours for all of this to happen. Your explanation doesn't explain any of those things except to say "that's just how they chose to demolish it."

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    In several high definition videos of the towers collapsing we do hear a series of explosions, you can find these videos very easily on youtube. Search "Newly released 9/11 footage".
    No. You find them and post links here. I'm not wading through a cesspool of conspiracy theorist videos just because you're too lazy to do your own research. Other truthers have tried to make the same claim you are now, showing me videos with "explosions" in them. All of them were either wind on the microphone or had been altered to create the illusion of explosions. So find and show me the ones you think are legit, it's the only way we can be sure we're both talking about the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Members of the FDNY will attest to the series of explosions they heard.
    Give examples and their sources, please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Some reasons why you might have trouble hearing a series of explosions are:

    - The series of explosions were not separated far enough apart to be audible given circumstances.
    What? Explosions that are "close together" create one really big boom instead of a bunch of big booms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    - Many video cameras were far away as to explain augmented sound that would make hearing separated explosions impossible. What you hear instead is a constant rumble.
    Demolition charges don't sound like rumbling. Even at a distance they sound like what they are, a series of concussions (here's the same building again, even further away.) The rumbling you hear when the WTC towers collapse is the sound of the actual collapse itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    - Many videos we not taken close enough to hear anything. Ones that were close enough, were typically cell phone cams... Come on.
    Again, you have no appreciation for how loud demolition charges are. They would have been picked up on every microphone for at least a mile whether it was pointed at the buildings or not. But look at this video that is pointed at the towers. It picks up the helicopter! If it could do that, it would certainly have picked up a series of very loud concussions coming from the building. Still think that's too far away? Here's a news camera at the base of the towers. The best possible location to pick up the sound of explosives and guess what? Nothing. Nothing except the sound of the tower itself collapsing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Do you really think that if this was an inside job, there would be a demolition crew carrying out a standard, obvious demolition in plain sight?
    What I "really think" is that you have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't the slightest idea what needs to happen in order to bring a building down, so you're perfectly comfortable thinking that it could have happened quietly and without anyone noticing. In reality, the process takes months (perhaps years for buildings this big.) Walls would have to be broken down and solid steel columns would have to be drilled into. Wires would literally be everywhere. There's no way to do this in a busy office building without being noticed. Real life isn't like the movies. This would have been the scene everywhere in each building:


    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Why does tower 7 matter? Because after the second WT tower came down, and #7 followed, it ceased to be, to many of the most unobservant individuals, a physical anomaly, and became what is obviously controlled by man. What part of the collapse do you think is possible? Oh wait, #7 doesn't even matter.
    You didn't understand my qestion. Why does it matter to the conspiracy theory? Suppose that the goal was as you say, to create a national tragedy in order to unite the entire country and invade the middle-east. By the time Tower 7 collapsed, this had already happened. Two occupied office buildings were completely destroyed. Thousands of civilians are dead. The skyline of America's favorite city is changed forever. The nation is united in grief and ready for war against those responsible. So then what would be the point of destroying an empty office building seven hours later? It doesn't make any sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Name one.
    The fact you don't agree with them, does not make them unsubstantial. I've supported evidence, if you want to personally discredit them without offering any of your own analysis or evidence be my guest but you're only fooling yourself.
    I asked you for a substantial claim. So far, all you've presented are vague "nu uh" arguments that you don't bother to substantiate and a few flimsy attempts to rationalize the lack of evidence for your argument. All of which are apparently based on a number of serious misunderstandings about the way things work.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    AE/911 truth is filled with not only questionable and arguable claims, but a lot of credible analysis also. Much of it is easy to understand if you'd take the time.
    If it's "filled", then you shouldn't have trouble providing a link. You're still making the same mistake you made months ago. Refusing to support anything you say, instead demanding that others do your research for you.
    I'm not demanding anything, nor have I ever done so. The problem with doing other peoples research is they take away much less from it than if they were to investigate otherwise. There is a reason why an easy to use web site was made, with a list of 1-10 reasons why explosives were used, with links to documents explaining their analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    These lies that I've mentioned about the construction of the buildings. Claims were made by NIST and the USGS that the center of the WTC buildings were basically hollow, filled with stairs and elevator shafts used to explain the possibility of the impossible collapse, but I'm only repeating myself.
    Where do they say this? Be specific. Point out a part of the NIST report that "lies" about the structure of the World Trade Center.
    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-1index.htm NIST NCSTAR 1-1A

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The reason it would only partially collapse (as it did, before collapsing entirely moments later, but this did not stop NIST from measuring the beginning of collapse when the partial collapse occurred, lengthening the total collapse time unrealistically *a lie on collapse time* )
    What? The interior of the building is part of the building. Including the first stage of the collapse when determining the total collapse time of the building is dishonest? Are you serious?
    The corner of the building collapsed, moments went by, then the building began its collapse downwards. If the building had fallen an hour after the corner collapsed, would the total collapse time be an hour and 5 seconds? If you don't understand, say so, and I"ll try to be more clear for you. Don't get angry...

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    ...is because the building suffered partial damage. The amount of resistance of the lower floors would have pushed the higher portions to the side of damage before the force caused by the falling structure could crush the bottom portions. We're talking about buildings which primarily consist of metal. The metal structure is what gives the buildings their weight. To think that each supporting column (as all experts seem to agree whether for or against the conspiracy) gave in, completely and simultaneously, under their own weight, as to account for even momentary free fall speed and complete destruction of a building is ridiculous.
    Which is why no one thinks that happened. If the damage done to the building by falling debris were enough to make it collapse, it would have done so immediately. Instead it stood for seven hours. The apparent cause of the collapse was the fire which had spread to 10 of the lower floors, weakening them until they eventually collapsed. Since floors are crucial to the strength of the vertical columns, some of them collapsed under the weight of the floors above. This even further weakened the entire structure, triggering a chain reaction known as a progressive collapse. What about this argument is unsound? It explains why the roof would cave in several seconds before the facade, it explains the apparent suddenness of the collapse of the facade, it explains why it took seven hours for all of this to happen. Your explanation doesn't explain any of those things except to say "that's just how they chose to demolish it."
    7 hours is pretty quick to bring down an entire building, don't you think? But it doesn't matter what you think does it. Anything to avoid knowing the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    In several high definition videos of the towers collapsing we do hear a series of explosions, you can find these videos very easily on youtube. Search "Newly released 9/11 footage".
    No. You find them and post links here. I'm not wading through a cesspool of conspiracy theorist videos just because you're too lazy to do your own research. Other truthers have tried to make the same claim you are now, showing me videos with "explosions" in them. All of them were either wind on the microphone or had been altered to create the illusion of explosions. So find and show me the ones you think are legit, it's the only way we can be sure we're both talking about the same thing.
    I figure you're talking about the subject because you're interested? If you're interested, you can find them yourself. Otherwise neither of us has proven or disproven anything, including yourself. A conversation involves usually two or more parties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Members of the FDNY will attest to the series of explosions they heard.
    Give examples and their sources, please.
    Video proof. If you have not seen any video of firefighters reacting to explosions, like the infamous one when firefighters were making phone calls and giant ear splitting blasts went off, then it's not even worth spending the time debating this with you.

    The FDNY itself has made no claims, because that is left to the individuals who experienced the event, not the FDNY itself.

    Many videos where plumes of smoke were visible live were never aired again, this must only be coincidence in a world of coincidences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Some reasons why you might have trouble hearing a series of explosions are:

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    - The series of explosions were not separated far enough apart to be audible given circumstances.
    What? Explosions that are "close together" create one really big boom instead of a bunch of big booms.
    You replied to this before reading further I guess, or failed to read the message entirely. Why do I even bother? Look at it this way. If you're watching a slide show of a series of pictures in sequence taken only moments apart, you can see each individual picture until the slide show is showing the pictures for only 1/40th of a second or so each, then it becomes a motion picture. When sounds are made within extremely short or overlapping durations, we do not hear individual explosions. Get what I'm saying yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    - Many video cameras were far away as to explain augmented sound that would make hearing separated explosions impossible. What you hear instead is a constant rumble.
    Demolition charges don't sound like rumbling. Even at a distance they sound like what they are, a series of concussions (here's the same building again, even further away.) The rumbling you hear when the WTC towers collapse is the sound of the actual collapse itself.
    I beg to differ. Also, I don't see any proof here. Where's the math proving this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    - Many videos we not taken close enough to hear anything. Ones that were close enough, were typically cell phone cams... Come on.
    Again, you have no appreciation for how loud demolition charges are. They would have been picked up on every microphone for at least a mile whether it was pointed at the buildings or not. But look at this video that is pointed at the towers. It picks up the helicopter! If it could do that, it would certainly have picked up a series of very loud concussions coming from the building. Still think that's too far away? Here's a news camera at the base of the towers. The best possible location to pick up the sound of explosives and guess what? Nothing. Nothing except the sound of the tower itself collapsing.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IvicKnhANs
    Actually sounds like any other demolition I've heard. Remember the buildings are high, they are very far away from the explosions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Do you really think that if this was an inside job, there would be a demolition crew carrying out a standard, obvious demolition in plain sight?
    What I "really think" is that you have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't the slightest idea what needs to happen in order to bring a building down, so you're perfectly comfortable thinking that it could have happened quietly and without anyone noticing. In reality, the process takes months (perhaps years for buildings this big.) Walls would have to be broken down and solid steel columns would have to be drilled into. Wires would literally be everywhere. There's no way to do this in a busy office building without being noticed. Real life isn't like the movies. This would have been the scene everywhere in each building:
    I do believe that this was done without anyone noticing, unless they have been persuaded to not speak up, or possibly killed. May explain the body found in the closet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz8lX...eature=related but that's just coincidence, or fake, because it doesn't prove anything.... yadda yadda yadda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Why does tower 7 matter? Because after the second WT tower came down, and #7 followed, it ceased to be, to many of the most unobservant individuals, a physical anomaly, and became what is obviously controlled by man. What part of the collapse do you think is possible? Oh wait, #7 doesn't even matter.
    You didn't understand my qestion. Why does it matter to the conspiracy theory? Suppose that the goal was as you say, to create a national tragedy in order to unite the entire country and invade the middle-east. By the time Tower 7 collapsed, this had already happened. Two occupied office buildings were completely destroyed. Thousands of civilians are dead. The skyline of America's favorite city is changed forever. The nation is united in grief and ready for war against those responsible. So then what would be the point of destroying an empty office building seven hours later? It doesn't make any sense.
    Well, one plane didn't reach its target, remember? Fact of the matter is #7 was an impossible collapse whether you'd like to believe it or not. When proof is presented, you do not see it as even evidence. When all supporting columns systematically fail for a once in a lifetime collapse, questions are asked.

    It is entirely possible that the plane that crashed and vanished into a pile of garbage was destined for WTC 7. All three buildings having had explosives planted, #7 had to come down one way or another. Just a theory, but you wanted an answer. If you want the facts, find someone involved and use toture to interrogate them. If you want facts from me, you might want to stop arguing now and wasting both of our time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Name one.
    The fact you don't agree with them, does not make them unsubstantial. I've supported evidence, if you want to personally discredit them without offering any of your own analysis or evidence be my guest but you're only fooling yourself.
    I asked you for a substantial claim. So far, all you've presented are vague "nu uh" arguments that you don't bother to substantiate and a few flimsy attempts to rationalize the lack of evidence for your argument. All of which are apparently based on a number of serious misunderstandings about the way things work.
    You don't see anything as substantial. You also seem adamant that I should be the only one offering facts at all. All you're here to do is attempt to discredit what I say by saying I say it badly. It's pathetic to be honest. If you don't think I'm arguing well why does it seem you're getting so defensive. I understand you're firm stance on the subject but I'm not just going to believe you because you've got conviction that I'm wrong. That's the problem with conviction, even if I were to show you proof, it would not be proof at all. Conviction is the belief of something without a need for proof. I didn't believe 9/11 was an inside job until I saw the proof. At the same time, you won't begin to think 9/11 was an inside job until absolute proof is given, so why bother even arguing about it. As far as I'm concerned, I've one up'd you 10 times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Excellent explanation of cutter charges.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZLOaQrl938

    Clearer audio with other demolitions to compare. You can hear distinctly what sounds exactly like cutter charges right before the building starts collapsing and many minutes prior as seen in the videos taken by the New York firefighters that have spread rapidly over the internet.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duVQ23c6-rE

    You see the difference positioning and audio quality can really make?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I'm not demanding anything, nor have I ever done so. The problem with doing other peoples research is they take away much less from it than if they were to investigate otherwise. There is a reason why an easy to use web site was made, with a list of 1-10 reasons why explosives were used, with links to documents explaining their analysis.
    I've been through that site before. I've read it's "research." Believe me when I say it isn't impressive. It relies on so many misconceptions and it often ignores basic concepts of physics. This is why I asked you for a specific example, so I wouldn't end up choosing an arbitrary claim, then have to listen to you whine about me attacking the "weakest arguments" (this has happened to me when dealing with truthers before.) I wanted you to present what you thought was the strongest argument, so we could talk about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I asked you to be specific, and you just link to a 130 page document. Where, specifically, does that document lie? What page? What paragraph? How do you know it's false? Come on, this shouldn't be difficult if the truth is on your side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The corner of the building collapsed, moments went by, then the building began its collapse downwards.
    The corner didn't collapse. The east interior collapsed. That's almost half of the inside of the building.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    If the building had fallen an hour after the corner collapsed, would the total collapse time be an hour and 5 seconds?
    Yes. Only it didn't collapse an hour earlier, it collapsed six seconds earlier. Which proves that the collapse was a progressive one and not a "sudden" removal of all vertical columns. But it's easy to think that it was sudden if you ignore that roof caving in. Something you and other truthers are simply hell-bent on doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    7 hours is pretty quick to bring down an entire building, don't you think? But it doesn't matter what you think does it. Anything to avoid knowing the truth.
    So then what is the truth? Probably should have asked you earlier, but what exactly do you think they did in order to bring down the tower? Where do you think they planted explosives? On all floors? some floors? Did they do it that day, in seven hours, avoiding both the fires and the sight of the firefighters? Or did they do it in advance, avoiding the office workers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Video proof. If you have not seen any video of firefighters reacting to explosions, like the infamous one when firefighters were making phone calls and giant ear splitting blasts went off, then it's not even worth spending the time debating this with you.
    Then provide a link to this video. Don't just say that it's "proof" without providing a link. Come on, it's easy. Ctrl+c, Ctr+v.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The FDNY itself has made no claims, because that is left to the individuals who experienced the event, not the FDNY itself.
    The FDNY itself maintains that WTC7 collapsed on its own. This includes those on the ground and even the fire chief himself who made a statement in response to the claims of conspiracy theorists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Many videos where plumes of smoke were visible live were never aired again, this must only be coincidence in a world of coincidences.
    Where are these videos? If you've seen them yourself, you should be able to provide a link. If you haven't seen them, then what makes you think they ever existed in the first place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    You replied to this before reading further I guess, or failed to read the message entirely. Why do I even bother? Look at it this way. If you're watching a slide show of a series of pictures in sequence taken only moments apart, you can see each individual picture until the slide show is showing the pictures for only 1/40th of a second or so each, then it becomes a motion picture. When sounds are made within extremely short or overlapping durations, we do not hear individual explosions. Get what I'm saying yet?
    I didn't misunderstand what you said. You apparently misunderstood my reply. Explosives cause massive and sudden sound waves. Putting them closer together doesn't create the gradual onset rumble we hear when the WTC towers collapse. They would be just as loud and sudden even if they were close enough together to create the illusion of a constant sound.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I beg to differ. Also, I don't see any proof here. Where's the math proving this?
    So this is your game, isn't it? Make stupid jokes when you're cornered? You claimed that some cameras in New York that day were too far away to hear the explosions. I gave you examples of actual controlled demolitions where the camera was very far away and you could still clearly hear the recognizable explosions. It is very relevant to the conversation. Stupid jokes don't change that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Actually sounds like any other demolition I've heard. Remember the buildings are high, they are very far away from the explosions.
    If you think that a gradually rising rumble sounds the same as a series of timed explosions, you're either deluded, or an idiot. And I've already demonstrated (multiple times) how loud demolition charges are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I do believe that this was done without anyone noticing, unless they have been persuaded to not speak up, or possibly killed. May explain the body found in the closet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz8lX...eature=related but that's just coincidence, or fake, because it doesn't prove anything.... yadda yadda yadda.
    Again, you seem to think that rigging explosives to columns is like bugging an office. It isn't. I've already explained how invasive the process is. Every floor where explosives were being planted would have to be gutted. If the workers killed people who saw what they were doing, they would have had to have killed everyone who tripped over the wires on their way through the lobby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Well, one plane didn't reach its target, remember? Fact of the matter is #7 was an impossible collapse whether you'd like to believe it or not. When proof is presented, you do not see it as even evidence. When all supporting columns systematically fail for a once in a lifetime collapse, questions are asked.
    What proof? You haven't presented anything that is supported by the video. For the third time, the columns didn't fail suddenly. You've acknowledged this. Some columns failed first (the collapse of the east penthouses) then the rest failed afterward. This indicates a chain reaction. A progressive collapse. Not a sudden failure of every column simultaniously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    It is entirely possible that the plane that crashed and vanished into a pile of garbage was destined for WTC 7. All three buildings having had explosives planted, #7 had to come down one way or another. Just a theory, but you wanted an answer. If you want the facts, find someone involved and use toture to interrogate them. If you want facts from me, you might want to stop arguing now and wasting both of our time.
    You just made me laugh very hard. 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. It was likely headed for Washington, but certainly wasn't headed to New York.

    And do you really want to start talking about 93? Saying that it "vanished"? 95% of the plane has been recovered and the remains of everyone on board were returned to their families. Don't start with me on this one, you will not win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Excellent explanation of cutter charges.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZLOaQrl938
    The corner ejection doesn't occur until after the collapse had already started. That indicates that they were caused by debris, not explosives. Likely from the snapping of the corner columns at that point. That would also explain the ejection further down the building as that entire section being smashed apart by the rest of the building would cause ejections on that area.

    But if explosives were placed on the corner columns, it wouldn't just produce an ejection of debris. Any charge capable of cutting through the corner columns would have to be very powerful and would, as a result, produce a very noticeable flash. Neither that video, nor any other I have seen of the towers collapsing, show any flash.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Clearer audio with other demolitions to compare. You can hear distinctly what sounds exactly like cutter charges right before the building starts collapsing and many minutes prior as seen in the videos taken by the New York firefighters that have spread rapidly over the internet.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duVQ23c6-rE
    I find the audio in that video highly suspect since we've seen this footage before and the two versions don't match up. In the version I linked, the newscaster (speaking live) says, "You can see the firemen assembled here.. The police officers, FBI agents. And we can see the two towers-- A huge explosion now raining debris on all of us-- we'd better get out of the way!" But in your video, the newscaster's voice starts fading out right when he says "The police officers, FBI agents..." The microphone is the only audio source for that recording, it shouldn't suddenly dip out in one video and stay constant in another. Not unless the audio on your video was altered. Since the source of your video is a somewhat sensationalized documentary about the US's unpreparedness for the terrorist attack (and not about the collapses of the towers themselves,) it's likely that they mixed in better quality audio to make it sound good (news broadcasts aren't known for their audio quality.) But even if the audio in your video was legit, the "explosion" still doesn't sound like an explosion. It's not nearly loud enough.

    Since you mentioned it earlier, I'm going to go ahead and address AE911truth's Tower 7 list.

    1. Rapid onset of "collapse"
    It wasn't rapid. You've admitted this, Viper. The collapse of the east interior several seconds before the rest of the building shows just how non-rapid it was.

    2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a second before the building's destruction
    The testimony provided by AE911 of the firefighter(?) on the ground outside the tower describes a sound "that sounded like a clap of thunder" and a "shock wave" that blew out some windows of the building. A single sound, not a series of them. It's more likely that what he heard was related to the collapse of the east interior, which we both know happened seconds before the rest of the collapse and would have blown out the windows.

    3. Symmetrical "structural failure" -- through the path of greatest resistance -- at free-fall acceleration
    The "path of greatest resistance" up. But since we know that the interior of the building had already partially collapsed, we know that the interior was already significantly weakened. So then it would have had less resistance falling inward than it would have had falling outward or toppling over.

    4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
    Not exactly it's own footprint. The Verizon building was fairly damaged by the buckling of the facade.

    5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
    Pyroclast is a term for the dust ejected from volcanoes, it doesn't apply here. But dust would be produced whether it was a natural collapse or a controlled one. This point is irrelevant.

    6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
    Most of the accounts of "molten" metal, are actually accounts of red hot metal. Which isn't the same thing. I could go into more detail about this, but I doubt that you agree with this point anyway, Viper, since you don't think thermite was used.

    7. Chemical signature of thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples
    Again, you don't think thermite was involved, so I won't need to go into detail how these "signatures" aren't anything that wouldn't be found in any office building.

    8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
    Iron does oxidize. We call it rusting. But this process can be sped up by sealing the iron in a small space with water (as the debris from the towers would have been when it was buried beneath other debris.)

    9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
    Here is where the list contradicts itself. It's previous three points argued that thermite was used, now it is apparently arguing that demolition charges were used. But anyway, the expert they cite says that it was a controlled demolition based on a video and some images shown to him. We don't know what video he saw. Whether he saw the complete version, or the edited version the AE911truthers use. Was he aware of all the details regarding the fire? We don't know. He even admits that he doesn't know a whole lot about the building and that much of his assessment is guesswork. Regardless, his opinion is still a minority among demolitions experts, especially the ones who do know the building.

    10. Fore-knowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
    The website cites the fact that police and firefighters evacuated the area an hour before 7's collapse as proof of "foreknowledge." But by that time, the firefighters on the ground had already assessed that the building was in danger of collapse and Fire Chief Nigro ordered the area cleared. Not really "foreknowledge".
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I'm not demanding anything, nor have I ever done so. The problem with doing other peoples research is they take away much less from it than if they were to investigate otherwise. There is a reason why an easy to use web site was made, with a list of 1-10 reasons why explosives were used, with links to documents explaining their analysis.
    I wanted you to present what you thought was the strongest argument, so we could talk about it.
    I posted what I believed to be some of the strongest arguments. You fail to mention what you find to be incomplete or ignoring basic physics. See what I mean when yet, I say a conversation involves two parties?

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I asked you to be specific, and you just link to a 130 page document. Where, specifically, does that document lie? What page? What paragraph? How do you know it's false? Come on, this shouldn't be difficult if the truth is on your side.
    The NIST report is quite large. I'd rather not search for it. The picture I posted of one of the constructions contradicts their assertions, which I'm not going to spend half an hour looking for in order for it to be rejected with your flawed logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The corner of the building collapsed, moments went by, then the building began its collapse downwards.
    The corner didn't collapse. The east interior collapsed. That's almost half of the inside of the building.
    You see the corner collapse in the video, before the structure began to fall. NIST initially measured the collapse time beginning at the corner (and inside) failure (what I'm talking about is visual evidence, not theory) but NIST revised the total collapse time after receiving much scrutiny. The object was to measure how long it took for the top of the building to reach the ground.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    If the building had fallen an hour after the corner collapsed, would the total collapse time be an hour and 5 seconds?
    Yes. Only it didn't collapse an hour earlier, it collapsed six seconds earlier. Which proves that the collapse was a progressive one and not a "sudden" removal of all vertical columns. But it's easy to think that it was sudden if you ignore that roof caving in. Something you and other truthers are simply hell-bent on doing.
    "Yes, only it didn't collapse an hour earlier". This doesn't make sense. The building collapsed an hour earlier? But no, the collapse time is measured from when the top of the building reaches the ground.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    7 hours is pretty quick to bring down an entire building, don't you think? But it doesn't matter what you think does it. Anything to avoid knowing the truth.
    So then what is the truth? Probably should have asked you earlier, but what exactly do you think they did in order to bring down the tower? Where do you think they planted explosives? On all floors? some floors? Did they do it that day, in seven hours, avoiding both the fires and the sight of the firefighters? Or did they do it in advance, avoiding the office workers?
    I'm not a demolition expert and I don't know the truth. I don't pretend to, it seems very depressing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Video proof. If you have not seen any video of firefighters reacting to explosions, like the infamous one when firefighters were making phone calls and giant ear splitting blasts went off, then it's not even worth spending the time debating this with you.
    Then provide a link to this video. Don't just say that it's "proof" without providing a link. Come on, it's easy. Ctrl+c, Ctr+v.
    ::facepalm:

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The FDNY itself has made no claims, because that is left to the individuals who experienced the event, not the FDNY itself.
    The FDNY itself maintains that WTC7 collapsed on its own. This includes those on the ground and even the fire chief himself who made a statement in response to the claims of conspiracy theorists.
    Of course the FDNY will agree with anything NIST and the USGS claims. That was sort of my point. It's the individuals who experienced the event that say otherwise. You miss a lot of points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Many videos where plumes of smoke were visible live were never aired again, this must only be coincidence in a world of coincidences.
    Where are these videos? If you've seen them yourself, you should be able to provide a link. If you haven't seen them, then what makes you think they ever existed in the first place?
    I have seen them. Why bother asking that question in the first place. I assumed since you know so much about 9/11, you'd have seen these videos at least broadcast on the mainstream media as they have been many times.

    Now to wait and see if you pretend they don't exist after I post them...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylma9nKGxCg Go to 1 min.


    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    You replied to this before reading further I guess, or failed to read the message entirely. Why do I even bother? Look at it this way. If you're watching a slide show of a series of pictures in sequence taken only moments apart, you can see each individual picture until the slide show is showing the pictures for only 1/40th of a second or so each, then it becomes a motion picture. When sounds are made within extremely short or overlapping durations, we do not hear individual explosions. Get what I'm saying yet?
    I didn't misunderstand what you said. You apparently misunderstood my reply. Explosives cause massive and sudden sound waves. Putting them closer together doesn't create the gradual onset rumble we hear when the WTC towers collapse. They would be just as loud and sudden even if they were close enough together to create the illusion of a constant sound.
    And is that not what you heard in the video? Eyes and ears can be deceiving when you've already made you mind about something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I beg to differ. Also, I don't see any proof here. Where's the math proving this?
    So this is your game, isn't it? Make stupid jokes when you're cornered? You claimed that some cameras in New York that day were too far away to hear the explosions. I gave you examples of actual controlled demolitions where the camera was very far away and you could still clearly hear the recognizable explosions. It is very relevant to the conversation. Stupid jokes don't change that.
    I understand it is relevant to the conversation but in a video I posted, you can hear what sounds very much like cutter charges. What I'm saying is that audio quality, and position of camera (augmentation) do come into play, you do in fact hear things you might not hear if the camera was no so god quality or several blocks away behind buildings. So, once again, where's the proof in that? By your logic, what you just said is worthless, because there's no undeniable proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Actually sounds like any other demolition I've heard. Remember the buildings are high, they are very far away from the explosions.
    If you think that a gradually rising rumble sounds the same as a series of timed explosions, you're either deluded, or an idiot. And I've already demonstrated (multiple times) how loud demolition charges are.
    Ahh here we go. Lets get the insults started. That's certainly not a retaliation of being cornered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I do believe that this was done without anyone noticing, unless they have been persuaded to not speak up, or possibly killed. May explain the body found in the closet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz8lX...eature=related but that's just coincidence, or fake, because it doesn't prove anything.... yadda yadda yadda.
    Again, you seem to think that rigging explosives to columns is like bugging an office. It isn't. I've already explained how invasive the process is. Every floor where explosives were being planted would have to be gutted. If the workers killed people who saw what they were doing, they would have had to have killed everyone who tripped over the wires on their way through the lobby.
    ... According to what or who? You have no idea what they would need to do, working under secrecy. You may only know limited information as to what a demolition crew would commonly do in bringing down a building, which almost always requires no secrecy at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    It is entirely possible that the plane that crashed and vanished into a pile of garbage was destined for WTC 7. All three buildings having had explosives planted, #7 had to come down one way or another. Just a theory, but you wanted an answer. If you want the facts, find someone involved and use toture to interrogate them. If you want facts from me, you might want to stop arguing now and wasting both of our time.
    You just made me laugh very hard. 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. It was likely headed for Washington, but certainly wasn't headed to New York.
    Oh god... ::facepalm::

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    And do you really want to start talking about 93? Saying that it "vanished"? 95% of the plane has been recovered and the remains of everyone on board were returned to their families. Don't start with me on this one, you will not win.
    Did you see the pictures? The plane vanished. Yes, 95% of the plane was recovered, but nowhere near the crash site. Is that typical? Of course it is. You don't know, you're not going to try and find out, so of course that's normal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Excellent explanation of cutter charges.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZLOaQrl938
    The corner ejection doesn't occur until after the collapse had already started. That indicates that they were caused by debris, not explosives. Likely from the snapping of the corner columns at that point. That would also explain the ejection further down the building as that entire section being smashed apart by the rest of the building would cause ejections on that area.

    But if explosives were placed on the corner columns, it wouldn't just produce an ejection of debris. Any charge capable of cutting through the corner columns would have to be very powerful and would, as a result, produce a very noticeable flash. Neither that video, nor any other I have seen of the towers collapsing, show any flash.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQYFABSlCQ4 Never seen = Never was?

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Clearer audio with other demolitions to compare. You can hear distinctly what sounds exactly like cutter charges right before the building starts collapsing and many minutes prior as seen in the videos taken by the New York firefighters that have spread rapidly over the internet.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duVQ23c6-rE
    I find the audio in that video highly suspect since we've seen this footage before and the two versions don't match up. In the version I linked, the newscaster (speaking live) says, "You can see the firemen assembled here.. The police officers, FBI agents. And we can see the two towers-- A huge explosion now raining debris on all of us-- we'd better get out of the way!" But in your video, the newscaster's voice starts fading out right when he says "The police officers, FBI agents..." The microphone is the only audio source for that recording, it shouldn't suddenly dip out in one video and stay constant in another. Not unless the audio on your video was altered. Since the source of your video is a somewhat sensationalized documentary about the US's unpreparedness for the terrorist attack (and not about the collapses of the towers themselves,) it's likely that they mixed in better quality audio to make it sound good (news broadcasts aren't known for their audio quality.) But even if the audio in your video was legit, the "explosion" still doesn't sound like an explosion. It's not nearly loud enough.
    Any sources that can back that up? It sounded exactly like a cutter charge to me. It is a distinct explosion sound, but now since I was able to provide you with the sound, it's all of a sudden not loud enough, to your standards. Amazing.

    The two videos were not the same versions. Did it not tip you off when the reporters voice faded out as the camera pointed upwards? There was no mic that was feeding his voice into the audio, the video camera in my video was not focused on the reported, and you could only hear his voice in the background. The audio sounds much more crisp, since it is picking up all sound, and not primarily from the reporter. Not only is it legit, it's a better reference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Since you mentioned it earlier, I'm going to go ahead and address AE911truth's Tower 7 list.

    1. Rapid onset of "collapse"
    It wasn't rapid. You've admitted this, Viper. The collapse of the east interior several seconds before the rest of the building shows just how non-rapid it was.
    I've admitted it was not rapid? I admitted that all the SUPPORT columns did NOT simultaneously give way, for a rapid onset of collapse...? Why don't you just imagine that I agree with you, so we can end this "debate" for lack of a less offensive word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a second before the building's destruction
    The testimony provided by AE911 of the firefighter(?) on the ground outside the tower describes a sound "that sounded like a clap of thunder" and a "shock wave" that blew out some windows of the building. A single sound, not a series of them. It's more likely that what he heard was related to the collapse of the east interior, which we both know happened seconds before the rest of the collapse and would have blown out the windows.

    3. Symmetrical "structural failure" -- through the path of greatest resistance -- at free-fall acceleration
    The "path of greatest resistance" up. But since we know that the interior of the building had already partially collapsed, we know that the interior was already significantly weakened. So then it would have had less resistance falling inward than it would have had falling outward or toppling over.
    The whole building came straight down, suggesting all support beams, at once, failed. So it did not lean in one direction as always happened... In some cases buildings might actually roll over. Yes, I've seen a building roll over because of buckling. It actually stayed in tact, because it was made of metal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
    Not exactly it's own footprint. The Verizon building was fairly damaged by the buckling of the facade.

    5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
    Pyroclast is a term for the dust ejected from volcanoes, it doesn't apply here. But dust would be produced whether it was a natural collapse or a controlled one. This point is irrelevant.

    6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
    Most of the accounts of "molten" metal, are actually accounts of red hot metal. Which isn't the same thing. I could go into more detail about this, but I doubt that you agree with this point anyway, Viper, since you don't think thermite was used.
    Again telling me what I agree with. Almost just facepalmed for the third time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE

    Look at that video and let me know what you think it is. I'll tell you what NIST thinks it is... Metal. They claim it is aluminum metal that is glowing "probably" because of materials mixed in with it, which, trust me, is impossible. Also, the colour it glows, and the amount of distance in falling, in daylight, it was bright for. Not the properties of aluminum, surely metal of some sort.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    7. Chemical signature of thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples
    Again, you don't think thermite was involved, so I won't need to go into detail how these "signatures" aren't anything that wouldn't be found in any office building.
    Thermite very well could have been involved, a cutting aid of some sort was probably used. ::facepalm #3::

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
    Iron does oxidize. We call it rusting. But this process can be sped up by sealing the iron in a small space with water (as the debris from the towers would have been when it was buried beneath other debris.)

    9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
    Here is where the list contradicts itself. It's previous three points argued that thermite was used, now it is apparently arguing that demolition charges were used. But anyway, the expert they cite says that it was a controlled demolition based on a video and some images shown to him. We don't know what video he saw. Whether he saw the complete version, or the edited version the AE911truthers use. Was he aware of all the details regarding the fire? We don't know. He even admits that he doesn't know a whole lot about the building and that much of his assessment is guesswork. Regardless, his opinion is still a minority among demolitions experts, especially the ones who do know the building.

    10. Fore-knowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
    The website cites the fact that police and firefighters evacuated the area an hour before 7's collapse as proof of "foreknowledge." But by that time, the firefighters on the ground had already assessed that the building was in danger of collapse and Fire Chief Nigro ordered the area cleared. Not really "foreknowledge".
    Foreknowledge of collapse after a history of non-collapses and never having foreknowledge. Coincidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    then have to listen to you whine about me attacking the "weakest arguments"
    I did not complain about you debating the weakest arguments. So far most of your criticism towards me has been made up in your own head. It's either your delusion, or I think I've come to understand your method of debating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    If you have any desire to sway people's thinking on this matter you might wish to know that at present, from the perspective of this observer, you are so far behind you might want to consider suicide. Try answering some of the challenges instead of sidestepping them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    If you have any desire to sway people's thinking on this matter you might wish to know that at present, from the perspective of this observer, you are so far behind you might want to consider suicide. Try answering some of the challenges instead of sidestepping them.
    And I'm sure you've read through all that and watched the videos... I'm answering all challenges to my ability, most importantly liquid metal. I guess that's not better than putting words in Finger's mouth and slandering him for it.

    People will believe what they want to, who has the upper hand in this conversation to any observer is preconceived based on who has what belief. If you'd like to add to debate go right ahead, I'm sure you wouldn't know where to begin without going off topic anyway. You can just join the many others in criticism while supporting nothing of relevance yourself. Thanks for the useless feedback, though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Viper, your posts suggest you think you are winning the debate with Finger. I thought it would be helpful to you to know that this does not seem to me to be the case.

    Your statement that I would be influenced by which side of the argument I am biased towards was mildly insulting. I can readily distinguish between the style/ structure of an argument and the content. If Finger were doing as badly as you I would be admonishing him for 'letting the side down'.

    I'm sorry my post hit too close to home for you. I'll let you wallow unattended in future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Viper, your posts suggest you think you are winning the debate with Finger. I thought it would be helpful to you to know that this does not seem to me to be the case.

    Your statement that I would be influenced by which side of the argument I am biased towards was mildly insulting. I can readily distinguish between the style/ structure of an argument and the content. If Finger were doing as badly as you I would be admonishing him for 'letting the side down'.

    I'm sorry my post hit too close to home for you. I'll let you wallow unattended in future.
    You argue much like Finger does. Pretend I'm hurt or that I've taken a blow to my ego while assuming you're winning the argument. It's childlike, you're clearly not a man of scientific thinking.

    Because your side is already established, you're not arguing evidence or facts, just your side of the opinion. It's not uncommon, so you don't have to worry about hurting my feelings.

    I already know the facts, many of which lead to almost unquestionable inside work, so who's winning isn't important to me. I know you'd like to think you've hit close to home so I'll let you do that.

    You've heard of the word "sheeple", right? The term refers to a group of people who have formed a (usually brainwashed) consensus who stand up against anyone with an alternate idea of their own. Their numbers give them powers (like zombies) and are strong enough to defeat any individual, and that is what 9/11 truthers are. Unless you're someone who argues unbiasedly against the conspiracy, without having to resort to childishness which is so hard to find (even on a science forum apparently) you're not an individual, just selling the thoughts and ideas of the established consensus, in a world where you can allow others to do your thinking for you.

    And I'm hurt by things you say about me...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I posted what I believed to be some of the strongest arguments. You fail to mention what you find to be incomplete or ignoring basic physics. See what I mean when yet, I say a conversation involves two parties?
    Yes, a conversation does involve two people. That's why I've been begging with you to participate. You said that AE911truth had expert arguments for the conspiracy theory. I asked you to present what you thought was the best one and you stonewall me. Because you refuse, I have no choice but to pick one at random to ridicule. Here we see the founder of the website, Richard Gage, performing a ridiculous demonstration which he uses as proof that it is impossible for part of a building to destroy the rest of it. He tries to cite newton's third law of motion, but has apparently forgotten about laws one and two. Am I being unfair? Am I attacking the most ridiculous claim of the website? I don't know, you never bothered to give me what you thought was the best argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The NIST report is quite large. I'd rather not search for it. The picture I posted of one of the constructions contradicts their assertions, which I'm not going to spend half an hour looking for in order for it to be rejected with your flawed logic.
    We wouldn't know that unless you actually took the time to look through it. You are the one claiming that the document lies. The very least you could do is point out where. What are you afraid of?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    You see the corner collapse in the video, before the structure began to fall. NIST initially measured the collapse time beginning at the corner (and inside) failure (what I'm talking about is visual evidence, not theory) but NIST revised the total collapse time after receiving much scrutiny. The object was to measure how long it took for the top of the building to reach the ground.
    They were right to start measuring the collapse when it actually started. As I've already indicated several times, the east interior of Tower 7 is part of Tower 7 and should be included in the total collapse time. You have yet to demonstrate why it shouldn't. But please, as futile as this request may be, where is this NIST revision you speak of? Links please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Then provide a link to this video. Don't just say that it's "proof" without providing a link. Come on, it's easy. Ctrl+c, Ctr+v.
    ::facepalm:
    That you would facepalm a simple request for a video that you described as "video proof" makes me facepalm. I think I might know what you're talking about, but of course I won't know for sure unless you stop being evasive and just provide sources for the stuff you say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Of course the FDNY will agree with anything NIST and the USGS claims. That was sort of my point. It's the individuals who experienced the event that say otherwise. You miss a lot of points.
    The individuals make up the fire department. They were the ones who were there. They were the ones who faught the fires for hours. If anyone was going to know if that building was coming down, they would be the first. What possible reason would the FDNY have to agree with NIST if NIST is contradicting what they were first-hand observers to? The FDNY was NIST's main source of information for the locations of the fires, you know. So it isn't the FDNY that agrees with NIST, it's NIST that agrees with the FDNY. And who exactly are these firefighters who were on the scene and think it was a controlled demolition? You've linked to one so far. Are there any others?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I have seen them. Why bother asking that question in the first place. I assumed since you know so much about 9/11, you'd have seen these videos at least broadcast on the mainstream media as they have been many times.
    I try not to assume that anyone "should have" seen anything. There's a lot of information out there and assumptions don't help the discussion at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Now to wait and see if you pretend they don't exist after I post them...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylma9nKGxCg Go to 1 min.
    First of all, I disagree with the presenter's assessment that the camera is looking toward the east from the west. The camera is definitely pointing at Tower 1 and we can see Tower 7 just to the left of it (in front of the billow.) So from this layout of the World Trace Center, we can tell that the camera was actually facing south. Second, he says that we know both towers are still standing. We don't, really. All we can see is Tower 1 and some smoke. If you see Tower 2 in there, please point it out. Third, he only shows a few frames and that's not a whole lot to go on, so I went and looked up CNN's live broadcast of that day on the 9/11 TV archive. The main video that CNN uses is a rooftop camera looking on the towers from the North-East. There's a pretty good view of Towers 1, 2, and of Tower 7 so I watched that spot looking for this mysterious plume of smoke. I watched from when tower 2 was hit to when it collapsed, but it wasn't until right after Tower 2 fell that I actually saw it:


    Here's the video. (at 29:20) So the billow in your video was actually the dust rising up from the collapse of the South tower. Tower 2 was not still standing as that guy had said. I don't know how how he could record that video, pick out those few frames, and not know that he was lying.

    As for why it was "never shown again," that's pretty obvious. It's a pretty lousy piece of footage. The action at that time, was the collapse of Tower 2 and there are plenty of better shots to choose from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    And is that not what you heard in the video? Eyes and ears can be deceiving when you've already made you mind about something.
    Yes they can. This explains why you would mistake a slowly rising rumble for an explosion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I understand it is relevant to the conversation but in a video I posted, you can hear what sounds very much like cutter charges. What I'm saying is that audio quality, and position of camera (augmentation) do come into play, you do in fact hear things you might not hear if the camera was no so god quality or several blocks away behind buildings.
    So then why is it that a professional quality TV microphone that's right next to the building not hear explosions when a crappy home video camera that's at least a mile away can hear explosions clearly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    ... According to what or who? You have no idea what they would need to do, working under secrecy. You may only know limited information as to what a demolition crew would commonly do in bringing down a building, which almost always requires no secrecy at all.
    I'm as qualified as you to talk about this stuff, but I do have the benefit of a close friend who happens to be something of an expert on explosives. That and I like to learn how things work. First they need to expose the columns where they plan on planting explosives. This would involve breaking apart anything covering them, typically loud work. Depending on what sort of column they're dealing with, they would weaken each column with a torch (takes a while for each column) and probably drill a hole for explosives. More loud work. After that, they would plant charges tailor made for cutting that specific column and daisy-chain them all together. Then they'd repeat this process for each floor they wanted to plant explosives on. Big buildings typically require multiple floors. But of course, then they'd need to wire the explosives on each floor together, either laying wire through the stair wells or elevator shafts, or drilling through each floor. That too is loud work. It's possible that some half-assed rigging could have been accomplished without alerting anyone, but it's not very likely at all (and practically impossible for the type of rigging truthers think was done to Towers 1 and 2.) Especially since there's still no physical, video, or audio evidence that can only be explained by explosives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Did you see the pictures? The plane vanished. Yes, 95% of the plane was recovered, but nowhere near the crash site. Is that typical? Of course it is. You don't know, you're not going to try and find out, so of course that's normal.
    So you've gone from saying that the plane "vanished" to saying "Yes, 95% of the plane was recovered, but..." Interesting.

    Yes, I have seen the pictures. Here's the smoke plume right after the crash:

    There are multiple eye witnesses who saw the plane going nose-down into the ground. The flight recorder confirms this. Since we know it went straight down into a soft feild (not skidding accross the ground on it's belly, like most unintentional crashes,) it's not strange at all that it would produce a crater like this:

    You can make out the imprint of the fuselage and the wings. A similar shape to the holes left in the sides of the twin towers. Most of the debris and bodily remains were found in this crater. Some as deep as 25 feet. Other debris, including one of the engines, was found as far away as 300 hundred yards. None of this is suspicious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Notice how all those flashes in the controlled demolitions featured were large in number and happened both immediately before and during the collapses? Only a couple of the "flashes" on the Two Towers took place after the collapse had already started and I saw none that happened immediately before the collapse. They don't really align with where the exterior columns connect to the floor trusses. They're too random in occurrence. Remember that that section of the building was on fire. There are lots of things that can cause a tiny flash like that. And we still don't hear any blasts that correspond with the flashes in videos like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Any sources that can back that up? It sounded exactly like a cutter charge to me. It is a distinct explosion sound, but now since I was able to provide you with the sound, it's all of a sudden not loud enough, to your standards. Amazing.
    One sound. You provided me with one sound. Unless you think all the explosions happened instantaneously (and after the collapse already started,) we should hear more of them. Instead we just hear one that is, as previously pointed out, not corroborated by other videos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The two videos were not the same versions. Did it not tip you off when the reporters voice faded out as the camera pointed upwards? There was no mic that was feeding his voice into the audio, the video camera in my video was not focused on the reported, and you could only hear his voice in the background. The audio sounds much more crisp, since it is picking up all sound, and not primarily from the reporter. Not only is it legit, it's a better reference.
    Both videos are the same shot from the same camera. News broadcasts (especially those from 2001) aren't recorded on multiple tracks. They record one audio track from one source (in this case, the microphone.) The only reason his voice would dip down like that would be if someone dipped it down and brought in a sound effect. Again, since the source of the video is a heavily produced documentary that isn't even about the towers themselves, your video has every indication of containing mixed audio.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-x
    I've admitted it was not rapid? I admitted that all the SUPPORT columns did NOT simultaneously give way, for a rapid onset of collapse...? Why don't you just imagine that I agree with you, so we can end this "debate" for lack of a less offensive word.
    Because you acknowledge the collapse of the east interior six seconds before the rest of the building. Unless you're now arguing that two things that happen six seconds apart qualify as "simultaneous," you admitted (however unwittingly) that the collapse wasn't a "sudden onset."

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-x
    The whole building came straight down, suggesting all support beams, at once, failed. So it did not lean in one direction as always happened... In some cases buildings might actually roll over. Yes, I've seen a building roll over because of buckling. It actually stayed in tact, because it was made of metal.
    All support beams did not fail at once. Here's the video again. First some of them fail, then the rest fail causing the entire structure to go six seconds later. That's why it collapsed in on itself. The interior was already significantly weakened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-x
    Again telling me what I agree with. Almost just facepalmed for the third time.
    You had previously made no indication that you believe thermite was used to bring down the towers. Our entire conversation has centered around explosives. It can't be both. Are you now saying that you accept two mutually exclusive explanations for why the towers fell?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-x
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE

    Look at that video and let me know what you think it is. I'll tell you what NIST thinks it is... Metal. They claim it is aluminum metal that is glowing "probably" because of materials mixed in with it, which, trust me, is impossible. Also, the colour it glows, and the amount of distance in falling, in daylight, it was bright for. Not the properties of aluminum, surely metal of some sort.
    Aluminum does glow if it's hot enough. The debris from the offices and the plane itself would have been pushed into those corners. That's the logical place for molten aluminum to be, if it is to be anywhere at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-x
    Thermite very well could have been involved, a cutting aid of some sort was probably used. ::facepalm #3::
    How exactly does thermite (a powder) cut through a vertical column? Surely the truth movement has attempted to demonstrate this feat, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-x
    Foreknowledge of collapse after a history of non-collapses and never having foreknowledge. Coincidence.
    It's not that difficult to tell if a building has become structurally unsound. Especially if you're a trained firefighter. This page contains the testimonies of firefighters who were on the ground that day and recognized that the building was about to come down (You'll have to scroll down.)

    As for this "first time in history" crap, show me a single, entirely steel-framed building that has the same structure as tower 7, burned in the same way as Tower 7, and burned for as long as Tower 7. Buildings aren't interchangeable. Small differences in design can cause dramatic differences in the way they react to fire.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    You argue much like Finger does.
    Hello. Wake up in there. I am not arguing at all. I have nothing to argue about. I am simply making a statement that your argument appears weak in comparison with Finger's. You can ignore this observation if you wish, but it will not alter the fact that an objective review of your argument show it to be poorly presented. I shall cite one example and offer others later if you wish.

    You made the claim the NIST report contained lies.
    You were asked by Finger to specify what lies.
    You replied The NIST report is quite large. I'd rather not search for it.
    I mean really!
    Surely you see that as a component in an argument that is weaker than aerogell chastity belt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I have to agree that's not bad. I wouldn't blow up a 98% rented building. This also makes it less plausible that anyone could have rigged thermite, because there would be employees in almost every space who could see what you were doing.
    Not just implausible, or highly improbable. I would argue that it's practically impossible. Especially since no one has even been able to demonstrate that thermite even could cut through a steel column, let alone a vertical steel column, let alone remotely, let alone on multiple floors in perfectly timed intervals. Even if all this could be done, the amounts of thermite required would be unbelievably high. Everything the truthers say about thermite is just pure nonsense.
    Just to be clear: There is no need to burn through a beam. None. Cutting the bolts where the beams attach to each other is sufficient. Any argument that suggests that thermite would need to burn through a beam is a straw man argument. Indeed, burning through a vertical column would do nothing at all, just shorten the building by a foot or two. It's the horizontal columns that matter.

    Once enough of the bolts or horizontal columns are cut, the vertical beams would buckle just like the cards in a house of cards buckle when you jostle it. It's not because the cards themselves bend. It's because there is nothing joining them.




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That's because of the presumption of guilt/innocence difference. Some people expect others to believe the government's official story about things unless they can prove that story to be false.

    However, the presumption of truth about things the government tells us is not a valid presumption. If nothing else, Iran-Contra should prove to anyone's satisfaction that government officials can and will lie about things, only to reverse themselves later and confess to the lie. So to call the movement "paranoia" really isn't very accurate. They may be wrong, but there's nothing wrong with wanting affirming proof of that. People don't need to believe a government that isn't willing to try and prove its case.

    Anyway, I am glad the movement is mostly proving to be wrong.
    Well, good for you. They've only been unable to produce a single substantial claim for eight years.

    And yes it is paranoia. I'll explain why. First, it's not really the "government's" story, it's the established story. They just call it the "government's" story or the "official" story because they want to create the illusion that you are committing a logical fallacy by accepting it. But the truth is that after the first plane hit, news agencies didn't wait for the CIA to make an official statement. They immediately started piecing things together themselves. Talking to the Airliners, talking to structural experts, exploiting vast networks of middle-east contacts.. you know, what any good journalist would do. They ended up cumulatively developing a fairly accurate picture of what had happened. The "official" government investigations came later and ended up confirming much of what the media reported, but contradicting some of it. Focusing the picture just a little bit more. Since then, other independent agencies have gone into more detail on specific parts of the investigation. Some of it has been contradicted, but there's no reason to think that the main facts (that Islamic extremists hijacked and flew planes into buildings, some of which collapsed from the damage that ensued) are wrong or falsified.
    I'll admit that the more I read, the more true the story gets. I was reading "Men Who Stare at Goats", and noticed just in passing that the author had interviewed the person who taught one of the hijackers martial arts. It was just out of the blue, a random book I was reading just happened to address one of those side issues, but it reinforces the fact that those hijackers weren't just made up people.

    On the other hand, the video footage of the hijackers boarding the plane was probably not provided by "independent channels". The government would have to have been in possession of it before anyone else. There are a lot of elements of this story that we only have from government sources, things that can't be independently confirmed because it's not possible in principle. It doesn't mean we should totally doubt, but it leaves room for people to doubt if they have authority issues.



    But the conspiracy theorists who started the "truth" movement rejected all of this long before they even knew about it. For years prior to 9/11, they proudly declared that they would blame the government for any future terrorist attacks, no matter what, because they believed that a shadow government called the "New World Order" was actively trying to turn every country in the world into Nazi Germany. If that isn't paranoia, I don't know what is. Sure, you're average truther probably doesn't believe this, but there's no doubt that this is where the truth movement came from. It's a lot like religion. They downplay the more radical beliefs so they can appeal to more people, but once they have someone hooked, they start getting them into the more extreme beliefs. By then, the person is so immersed in their dogma and bullshit that they can't think intelligently anymore. This is why they haven't been able to produce a single piece of evidence supporting their claims (though they think they have.) Why they haven't been able or willing to perform any experiments that would test their claims (and they think they shouldn't have to.) Why they always only ever rely on propaganda aimed at the uneducated masses (and they think the established story does too.) They don't care about figuring things out, they only care about convincing people. That's all pseudoscience is.
    This sanctimonious perspective does nothing to unite people. The reason I endulge conspiracy theory so much is because I think that overkill is enough to unify. Anything short of overkill leaves room for debate, and debate divides. This country doesn't need to be divided any more than it already is.

    Even if non-conspiracy theorists don't think they "should" have to present strong evidence for their belief, doing so anyway would be beneficial. Liberal minds insist on understanding everything for them self (rather than just believing what an authority figure tells them), and sometimes that means they bite off more than they can chew. The default when they don't understand is to oppose rather than support. It's unfortunate, but it's not going to change. (I think most liberals were raised by dishonest/manipulative parents, which tells you the importance of being an honest parent.)

    Is it so hard to meet people half way, even over a topic as important and crucial our nation's survival as understanding 911? I think there is enough at stake that we should be willing to put our petty concerns aside and do what is best for the country. We must educate the difficult to educate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Just to be clear: There is no need to burn through a beam. None. Cutting the bolts where the beams attach to each other is sufficient. Any argument that suggests that thermite would need to burn through a beam is a straw man argument.
    Getting to the bolts would be even more difficult than getting at the columns (and they'd be more difficult to cut.) You'd still need to demonstrate how thermite could even cut through anything like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    On the other hand, the video footage of the hijackers boarding the plane was probably not provided by "independent channels". The government would have to have been in possession of it before anyone else.
    Of course the FBI was there immediately to seize all the evidence. That's their job. The same way cops seize footage of a convenient store camera after an armed robbery. What else would you expect?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    This sanctimonious perspective does nothing to unite people.
    The search for scientific truth isn't about uniting people. It's sought for its own sake. This isn't some squabble over who owns what land. There is a right answer. You don't get closer to that answer by compromising what is at least mostly true with something that is definitely not true (and you don't really unite anyone, either.) That's why Intelligent Design is favored by politicians, not scientists. I think it's clear which one you're trying to be here and I have no intention of dredging up this old off-topic.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Just to be clear: There is no need to burn through a beam. None. Cutting the bolts where the beams attach to each other is sufficient. Any argument that suggests that thermite would need to burn through a beam is a straw man argument.
    Getting to the bolts would be even more difficult than getting at the columns (and they'd be more difficult to cut.) You'd still need to demonstrate how thermite could even cut through anything like that.
    Yeah. I think we've established that would be very difficult to successfully set explosives of any kind in the right places. But, just because you've arrived at a conclusion for other reasons doesn't justify using false or misleading arguments about the topic at hand.

    I get frustrated when people make over-sized claims about how much effort would be necessary to destroy the building. Remember that the official story suggests that a fire fueled primarily by ordinary office materials was sufficiently hot to melt the horizontal beams on three floors, once the fire proofing was blasted loose.

    The idea that you would doubt the ability of a deliberately targeted thermite attack to accomplish the same effect as an ordinary fire (Melting horizontal beams) -- strains credibility. As NIST has exhaustively established, the melting of horizontal beams alone is sufficient to destroy the structural integrity of the building. The vertical beams easily buckle without the horizontal beams to brace them in place. So, if there were sabotage, the horizontal beams are what would have been targeted, not the vertical beams.




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    On the other hand, the video footage of the hijackers boarding the plane was probably not provided by "independent channels". The government would have to have been in possession of it before anyone else.
    Of course the FBI was there immediately to seize all the evidence. That's their job. The same way cops seize footage of a convenient store camera after an armed robbery. What else would you expect?
    I don't think it is suspicious that they showed up, not by any means. I'm just saying that circumstances are such that independent confirmation is only possible for some parts of the event. It doesn't prove (or even strongly suggest) foul play, but it makes it difficult to obtain certainty in the matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    This sanctimonious perspective does nothing to unite people.
    The search for scientific truth isn't about uniting people. It's sought for its own sake. This isn't some squabble over who owns what land. There is a right answer. You don't get closer to that answer by compromising what is at least mostly true with something that is definitely not true (and you don't really unite anyone, either.) That's why Intelligent Design is favored by politicians, not scientists. I think it's clear which one you're trying to be here and I have no intention of dredging up this old off-topic.
    Actually, yes it is a squabble. The 911 topic is mostly about what course of action people want the US government to take. People doubting whether Al Quaida even did it is a valid reason not to be in favor of the war. We usually hold others to be innocent until proven guilty, so evidence should be overwhelmingly presented to the public of the non-conspiracy nature of the attack.

    Otherwise, Al Quaida's defense attorney (in court of public opinion) is able to present what is known as an "alternate theory of the crime". And, in most courtroom situations, that alternative theory doesn't have to be overwhelmingly convincing, just possible. The burden rests on the prosecution to disprove the defendant's alternative story.

    At least that's how it would play out if Al Quaida were literally being tried in a court of law for the crime. Since the penalty for many of their operatives is death, that makes it a murder trial, which means the burden is higher than it would be for a petty crime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Yes, a conversation does involve two people. That's why I've been begging with you to participate. You said that AE911truth had expert arguments for the conspiracy theory. I asked you to present what you thought was the best one and you stonewall me. Because you refuse, I have no choice but to pick one at random to ridicule. Here we see the founder of the website, Richard Gage, performing a ridiculous demonstration which he uses as proof that it is impossible for part of a building to destroy the rest of it. He tries to cite newton's third law of motion, but has apparently forgotten about laws one and two. Am I being unfair? Am I attacking the most ridiculous claim of the website? I don't know, you never bothered to give me what you thought was the best argument.
    I'm not saying you're being unfair, maybe just demanding a higher level of involvement in this conversation than I'm willing to take part in. The subject is interesting but the amount of time it takes to respond is ridiculous and I don't think people are going to smarten up before a difference can be made, but this convo is refreshing when compared to idiotic youtube replies.

    First law: Objects at rest will remain at rest unless a force causes the mass to move. The force in this case is gravity. The potential energy is already there, but the building was more than capable of not falling. Being able to retain it's own weight many times, why would a fire that's spread through a small portion of the building weaken the structure enough to collapse? Why would it become so weak that the top portion would cut through it like butter? The buildings were designed to withstand this force, this is extremely incriminating evidence, not proof. What gives me no doubt at all is that it happened three times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    We wouldn't know that unless you actually took the time to look through it. You are the one claiming that the document lies. The very least you could do is point out where. What are you afraid of?
    What I'm afraid of is wasting 3 hours on not only replying to this post but looking through parts of a very fat report that I've already read.

    Here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    Point 11 NIST claims molten aluminum was probably flowing out of one of the buildings but appeared to have a bright orange glow. NISt recognizes this is not expected of liquid aluminum but suggest (without any research at all) that materials from chairs, office equipment, etc, can be the cause of the glow.

    This isn't only unlikely, because the aluminum was glowing entirely, flowing away from the heat source, it's impossible, as far as any evidence I've seen (seldom with my own experience). In any case, this was an assumption NIST made, because they cannot properly identify the material. Why make an assumption if it can be proven wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    The individuals make up the fire department. They were the ones who were there. They were the ones who faught the fires for hours. If anyone was going to know if that building was coming down, they would be the first. What possible reason would the FDNY have to agree with NIST if NIST is contradicting what they were first-hand observers to? The FDNY was NIST's main source of information for the locations of the fires, you know. So it isn't the FDNY that agrees with NIST, it's NIST that agrees with the FDNY. And who exactly are these firefighters who were on the scene and think it was a controlled demolition? You've linked to one so far. Are there any others?
    Yes, there are firefighters who share the same opinion as myself. In fact more people are talking about this conspiracy than any other, and after so long since the event occurred I'm seeing even more people becoming involved. With the amount of evidence piling not only physically but evidence of Govt. corruption we've seen endlessly during the Bush regime makes a simple question like "Where's the undeniable proof" a vague argument.

    "When criminals have unlimited access to mass media manipulation, solid proofs are hard to find"

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    As for why it was "never shown again," that's pretty obvious. It's a pretty lousy piece of footage. The action at that time, was the collapse of Tower 2 and there are plenty of better shots to choose from.
    I figured that also. But I do remember the plumes of smoke being covered constantly on Sept 11th. All day no matter what station I went to there were updates on the situation and I heard repeatedly "Plumes of smoke..." Although I have NEVER seen the plume of smoke I posted until only recently. The only smoke that was covered were the small white clouds. Why do you suppose there was smoke rising from the ground level in the first place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    So then why is it that a professional quality TV microphone that's right next to the building not hear explosions when a crappy home video camera that's at least a mile away can hear explosions clearly?
    This is not high quality sound by any means. I'm sure it was high quality before uploaded to youtube. The problem with this argument is that the charge sound could have been manipulated after the video was shot and likewise the sound could have been edited out of the video you posted. Usually high end microphones will have sound dampers that can be adjusted to limit or reduce the range of sounds picked up to give clearer audio in public places. Cell phones have a basic version of this technology and is very common.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    I'm as qualified as you to talk about this stuff, but I do have the benefit of a close friend who happens to be something of an expert on explosives. That and I like to learn how things work. First they need to expose the columns where they plan on planting explosives. This would involve breaking apart anything covering them, typically loud work. Depending on what sort of column they're dealing with, they would weaken each column with a torch (takes a while for each column) and probably drill a hole for explosives. More loud work. After that, they would plant charges tailor made for cutting that specific column and daisy-chain them all together. Then they'd repeat this process for each floor they wanted to plant explosives on. Big buildings typically require multiple floors. But of course, then they'd need to wire the explosives on each floor together, either laying wire through the stair wells or elevator shafts, or drilling through each floor. That too is loud work. It's possible that some half-assed rigging could have been accomplished without alerting anyone, but it's not very likely at all (and practically impossible for the type of rigging truthers think was done to Towers 1 and 2.) Especially since there's still no physical, video, or audio evidence that can only be explained by explosives.
    Speed of fall, squibs, windows literally blasted out of WTC7, simultaneous failure of ALL support beams within fractions of seconds of each other resulting from sporatic office fires are 3 occurrences that cannot be easily explained. Most of the weight of these buildings are from the support structure itself, which failed entirely and instantly. None of this should even be considered evidence of explosives? If that's not delusional thinking I don't know what is. I'm willing to admit I may be wrong (damn unlikely though). You seem to have conviction that 9/11 was definitely not an inside job, science therefor, against better judgment, will never have a chance to sway your thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    So you've gone from saying that the plane "vanished" to saying "Yes, 95% of the plane was recovered, but..." Interesting.
    Maybe I'm not being clear. The plane crashed, and vanished from the crash site. Another first for me. People assume it's common for a plane to vanish when going at those speeds. They believe 100% of the plane would launch several kilometers or miles after ground impact when there's little to no evidence of this ever happening before. What's interesting is that you believe the Govt. would NOT claim to have found 95% of a plane that didn't crash, when this alone would uncover a giant discrepancy and likely lead to a much mainstream understanding of their conspiracy. Try comparing flight 93 crash site to any other crash site.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Yes, I have seen the pictures. Here's the smoke plume right after the crash:

    There are multiple eye witnesses who saw the plane going nose-down into the ground. The flight recorder confirms this. Since we know it went straight down into a soft feild (not skidding accross the ground on it's belly, like most unintentional crashes,) it's not strange at all that it would produce a crater like this:

    You can make out the imprint of the fuselage and the wings. A similar shape to the holes left in the sides of the twin towers. Most of the debris and bodily remains were found in this crater. Some as deep as 25 feet. Other debris, including one of the engines, was found as far away as 300 hundred yards. None of this is suspicious.
    A good conspiracy will always have eye witnesses. Neither of us can say whatever they're saying is real. What source is that picture of smoke from? How do we know it's actually of the crash in question?

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Notice how all those flashes in the controlled demolitions featured were large in number and happened both immediately before and during the collapses? Only a couple of the "flashes" on the Two Towers took place after the collapse had already started and I saw none that happened immediately before the collapse. They don't really align with where the exterior columns connect to the floor trusses. They're too random in occurrence. Remember that that section of the building was on fire. There are lots of things that can cause a tiny flash like that. And we still don't hear any blasts that correspond with the flashes in videos like this.
    The whole incident pisses me off and that video does especially. I've somewhat recently decided to quit talking about 9/11 and Govt corruption because no one likes hearing about it hours on end, but I can see how the amount of anger that comes from this happening can block someones mind from comprehending the fact that the people they trust and even rely on are the ones that carried out the disaster.

    You know there still hasn't been anyone caught or blamed for 9/11 with any sort of evidence. There have been people accused, who've since then been allowed their freedom, or killed and then have the blame taken away, like Saddam.

    "Finger"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Any sources that can back that up? It sounded exactly like a cutter charge to me. It is a distinct explosion sound, but now since I was able to provide you with the sound, it's all of a sudden not loud enough, to your standards. Amazing.
    One sound. You provided me with one sound. Unless you think all the explosions happened instantaneously (and after the collapse already started,) we should hear more of them. Instead we just hear one that is, as previously pointed out, not corroborated by other videos.
    You said there were no cutter charge sounds. Then you said it didn't sound like a cutter charge and wasn't loud enough, but now you're saying it does sound like a cutter charge? Except it's only one sound, so once again this video is irrelevant? Very interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    All support beams did not fail at once. Here's the video again. First some of them fail, then the rest fail causing the entire structure to go six seconds later. That's why it collapsed in on itself. The interior was already significantly weakened.
    Significantly weakened by the massive fire consuming the entire inside of the building... Right I know, it's the lack of video evidence suggesting there were large enough fires to engulf the inside of the building. In fact video's prove otherwise. Video's also prove there was no significant buckling. People will argue that there weren't videos shot of the damaged side of the building, when that is clearly wrong. Mental gymnastics...

    Besides all experts I've heard from agree, for a total collapse, all support beams must fail. If the support beams do not fail at relatively the same time, you do not get a symmetrical collapse. We've had demonstrations of failed demolitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-x
    Again telling me what I agree with. Almost just facepalmed for the third time.
    You had previously made no indication that you believe thermite was used to bring down the towers. Our entire conversation has centered around explosives. It can't be both. Are you now saying that you accept two mutually exclusive explanations for why the towers fell?
    Why do you assume you already understand my stance? We never talked about thermite but you assume I do not believe it was used, or even that I've accepted one single thing as reality. I don't think reality is going to be discovered by any living being, and there could be many explanations of why all three buildings fell primarily due to fire or damage there was no evidence of. The problem is that 90% of the evidence I've seen leans towards one single conclusion (to me) which is the buildings did not fall on their own, and there was more aid than fire alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    As for this "first time in history" crap, show me a single, entirely steel-framed building that has the same structure as tower 7, burned in the same way as Tower 7, and burned for as long as Tower 7. Buildings aren't interchangeable. Small differences in design can cause dramatic differences in the way they react to fire.
    Yet with all the building fires there has been on this planet, three buildings, with two separate designs, for the first time in history (fact, not crap), collapsed, during the same terrorist attack, and within hours of each other. These are the facts, this is what we know. You can ask unanswerable questions, it doesn't change the fact that small sporatic office fires caused three buildings, sophisticated in design, to weaken and collapse fully.

    Does this prove 9/11 was an inside job? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Start piecing things together instead of asking for undeniable proofs and it becomes obvious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    This is interesting and entertaining if you like Joe Rogan, but objective. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuRaWUGtEAA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Let me point out one more thing, when something seems too perfect to be true, it is just that. All the coincidences of 9/11 are too perfect, in my opinion. Take this video for example, albeit totally unrelated:

    http://www.break.com/index/parking-spot-revenge.html

    This video is obviously a fake, because the woman in the red convertible is a good driver, considering how well she parked between two close vehicles with a level of expertise. Despite this, when she began backing up into the space, she went at an extreme angle and did not align herself properly, while moving very slowly, allowing the white car to steal the spot. The white car parked so close to the car beside it, there just so happened to be enough room for the red car to squeeze in also. The red car just so happened to be a convertible, so that the woman could get out of the vehicle. An obvious faked video. This is exactly the sort of thing I think of, although to much lesser scale, when thinking about 9/11. Everyone who clicked "Like" to that video believed it was real, and would also scrutinize if I were to even debate it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    You argue much like Finger does.
    Hello. Wake up in there. I am not arguing at all. I have nothing to argue about. I am simply making a statement that your argument appears weak in comparison with Finger's. You can ignore this observation if you wish, but it will not alter the fact that an objective review of your argument show it to be poorly presented. I shall cite one example and offer others later if you wish.

    You made the claim the NIST report contained lies.
    You were asked by Finger to specify what lies.
    You replied The NIST report is quite large. I'd rather not search for it.
    I mean really!
    Surely you see that as a component in an argument that is weaker than aerogell chastity belt.
    This will not motivate me to do work I don't care to do (but I did anyway) which I'm not paid to do so I will ignore that comment :-D, especially considering the level of stubbornness I've seen here. Sorry for not living up to your standards but do you know how long it takes to find specific things in the NIST report? It's much easier to ask questions than look endlessly for answers and their sources and although I may be obligated to do so to fulfill my "part" in this conversation I may choose to do otherwise. It's even easier to scrutinize someone in a debate you're not even involved in. Kudos on pointing out what you found weak about the argument, though, a bit more productive than previous comments that were obviously aimed to display your frustration despite how true or untrue your comment was.

    But here's an honest suggestion: try reading more and I'm sure it will be to your benefit. Before you finish reading, or better yet, before you START reading (anything, not just this debate), try not to come to a conclusion before you have any information to base that conclusion off of. That's what defines closed mindedness, and most often plagues intelligent people which is a pity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    First law: Objects at rest will remain at rest unless a force causes the mass to move. The force in this case is gravity. The potential energy is already there, but the building was more than capable of not falling. Being able to retain it's own weight many times, why would a fire that's spread through a small portion of the building weaken the structure enough to collapse? Why would it become so weak that the top portion would cut through it like butter? The buildings were designed to withstand this force, this is extremely incriminating evidence, not proof. What gives me no doubt at all is that it happened three times.
    This is a physics problem. Often the real laws of physics differ from what we would intuitively expect. There's a concept called "chemical energy of deformation", which means the amount of energy needed to break something. It's a different concept from an object's ability to support weight. For example: often a flexible tree branch can't support much weight, but it takes a lot of energy to break it. Sometimes it's the other way around. Some objects are great at supporting weight, but easy to break because they're brittle.

    The energy of a moving object is Mass * Velocity Squared /2, so a falling object that gathers speed as it falls begins to have exponentially more energy. Rubble falling from great height, as in a very tall building, has disproportionately more energy than rubble falling in a short building, but the "chemical energy of deformation" is the same. So: rubble from a tall building actually should cut through the lower support structure like it was butter. That is the right thing to expect.

    There's a more involved explanation I can give if you're curious. I gave it earlier already, but I might be able to simplify it further if you're interested in understanding the physics of this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    We wouldn't know that unless you actually took the time to look through it. You are the one claiming that the document lies. The very least you could do is point out where. What are you afraid of?
    What I'm afraid of is wasting 3 hours on not only replying to this post but looking through parts of a very fat report that I've already read.

    Here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    Point 11 NIST claims molten aluminum was probably flowing out of one of the buildings but appeared to have a bright orange glow. NISt recognizes this is not expected of liquid aluminum but suggest (without any research at all) that materials from chairs, office equipment, etc, can be the cause of the glow.

    This isn't only unlikely, because the aluminum was glowing entirely, flowing away from the heat source, it's impossible, as far as any evidence I've seen (seldom with my own experience). In any case, this was an assumption NIST made, because they cannot properly identify the material. Why make an assumption if it can be proven wrong.
    It would be interesting to know what the justification was. I really don't want to hear that it's justified to assume this "because it agrees with the rest of our paradigm". Excessive adherence to paradigm is the bane of all scientific progress. You can't move forward if you're not willing to seriously question anything that you already believe.





    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    The individuals make up the fire department. They were the ones who were there. They were the ones who faught the fires for hours. If anyone was going to know if that building was coming down, they would be the first. What possible reason would the FDNY have to agree with NIST if NIST is contradicting what they were first-hand observers to? The FDNY was NIST's main source of information for the locations of the fires, you know. So it isn't the FDNY that agrees with NIST, it's NIST that agrees with the FDNY. And who exactly are these firefighters who were on the scene and think it was a controlled demolition? You've linked to one so far. Are there any others?
    Yes, there are firefighters who share the same opinion as myself. In fact more people are talking about this conspiracy than any other, and after so long since the event occurred I'm seeing even more people becoming involved. With the amount of evidence piling not only physically but evidence of Govt. corruption we've seen endlessly during the Bush regime makes a simple question like "Where's the undeniable proof" a vague argument.
    Yeah. Its kind of silly to cite firemen as evidence against, because many of them have come out and said they thought they heard something suspicious. Not all of them have, however. Some firemen didn't perceive anything to be fishy at all about the way the collapse occurred.

    Since there's no consensus, it would be silly for either side to claim justification by referring to their experiences.




    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    I'm as qualified as you to talk about this stuff, but I do have the benefit of a close friend who happens to be something of an expert on explosives. That and I like to learn how things work. First they need to expose the columns where they plan on planting explosives. This would involve breaking apart anything covering them, typically loud work.
    This part is definitely wrong. There's no reason at all that a saboteur would want to waste any of their time on a column. The horizontal supports are the only target worth destroying.

    Depending on what sort of column they're dealing with, they would weaken each column with a torch (takes a while for each column) and probably drill a hole for explosives. More loud work.


    The horizontal supports were thin, but numerous. I think all you'd really have to do is scrape the fire proofing off with a knife, then instead of planting a charge inside the beam, you'd wrap the charge around the outside. That's for a thermite (or other super-heating) approach.

    We already know that, without fire proofing, the horizontal supports were vulnerable to extreme heat. How do we know this? Well, we know this because failure of the horizontal supports due to a fire is the very reason NIST cites for the failure of the three floors the plane hit.

    The kinds of materials that would have been available to a saboteur would probably be too expensive to use on an ordinary construction project, because the kind of money you're willing to kill 3,000 people for is usually enough to buy stuff a construction company would not ordinarily consider "cost effective".

    After that, they would plant charges tailor made for cutting that specific column and daisy-chain them all together. Then they'd repeat this process for each floor they wanted to plant explosives on. Big buildings typically require multiple floors. But of course, then they'd need to wire the explosives on each floor together, either laying wire through the stair wells or elevator shafts, or drilling through each floor. That too is loud work. It's possible that some half-assed rigging could have been accomplished without alerting anyone, but it's not very likely at all (and practically impossible for the type of rigging truthers think was done to Towers 1 and 2.) Especially since there's still no physical, video, or audio evidence that can only be explained by explosives.
    The real question here is: how hard were the horizontal supports to reach? Would there have been crawl spaces between the floors?



    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    So you've gone from saying that the plane "vanished" to saying "Yes, 95% of the plane was recovered, but..." Interesting.
    Maybe I'm not being clear. The plane crashed, and vanished from the crash site. Another first for me. People assume it's common for a plane to vanish when going at those speeds. They believe 100% of the plane would launch several kilometers or miles after ground impact when there's little to no evidence of this ever happening before. What's interesting is that you believe the Govt. would NOT claim to have found 95% of a plane that didn't crash, when this alone would uncover a giant discrepancy and likely lead to a much mainstream understanding of their conspiracy. Try comparing flight 93 crash site to any other crash site.
    You know, even if there is no conspiracy as such, there's still always a chance the president authorized Air Force jets accompanying the plane to shoot it down. The "passengers revolted" story is clearly more flattering to our national pride, but not nearly as parsimonious. Crashed planes usually don't explode or anything exotic like that, and there would have been no reason to deny access to reporters to film the wreckage, once the forensic teams were done with their work.

    (At the very least, I would expect a comprehensive set of FBI photographs to have been released to the public domain by now, if there were nothing to hide.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    It's much easier to ask questions than look endlessly for answers...
    Fox News agrees with you.

    But you haven't just been asking questions, you know; you've been making accusations and assertions as well. You accused the NIST report of lying, but wouldn't say where. The moment anyone forces you to elaborate, you become incredibly evasive and slippery because you admittedly don't want to do the work that's required to be thorough in your own research. Making vague assertions based on generalized information might work on conspiracy theory forums where everyone already agrees with you, but this is a science forum. On a science forum, you'd better be prepared to get specific. If you either can't or don't want to, then you shouldn't have posted anything in the first place. As tedious as it may be for you, you have to research your claims before you post them. Yes, it means actually reading a document you provide a link to. Yes, this means it'll sometimes take more than an hour to post a response. Don't like it? Stop posting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    First law: Objects at rest will remain at rest unless a force causes the mass to move. The force in this case is gravity. The potential energy is already there, but the building was more than capable of not falling. Being able to retain it's own weight many times, why would a fire that's spread through a small portion of the building weaken the structure enough to collapse? Why would it become so weak that the top portion would cut through it like butter? The buildings were designed to withstand this force, this is extremely incriminating evidence, not proof. What gives me no doubt at all is that it happened three times.
    Second Law: The more mass an object has, the more force is required to move/stop it. (F=ma) Like you said, the potential energy was already there. Buildings are constantly fighting the forces of gravity. All that needs to happen in order to trigger a collapse is to weaken the structure to the point where gravity can do the rest. This is what happened to the top sections of Towers 1 and 2. Once that downward motion starts, it takes all the more force to stop it and is even compounded by gravitational acceleration. If this force is more than the resistance offered by the structure below it, then those floors will fail. This is also what happened to Towers 1 and 2. I know you think it's impossible because Richard Gage said it was. But he has yet to effectively demonstrate how the towers would offer up enough resistance to stop the collapse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    What I'm afraid of is wasting 3 hours on not only replying to this post but looking through parts of a very fat report that I've already read.
    If you've already read it, then it should be easier. (By the way, this post took me at least four hours. I did lots of reading.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    Point 11 NIST claims molten aluminum was probably flowing out of one of the buildings but appeared to have a bright orange glow. NISt recognizes this is not expected of liquid aluminum but suggest (without any research at all) that materials from chairs, office equipment, etc, can be the cause of the glow.

    This isn't only unlikely, because the aluminum was glowing entirely, flowing away from the heat source, it's impossible, as far as any evidence I've seen (seldom with my own experience). In any case, this was an assumption NIST made, because they cannot properly identify the material. Why make an assumption if it can be proven wrong.
    I've already pointed out that aluminum does glow under the right conditions and even when separated from its heat source. We know that lots of aluminum and debris would have ended up in that corner and that that corner was on fire. So how exactly, is it an assumption that the molten liquid is molten debris? The most you could say is that it's a guess, but not an uneducated one. It still explains a lot more and relies on fewer assumptions than the "molten steel from thermite planted in advance" explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Yes, there are firefighters who share the same opinion as myself.
    Where are they? Who are they? You've provided one so far, while I've provided interviews that demonstrate a consensus among firefighters on the ground that the building was coming down on its own as well as the written statement from the on-duty Fire Chief himself. Only 14 actual firefighters have signed ae911truth's petition and none of them were FDNY or at ground zero that day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    "When criminals have unlimited access to mass media manipulation, solid proofs are hard to find"
    The same could be said about the uneducated masses of youtube.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    But I do remember the plumes of smoke being covered constantly on Sept 11th. All day no matter what station I went to there were updates on the situation and I heard repeatedly "Plumes of smoke..." Although I have NEVER seen the plume of smoke I posted until only recently. The only smoke that was covered were the small white clouds. Why do you suppose there was smoke rising from the ground level in the first place?
    Because burning jet fuel is still subject to gravity. So of course there would be some fires at ground-level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    This is not high quality sound by any means. I'm sure it was high quality before uploaded to youtube. The problem with this argument is that the charge sound could have been manipulated after the video was shot and likewise the sound could have been edited out of the video you posted. Usually high end microphones will have sound dampers that can be adjusted to limit or reduce the range of sounds picked up to give clearer audio in public places. Cell phones have a basic version of this technology and is very common.
    You still have no appreciation for how loud demolition charges are. This is largely my fault. My posts in the past were too ambiguous. Right now, I'm going to be very specific and very clear.

    A quiet night in a desert is 30 decibels. Human speech is about 60. Eighty-five db is when you start to get mild ear damage and 125db is when your ears start ringing. 120db is when most microphones would not only cut out, but become damaged. A very conservative estimate worked out by my friend (the explosives expert) and me puts the sound of a demolition setup at about 147-150 decibels from about 400 meters away (where the reporter was.) This approaches "ear-death" levels. 180db and your ear tissue would be instantly and irrevocably destroyed. No, you cannot "suppress" something this loud with noise cancellation. This is the type of sound that would hurt all the joints in your body. Remember that and that this is a very conservative estimate, then watch this higher quality version of that video again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Speed of fall, squibs, windows literally blasted out of WTC7, simultaneous failure of ALL support beams within fractions of seconds of each other...
    I can tell you don't know what you're talking about because you used the word "squibs." But for the very last time, the columns did not fail simultaneously. Look at the video one more time. Here's another angle. Now here's the first one again. East penthouses collapsed. That's at least five* columns failing. Then, six seconds later, more columns fail. Six seconds. Not simultaneous. Is this getting through?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Maybe I'm not being clear. The plane crashed, and vanished from the crash site. Another first for me.
    It "vanished" from the crash site in the same sense that this deer vanished from its crash site. (Warning, gore.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Try comparing flight 93 crash site to any other crash site.
    Ok.
    Iranian Airliner Crash kills 168.

    Went straight into the ground producing a similar, but larger crater (because it was a larger plane.) Most of the debris was buried in the crater. Same type of crash, same result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    You said there were no cutter charge sounds. Then you said it didn't sound like a cutter charge and wasn't loud enough, but now you're saying it does sound like a cutter charge? Except it's only one sound, so once again this video is irrelevant? Very interesting.
    I said no such thing. I said that it wasn't a cutter charge because it didn't sound like a cutter charge and I explained specifically why. It's too quiet. On top of that, we would also expect there to be many more of them, and we don't hear them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Significantly weakened by the massive fire consuming the entire inside of the building... Right I know, it's the lack of video evidence suggesting there were large enough fires to engulf the inside of the building. In fact video's prove otherwise. Video's also prove there was no significant buckling. People will argue that there weren't videos shot of the damaged side of the building, when that is clearly wrong. Mental gymnastics...
    Where did I, or anyone, say that the fires consumed the entire building? They were on the first ten floors and there's ample photographic and video evidence that corroborates this as well as testimony from the firefighters themselves. But that just means that they were in on it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The problem is that 90% of the evidence I've seen leans towards one single conclusion (to me) which is the buildings did not fall on their own, and there was more aid than fire alone.
    I very much doubt that you've seen all the evidence. You hadn't seen the east penthouse collapse until I showed you. You hadn't seen aluminum glow orange until I showed you. The real problem is likely that 100% of the evidence you have seen is from conspiracy theorists sources. Sources whom, as I've already demonstrated, intentionally ignore information that doesn't support their conclusion. So you end up forming your conclusions based on other people's interpretation of things you don't understand. That's why you hear a rumble and call it cutter charges. Why you see a segmented collapse and call it simultaneous and uniform. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm being direct. You don't know what you're talking about so stop making a fool of yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Yet with all the building fires there has been on this planet, three buildings, with two separate designs, for the first time in history (fact, not crap), collapsed, during the same terrorist attack, and within hours of each other. These are the facts, this is what we know. You can ask unanswerable questions, it doesn't change the fact that small sporatic office fires caused three buildings, sophisticated in design, to weaken and collapse fully.
    With all the building fires on this planet, how many have happened on entirely steel-framed high-rise buildings? How many had been hit by a commercial jet at 500mph? How many had had their fireproofing blown off by the blast? How many have had bits of a 110 story building fall on it? How many fires went unfought for hours because of a broken water main? How many buildings were designed with an unusually small number of vertical columns? If you were to break your habit of not examining the details, the suspicion would melt away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax
    The real question here is: how hard were the horizontal supports to reach?
    Harder than reaching the vertical ones.

    *edited
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    It's much easier to ask questions than look endlessly for answers...
    Fox News agrees with you.

    But you haven't just been asking questions, you know; you've been making accusations and assertions as well. You accused the NIST report of lying, but wouldn't say where. The moment anyone forces you to elaborate, you become incredibly evasive and slippery because you admittedly don't want to do the work that's required to be thorough in your own research. Making vague assertions based on generalized information might work on conspiracy theory forums where everyone already agrees with you, but this is a science forum. On a science forum, you'd better be prepared to get specific. If you either can't or don't want to, then you shouldn't have posted anything in the first place. As tedious as it may be for you, you have to research your claims before you post them. Yes, it means actually reading a document you provide a link to. Yes, this means it'll sometimes take more than an hour to post a response. Don't like it? Stop posting.
    I agree that it's not fair to accuse NIST of lying, since they're a professional organization of people who's professional reputations would be endangered by any deliberate misrepresentation of facts.

    However, I'm worried anytime I see someone throwing the word "science" around, and then tenuously holding to a default position. Neither claim: either an internal conspiracy, nor a terrorist attack, is really any more exceptional than the other. To correctly assume a default position as a scientist, one or the other claim has to be extraordinary, and the burden is then set against the extraordinary claim.




    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    Point 11 NIST claims molten aluminum was probably flowing out of one of the buildings but appeared to have a bright orange glow. NISt recognizes this is not expected of liquid aluminum but suggest (without any research at all) that materials from chairs, office equipment, etc, can be the cause of the glow.

    This isn't only unlikely, because the aluminum was glowing entirely, flowing away from the heat source, it's impossible, as far as any evidence I've seen (seldom with my own experience). In any case, this was an assumption NIST made, because they cannot properly identify the material. Why make an assumption if it can be proven wrong.
    I've already pointed out that aluminum does glow under the right conditions and even when separated from its heat source. We know that lots of aluminum and debris would have ended up in that corner and that that corner was on fire. So how exactly, is it an assumption that the molten liquid is molten debris? The most you could say is that it's a guess, but not an uneducated one. It still explains a lot more and relies on fewer assumptions than the "molten steel from thermite planted in advance" explanation.
    The Molten Steel from Thermite theory would also require that the saboteurs used quite a large volume of Thermite, which wouldn't have been necessary in order to accomplish their objective. I agree that it's just a plain ridiculous assertion all around.


    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Yes, there are firefighters who share the same opinion as myself.
    Where are they? Who are they? You've provided one so far, while I've provided interviews that demonstrate a consensus among firefighters on the ground that the building was coming down on its own as well as the written statement from the on-duty Fire Chief himself. Only 14 actual firefighters have signed ae911truth's petition and none of them were FDNY or at ground zero that day.
    A consensus implies zero dissent, not one guy dissenting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    "When criminals have unlimited access to mass media manipulation, solid proofs are hard to find"
    The same could be said about the uneducated masses of youtube.
    Not really. Of necessity, primary sources are usually only available to a select few investigative reporters, if any. Sometimes they're only available from a press release.

    No primary source = no possibility of proof. At least, that is if you want reliable proof. If there were a conspiracy, the best evidence we ever find will be indirect. Whistle blowers are not reliable. Any that do come forward can easily be made to appear quacks. Only the person they're ratting out really knows what their position of authority/responsibility was, and they can lie to make it appear lower than the whistle blower is claiming, or they can lie and say the whistle blower was incompetent, mentally unstable, or malcontent during their time as an employee.

    The evidence you're likely to find if there's a media black out is only whatever a cover up wouldn't think to cover up. Bloggers aren't going to directly interview Dick Cheney, President Bush, Rudy Guliani, ..... probably won't be able to get appointments with anyone who was there. Even whistle blowers are unlikely to go to a blogger.

    That means only one side of the debate is free to gather evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    But I do remember the plumes of smoke being covered constantly on Sept 11th. All day no matter what station I went to there were updates on the situation and I heard repeatedly "Plumes of smoke..." Although I have NEVER seen the plume of smoke I posted until only recently. The only smoke that was covered were the small white clouds. Why do you suppose there was smoke rising from the ground level in the first place?
    Because burning jet fuel is still subject to gravity. So of course there would be some fires at ground-level.
    The NIST report claims that the fuel was almost completely consumed in the first few minutes, and that combustible materials inside the building were the primary fuel for the fire that raged afterward.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    This is not high quality sound by any means. I'm sure it was high quality before uploaded to youtube. The problem with this argument is that the charge sound could have been manipulated after the video was shot and likewise the sound could have been edited out of the video you posted. Usually high end microphones will have sound dampers that can be adjusted to limit or reduce the range of sounds picked up to give clearer audio in public places. Cell phones have a basic version of this technology and is very common.
    You still have no appreciation for how loud demolition charges are. This is largely my fault. My posts in the past were too ambiguous. Right now, I'm going to be very specific and very clear.

    A quiet night in a desert is 30 decibels. Human speech is about 60. Eighty-five db is when you start to get mild ear damage and 125db is when your ears start ringing. 120db is when most microphones would not only cut out, but become damaged. A very conservative estimate worked out by my friend (the explosives expert) and me puts the sound of a demolition setup at about 147-150 decibels from about 400 meters away (where the reporter was.) This approaches "ear-death" levels. 180db and your ear tissue would be instantly and irrevocably destroyed. No, you cannot "suppress" something this loud with noise cancellation. This is the type of sound that would hurt all the joints in your body. Remember that and that this is a very conservative estimate, then watch this higher quality version of that video again.
    [/quote]

    And you don't think that the concrete walls of the building would have suppressed some of that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    You said there were no cutter charge sounds. Then you said it didn't sound like a cutter charge and wasn't loud enough, but now you're saying it does sound like a cutter charge? Except it's only one sound, so once again this video is irrelevant? Very interesting.
    I said no such thing. I said that it wasn't a cutter charge because it didn't sound like a cutter charge and I explained specifically why. It's too quiet. On top of that, we would also expect there to be many more of them, and we don't hear them.
    Even in the non-conspiracy version of the theory, the roar of the collapsing upper floors would have drowned out a lot of the explosives. No need to put them on the very lowest floors because by the time the rubble reaches that point it's got enough momentum to finish the job. It's the fact it ever gathered such momentum in the first place that a lot of people find suspicious.

    Of course, my perspective is that 30 feet of free fall is easily enough to make the process work. The only question left for me is how 3 floors could give so suddenly, instead of slowly giving way as they got hotter and hotter. If they had done so slowly, there wouldn't have been a "hammer effect".

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax
    The real question here is: how hard were the horizontal supports to reach?
    Harder than reaching the vertical ones.
    I think this guy explained it better than me.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...d&pid=10741765

    The only alternative to exposed trusses would be to put the ceiling below them, which apparently gives you nearly 3 feet of crawl space between floors. I used to install Dish Network systems in people's houses, and I'm a little bit familiar with the tools and methods you have to employ in order to run new wiring into a person's house. It would not be wise to build it without crawl spaces between the floors if you want any kind of electrical maintenance done on the building.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    However, I'm worried anytime I see someone throwing the word "science" around, and then tenuously holding to a default position. Neither claim: either an internal conspiracy, nor a terrorist attack, is really any more exceptional than the other. To correctly assume a default position as a scientist, one or the other claim has to be extraordinary, and the burden is then set against the extraordinary claim.
    The ridiculous conspiracy required to pull off what 9/11 truthers think happened (or even what you think happened) is very extraordinary. I have done nothing but point this out this entire thread. But you, as usual, are more interested in pretending it has equal ground for the sake of argument. The conspiracy theory is on the level of intelligent design creationism, expanding earth theory, or homeopathic medicine (though, I wouldn't be surprised if you thought those things were credible too.) It makes absolutely zero sense (except to the ignorant) and its supporters have never been able to produce a single substantial piece of evidence for it, only excuses as to why none exists. I'm not saying that the standing explanation is complete, but it's still at least mostly true while the conspiracy theory is not only wrong, but dishonest at a fundamental level. You have fun trying to build a bridge between reason and insanity, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    A consensus implies zero dissent, not one guy dissenting.
    Consensus:
    1. A majority of opinion.
    2. A general agreement or concord

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The NIST report claims that the fuel was almost completely consumed in the first few minutes, and that combustible materials inside the building were the primary fuel for the fire that raged afterward.
    A few minutes is more than enough time for burning jet fuel to fall to the ground and light a few cars on fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    And you don't think that the concrete walls of the building would have suppressed some of that?
    No. And it didn't have concrete walls either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax
    I think this guy explained it better than me.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...d&pid=10741765

    The only alternative to exposed trusses would be to put the ceiling below them, which apparently gives you nearly 3 feet of crawl space between floors. I used to install Dish Network systems in people's houses, and I'm a little bit familiar with the tools and methods you have to employ in order to run new wiring into a person's house. It would not be wise to build it without crawl spaces between the floors if you want any kind of electrical maintenance done on the building.
    No. You keep thinking this is as simple as sticking something to the side of a truss. You'd have to expose it. That means ripping up the floor and the roof.

    The trusses aren't what failed, anyway. They warped and then pulled in the external vertical supports. Those are what broke and triggered the collapse.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    However, I'm worried anytime I see someone throwing the word "science" around, and then tenuously holding to a default position. Neither claim: either an internal conspiracy, nor a terrorist attack, is really any more exceptional than the other. To correctly assume a default position as a scientist, one or the other claim has to be extraordinary, and the burden is then set against the extraordinary claim.
    The ridiculous conspiracy required to pull off what 9/11 truthers think happened (or even what you think happened) is very extraordinary. I have done nothing but point this out this entire thread. But you, as usual, are more interested in pretending it has equal ground for the sake of argument. The conspiracy theory is on the level of intelligent design creationism, expanding earth theory, or homeopathic medicine (though, I wouldn't be surprised if you thought those things were credible too.) It makes absolutely zero sense (except to the ignorant) and its supporters have never been able to produce a single substantial piece of evidence for it, only excuses as to why none exists. I'm not saying that the standing explanation is complete, but it's still at least mostly true while the conspiracy theory is not only wrong, but dishonest at a fundamental level. You have fun trying to build a bridge between reason and insanity, though.
    If 911 truthers had a consistent story, with exact details (a story impossible to build without direct access to primary sources, which most truthers do not have), then I'd have to agree with you. The most ridiculous versions of the story are well.... quite ridiculous.

    The general idea that insiders in the US government and/or industry may have played a role, is actually less crazy than the idea that a bunch of semi-illiterate Arabs based in Afghanistan pulled the whole attack off without help. It involves overcoming fewer barriers more easily.

    Instead, we are lead to believe that these terrorists got off a "lucky shot". Without knowing the specifics of how the building was constructed, they managed to guess that an aircraft attack on the upper floors would lead to total collapse. They managed to pick a day for the attack when the US air force would be running a drill that made it difficult to assign fighter escorts to the hijacked planes. (A procedure that is always followed whenever a plane is hijacked, or loses radio contact.) The choosing of the flights themselves might have been possible for a terrorist to plan, if a bit difficult, but the smuggling of box knives would at least require an inside man working somewhere that would give them access. (On the other hand, I remember carrying a pocket knife through airport security once in the 90's without troubles, .... so maybe that part wasn't so hard.)

    A purposeful demolition might be a bit extravagant, but don't you ever wonder where they got their information, at least?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax
    I think this guy explained it better than me.

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...d&pid=10741765

    The only alternative to exposed trusses would be to put the ceiling below them, which apparently gives you nearly 3 feet of crawl space between floors. I used to install Dish Network systems in people's houses, and I'm a little bit familiar with the tools and methods you have to employ in order to run new wiring into a person's house. It would not be wise to build it without crawl spaces between the floors if you want any kind of electrical maintenance done on the building.
    No. You keep thinking this is as simple as sticking something to the side of a truss. You'd have to expose it. That means ripping up the floor and the roof.
    Exposing the floor and ceiling would only be necessary if you want to expose the top and bottom. You could weaken it from the sides without leaving the crawl space. And yes: with the right tools/technology it would be as simple as attaching things to the sides. From what I've seen of the drawings (still reviewing them), the trusses were much taller than they were wide, so a sidelong attack on the beam would be the most likely to burn through it.

    The reason professional controlled demolitions are done the way they are is because it is the best combination of price effectiveness and safety. Neither price effectiveness, nor safety, are an issue in sabotage, so you've got to get your mind out of that box. There is a much wider assortment of tools available once you quit trying to think like a construction worker.


    The trusses aren't what failed, anyway. They warped and then pulled in the external vertical supports. Those are what broke and triggered the collapse.
    Yes they are. Without them failing first, the second failure would have been impossible. The vertical supports were extremely weak against any force applied from the side. Just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, the vertical supports were only as strong as the bolts holding them together, once the sagging horizontal beams started pulling them inward.

    Once they began to bend inward, all the angles changed, and the vertical force from above was no longer a fully vertical force.

    /
    \

    Is a very different beam from

    |
    |
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The general idea that insiders in the US government and/or industry may have played a role, is actually less crazy than the idea that a bunch of semi-illiterate Arabs based in Afghanistan pulled the whole attack off without help. It involves overcoming fewer barriers more easily.
    This is what I mean when I say that the conspiracy theory requires ignorance. And this statement, kojax, is ignorant on a few levels. Fourteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, none were from Afghanistan. Some of them were college-educated in fields ranging from agriculture to technology. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "mastermind" of the attack (currently imprisoned and awaiting trial) has a degree in mechanical engineering. A few went to school in Europe and one even studied in the US. You could have found this out in 10 minutes on Wikipedia, but instead you decided to stereotype all of them as "semi-illiterate." Underestimation is what allowed the attack to happen in the first place.

    Your conspiracy theory requires the involvement and complacency too many people to be even remotely plausible. People in the CIA, the FBI, the Military, air traffic controllers all across the North-East coast, the World Trade Center ownership, the World Trade Center security, the FDNY, the NYPD, hundreds of journalists, demolition and construction crews who planted the explosives, demolition and construction crews who worked in cleanup... We're talking about thousands of people here. The only reason you think this sort of thing is "believable" is because you're ignorant.

    There's a quote from Napoleon that goes "Never ascribe to malice what can also be explained by incompetence." The FBI and the CIA fucked up. Hey, guess what? They're made up of human beings, not robots and super-soldiers. They make mistakes. A big one being that they didn't share information with each other, prior to 9/11. If they had, they probably would have pieced together the men's ties to Al Qaeda while they were living in the US and stopped the whole attack from happening. But they didn't, so it happened. Conspiracy theorists never talk about the terrorist attacks that have been prevented, just the one that got through. It's always one ice berg that sinks the world's largest cruise ship, one bullet that kills an Austrian Archduke igniting a World War, or one piece of launch foam that destroys a billion-dollar space shuttle. If you think a "lucky shot" is unbelievable, then you need to start paying attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The reason professional controlled demolitions are done the way they are is because it is the best combination of price effectiveness and safety. Neither price effectiveness, nor safety, are an issue in sabotage, so you've got to get your mind out of that box.
    This "box" is called reality. Outside the box is the world of fantasy, a whimsical realm where RDX blasts are perfectly silent and the government is run by Lex Luthor with the unwavering loyalty of thousands of people all over the world. Safety and cost have nothing to do with it. The reason the area you intend to plant explosives would have to be completely exposed is because you'd have to make sure the charges cut all the way through. You can't do that while they're still attached to things.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Yes they are. Without them failing first, the second failure would have been impossible. The vertical supports were extremely weak against any force applied from the side. Just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, the vertical supports were only as strong as the bolts holding them together, once the sagging horizontal beams started pulling them inward.
    No. You're wrong. Severing the trusses from the vertical columns would not produce the type of collapse observed. It would produce a pancake collapse. You appear to be accepting things that directly contradict what you think happened. The bowing of the exterior columns proves that the trusses were warping (and that their connections were a lot stronger than you think.) They were not (nor did they need to be) severed from the external columns. Here's a better explanation of it.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    Forum Freshman Fairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    FAIRY-LAND
    Posts
    6
    Thanks for the update. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The general idea that insiders in the US government and/or industry may have played a role, is actually less crazy than the idea that a bunch of semi-illiterate Arabs based in Afghanistan pulled the whole attack off without help. It involves overcoming fewer barriers more easily.
    This is what I mean when I say that the conspiracy theory requires ignorance. And this statement, kojax, is ignorant on a few levels. Fourteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, none were from Afghanistan. Some of them were college-educated in fields ranging from agriculture to technology. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "mastermind" of the attack (currently imprisoned and awaiting trial) has a degree in mechanical engineering. A few went to school in Europe and one even studied in the US. You could have found this out in 10 minutes on Wikipedia, but instead you decided to stereotype all of them as "semi-illiterate." Underestimation is what allowed the attack to happen in the first place.
    Ok, in the first place, you'll notice that I called them "Arabs". I said "based out of Afghanistan" because clearly their support was coming from there. I chose those words carefully because I knew full well that most of them were from Saudi Arabia originally. (Hence the word "Arab" instead of "Afghan")

    The fact some of the 19 themselves were educated doesn't undermine the fact that most of the organization supporting them is quite uneducated. And yes, I expected that a few of them would possess advanced degrees, but for some reason that didn't help them pass flight school.

    Your conspiracy theory requires the involvement and complacency too many people to be even remotely plausible. People in the CIA, the FBI, the Military, air traffic controllers all across the North-East coast, the World Trade Center ownership, the World Trade Center security, the FDNY, the NYPD, hundreds of journalists, demolition and construction crews who planted the explosives, demolition and construction crews who worked in cleanup... We're talking about thousands of people here. The only reason you think this sort of thing is "believable" is because you're ignorant.
    How many corrupt police officers go decades undetected, all along secretly serving the interests of some criminal organization (or gang or individual) or another? It happens in real life all the time, and it doesn't require command level corruption. Why do you assume that cooperation with a terrorist would require command level corruption?

    If you overestimate what is needed, you're committing the same error as you accuse me of. "" Underestimation is what allowed the attack to happen in the first place."



    There's a quote from Napoleon that goes "Never ascribe to malice what can also be explained by incompetence." The FBI and the CIA fucked up. Hey, guess what? They're made up of human beings, not robots and super-soldiers. They make mistakes. A big one being that they didn't share information with each other, prior to 9/11. If they had, they probably would have pieced together the men's ties to Al Qaeda while they were living in the US and stopped the whole attack from happening. But they didn't, so it happened. Conspiracy theorists never talk about the terrorist attacks that have been prevented, just the one that got through. It's always one ice berg that sinks the world's largest cruise ship, one bullet that kills an Austrian Archduke igniting a World War, or one piece of launch foam that destroys a billion-dollar space shuttle. If you think a "lucky shot" is unbelievable, then you need to start paying attention.
    It's basic psychology. You should always doubt claims of incompetence when they are made too easily, with too little reserve, and too much self-effacement. Why?

    Because when people genuinely screw up, the natural response is to try and understate how badly their own incompetence contributed to it. The closer an accusation like incompetence is to the truth, the more vehemently a person will attempt to defend themselves from it. It's only when such an accusation has no merit at all that people find it unthreatening. (Because they know they're in control of how far it will go, before they can stop it.)

    One interesting thing that I've seen pointed out is that apparently no fighter escort was assigned to these planes. Yet, fighter escorts are always assigned to commercial flights that lose radio contact as a matter of procedure. An interesting example of a way that the government is not routinely incompetent.




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The reason professional controlled demolitions are done the way they are is because it is the best combination of price effectiveness and safety. Neither price effectiveness, nor safety, are an issue in sabotage, so you've got to get your mind out of that box.
    This "box" is called reality. Outside the box is the world of fantasy, a whimsical realm where RDX blasts are perfectly silent and the government is run by Lex Luthor with the unwavering loyalty of thousands of people all over the world. Safety and cost have nothing to do with it. The reason the area you intend to plant explosives would have to be completely exposed is because you'd have to make sure the charges cut all the way through. You can't do that while they're still attached to things.
    If you're using a heat driven attack, like thermite, then all you've got to do is make sure and apply pressure long enough for the heat to melt and/or cut through the beam. There are lots of destructive mixes you can make using exotic chemicals, custom made machines, or creative approaches. And, you don't need to obliterate the beam, just cut it. The main key is to attack it in a way, or from a direction that it is not designed to resist an attack from.

    We're not talking Lex Luthor, super-massive-secret-organization either. You sound really ignorant about the subject at hand when you go off on that tangent. One guy with expertise in a relevant field (or maybe even just a very smart hobbyist) could easily devise a method of doing it, secure the materials, and come up with a plan to implement it, so long as they had a big enough bank roll.

    You seem to operate under this illusion that all the competent people in the world pursue ordinary careers in science or industry, and none of them would ever be available for a thing like this. I can tell you that a lot of geniuses are nihilists too, and lack the social skills, or patience to engage the academic world. It doesn't stop them from learning the materials. A good social networker who was planning a job could easily recruit such an individual, offer them money, appeal to their over sized ego a little, and then use them to plan the technical aspects. (They wouldn't go to the police afterward, because even if they did they wouldn't have the social skills to be taken seriously.)




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Yes they are. Without them failing first, the second failure would have been impossible. The vertical supports were extremely weak against any force applied from the side. Just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, the vertical supports were only as strong as the bolts holding them together, once the sagging horizontal beams started pulling them inward.
    No. You're wrong. Severing the trusses from the vertical columns would not produce the type of collapse observed. It would produce a pancake collapse. You appear to be accepting things that directly contradict what you think happened. The bowing of the exterior columns proves that the trusses were warping (and that their connections were a lot stronger than you think.) They were not (nor did they need to be) severed from the external columns. Here's a better explanation of it.
    Ok, I'll try and be more specific.

    As the horizontal beams warped, their horizontal length shortened. That exerted a horizontal force on the vertical columns. The vertical columns didn't have any way of resisting a horizontal force. (Or rather, the horizontal beams were supposed to be the one resisting horizontal forces, not exerting them.)

    This should be very easy to understand. I don't want to have to resort to drawing a picture, because then I'd have to scan it, and get it hosted somewhere.... and that's just a huge hassle. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying about this issue, though, and I'm at a loss for how to explain it any better than I already have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #269  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Why do you assume that cooperation with a terrorist would require command level corruption?
    It doesn't, unless you are claiming that the terrorist action was actually directed by the command level. Oh, wait. That is what you are claiming.

    Sometimes kojax, I can hardly wait for you to grow up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #270  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Why do you assume that cooperation with a terrorist would require command level corruption?
    It doesn't, unless you are claiming that the terrorist action was actually directed by the command level. Oh, wait. That is what you are claiming.

    Sometimes kojax, I can hardly wait for you to grow up.
    No it's not what I'm claiming. It never has been. My version of the conspiracy theory is that private citizens were responsible, with perhaps the aid of a few well placed government people. It would have been somebody who stood to make a lot of money off the war, or from predictable stock outcomes.

    But... I play both sides of the fence. I'm interested in arriving at a conclusion for the right reason: the evidence makes it inevitable. Everyone else seems to want to arrive at the one they prefer, or the one that matches their paradigm. I haven't arrived at any conclusions yet, because none of them are proven to me yet. I don't think it is scientific to arrive at conclusions that haven't been proven.

    All I've been hearing from people is reasoning of the form: "This agrees with my paradigm, therefore I will continue to believe it absent any proof to the contrary."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #271  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    This high level conspiracy stuff has really been bothering me. Does nobody understand how easy it is to derail a bureaucracy from within? Consider the case of a corrupt cop:

    Drug Dealer X has hired Police Detective Y to run interference for him. Whenever a case comes up involving Drug Dealer X, detective Y is always right there with free time available, volunteering to pursue it. If a team of people is assigned to that case, instead of just Detective Y, then Detective Y does his best to get put on that team, and then "oops" keeps making suggestions that don't pan out, steering the team away from crucial bits of evidence that he knows about, and downplaying theories that are likely to lead somewhere when they come up in discussion.

    Do you think the other officers are even aware of Detective Y's intentions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #272  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    [ Everyone else seems to want to arrive at the one they prefer, or the one that matches their paradigm. I haven't arrived at any conclusions yet, because none of them are proven to me yet. I don't think it is scientific to arrive at conclusions that haven't been proven.
    1. No scientific conclusion is ever proven, unless by proven we mean there is such a substantial body of mutual supportive evidence in favour of this hypothesis that to reject it would be churlish, if not to say crazy.
    2. Google Mark Lane - Rush to Judgement. In my recollection he started the whole Kennedy assassination conspiracy thing. For someone of my generation that was the conspiracy theory we grew up on. I learnt to sift and balance evidence by following that story for the next couple of decades.
    3. I absolutely entertained the possibility that this could have been something quite different from what it seemed.
    4. I have examined the data and the arguments pro and con and my rejection of the conspiracy theorists is based upon this exmination, not upon any preconceived positions.
    5. Just so we are absolutely clear: I love conspiracy theories. I long for one of them to be true. I am predisposed to believe in them, because I would find it intellectually and emotionally satisfying. But I will not allow this desire for them to be real blind me to where the evidence is pointing.
    6. None of this takes away from the fact that the Bush administration took full advantage of the incident to implement many actions, foreign and domestic, that they would otherwise have had difficulty implementing. Nor does it mean that there have been people or companies who benefited financially from the event. So what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #273  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I would be curious about your position, then, Ophiolite. Finger has made a number of very suspect arguments that make me doubt his objectivity. Not that my arguments have been perfect either, but at least I make them for both sides of the debate.

    I could narrow a conspiracy to sabotage the WTC down to 3 people. For the planes, I think you'd need 19 authentic hijackers (but they don't necessarily have to die), plus 2 more to procure and modify 3 planes to fly by remote. That's quite a lot of money, because passenger sized planes aren't cheap.

    On balance, I think the official story is slightly more probable, but not overwhelmingly more probable, and I'd prefer that it be overwhelmingly more probable before I adopt it as a final position. And, I don't really enjoy believing it. My perspective on human nature is such that I would prefer to rule it out, but I can't, at least not without more evidence than I have. It's not an impossible feat, and I know there are people evil enough to try it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #274  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    On balance, I think the official story is slightly more probable, but not overwhelmingly more probable, and I'd prefer that it be overwhelmingly more probable before I adopt it as a final position.
    What is the motive for conspiracy? If the Americans were looking for an excuse to finish George seniors war, then why make it all look like the work of a group totally not associated with (and indeed perhaps hostile towards) Saddam and company? Why not simply pin it more directly on Iraq from the get go? Sounds like some risky or shoddy conspiracy-ing there. I reckon Junior and his friends just capitalised on a genuine tragedy. Or would you suggest another motive unrelated to the obvious consequences of the attacks?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #275  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The fact some of the 19 themselves were educated doesn't undermine the fact that most of the organization supporting them is quite uneducated. And yes, I expected that a few of them would possess advanced degrees, but for some reason that didn't help them pass flight school.
    They didn't have to pass. It's not like they needed to learn to land and take off. Flying a plane that's already in the air is pretty easy. But the leadership of any organization has to be educated by necessity (and the leadership of Al Qaeda is pretty educated.) My point was that you simply stereotyped them into "a bunch of semi-illiterate Arabs" in an uninformed attempt to belittle their intelligence and, likewise, their ability to carry out the plan. What's ironic about this is that the plan still wasn't carried out perfectly. The hijackers of Flight 11 tried to announce to the passengers of the plane "We're returning to the airport" but had accidentally pushed the wrong button, sending the message to a very confused Air-Traffic Controller. The hijackers of flight 77 apparently had trouble finding their target and had to circle back around to locate the pentagon. The hijackers of flight 93 failed their mission entirely because they were unable to maintain control of the plane. They were not supermen, but they still weren't idiots and they still managed to succeed despite their many mistakes.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    How many corrupt police officers go decades undetected, all along secretly serving the interests of some criminal organization (or gang or individual) or another? It happens in real life all the time, and it doesn't require command level corruption. Why do you assume that cooperation with a terrorist would require command level corruption?
    You don't see how being on the take might be just a little bit different than being complacent in the murder of over 3,000 civilians?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's basic psychology. You should always doubt claims of incompetence when they are made too easily, with too little reserve, and too much self-effacement. Why?

    Because when people genuinely screw up, the natural response is to try and understate how badly their own incompetence contributed to it. The closer an accusation like incompetence is to the truth, the more vehemently a person will attempt to defend themselves from it. It's only when such an accusation has no merit at all that people find it unthreatening. (Because they know they're in control of how far it will go, before they can stop it.)
    You're basing this on what, exactly? "Basic psychology?" I think I missed that chapter. You're also forgetting that, at first, the CIA said it was the FBI's fault and the FBI said it was the CIA's fault. Some individual members of each organization came forward (with evidence) and admitted their failure. But officially speaking, neither organization was willing to accept responsibility even after the 9/11 commission had determined both organizations had failed. [EDIT]A correction: The CIA director maintained that his organization during and after the 9/11 Commission, the FBI director had acknowledged his organization's failure by that time.[/edit]

    One quick question, kojax; do you bother to research anything you say? Do you even perform a quick google search? It just seems to me like you're typing the first things that pop into your head.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    One interesting thing that I've seen pointed out is that apparently no fighter escort was assigned to these planes. Yet, fighter escorts are always assigned to commercial flights that lose radio contact as a matter of procedure. An interesting example of a way that the government is not routinely incompetent.
    Flight 11 had been crashed 32 minutes after the hijackers had taken control, Flight 175 was after fifteen minutes, Flight 77 was 46 minutes, and flight 93 was 35 minutes. In the post-9/11 world, the expected scramble time over the continental US at a high threat-level is about 30 minutes. But before 9/11, the time was over an hour. Remember, those estimates are for wartime conditions (we weren't at war the morning of September 11, 2001,) and that it would still take time for Air-Traffic control to determine that a given plane was hijacked. Contrary to the claims of conspiracy theorists, fighters were scrambled that morning, they just didn't get there in time.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If you're using a heat driven attack, like thermite, then all you've got to do is make sure and apply pressure long enough for the heat to melt and/or cut through the beam. There are lots of destructive mixes you can make using exotic chemicals, custom made machines, or creative approaches. And, you don't need to obliterate the beam, just cut it. The main key is to attack it in a way, or from a direction that it is not designed to resist an attack from.

    We're not talking Lex Luthor, super-massive-secret-organization either. You sound really ignorant about the subject at hand when you go off on that tangent. One guy with expertise in a relevant field (or maybe even just a very smart hobbyist) could easily devise a method of doing it, secure the materials, and come up with a plan to implement it, so long as they had a big enough bank roll.

    You seem to operate under this illusion that all the competent people in the world pursue ordinary careers in science or industry, and none of them would ever be available for a thing like this. I can tell you that a lot of geniuses are nihilists too, and lack the social skills, or patience to engage the academic world. It doesn't stop them from learning the materials. A good social networker who was planning a job could easily recruit such an individual, offer them money, appeal to their over sized ego a little, and then use them to plan the technical aspects. (They wouldn't go to the police afterward, because even if they did they wouldn't have the social skills to be taken seriously.)
    One thing you simply don't understand, kojax, is that everything you say is nothing but wild speculation. You can imagine all these complex ways someone could possibly bring down a building and make it look exactly like a fire-induced progressive collapse, but the fact remains that you do not have a single shred of evidence that supports your claim. All you have to offer is speculation (often uninformed speculation) and excuses as to why you think you shouldn't have to provide any evidence in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Ok, I'll try and be more specific.

    As the horizontal beams warped, their horizontal length shortened. That exerted a horizontal force on the vertical columns. The vertical columns didn't have any way of resisting a horizontal force. (Or rather, the horizontal beams were supposed to be the one resisting horizontal forces, not exerting them.)
    How is this any different from the standing explanation? Why would the building structure have to be sabotaged in order for this to happen?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Finger has made a number of very suspect arguments that make me doubt his objectivity. Not that my arguments have been perfect either, but at least I make them for both sides of the debate.
    Objectivity isn't about arguing for both sides, it's about studying the nature of the object without bias. Straddling the fence the way that you do is like having a dual bias and is why compromising between the two viewpoints (as you're trying to do) doesn't help anyone get to the actual truth of the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    5. Just so we are absolutely clear: I love conspiracy theories. I long for one of them to be true. I am predisposed to believe in them, because I would find it intellectually and emotionally satisfying. But I will not allow this desire for them to be real blind me to where the evidence is pointing.
    It may surprise you to know, kojax, that the above is true for me as well. Conspiracy theories (especially ones involving politicians you don't like) are intriguing and make people feel smart for seeing what most others don't (that's why they make for good plots in movies.) But unlike people who buy into these types of conspiracy theories, I care more about finding out what actually happened. The reason I'm not straddling the fence -- arguing for both sides like you are -- is the same reason I don't straddle the fence between evolution and creationism, or between geo-sphericity and flat-earth theory. I know too much about the Earth to think it's flat and I know too much about the 9/11 attacks to think that the towers were brought down by anything other than planes and subsequent fires.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #276  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I would be curious about your position, then, Ophiolite. .
    OK. You asked.

    My conclusion is that you are a self deluded prat who is allowing their over active imagination to act without benefit of logic, common sense, adherence to the laws of physics, awareness of human psychology, or any other intellectually beneficial trait. You spurt disconnected nonsense that is refuted by Fingers consitently logical and well supported arguments which in your enthusiasm to be 'open minded' you fail uterly to see, before moving on to the next piece of childish nonsense that has grabbed your attention. It is clear you have absolutely no idea of the complexities involved in any of the scenarios you are painting nor in how any aspect of business, government and the world at large work. In short you should get an education and a grip before allowing yourself to indulge in this kind of nonsense again.

    That's my position and please remember you did ask.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #277  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    How many corrupt police officers go decades undetected, all along secretly serving the interests of some criminal organization (or gang or individual) or another? It happens in real life all the time, and it doesn't require command level corruption. Why do you assume that cooperation with a terrorist would require command level corruption?
    You don't see how being on the take might be just a little bit different than being complacent in the murder of over 3,000 civilians?
    Conscience wise? Sure.

    Tactics wise? Identical.




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's basic psychology. You should always doubt claims of incompetence when they are made too easily, with too little reserve, and too much self-effacement. Why?

    Because when people genuinely screw up, the natural response is to try and understate how badly their own incompetence contributed to it. The closer an accusation like incompetence is to the truth, the more vehemently a person will attempt to defend themselves from it. It's only when such an accusation has no merit at all that people find it unthreatening. (Because they know they're in control of how far it will go, before they can stop it.)
    You're basing this on what, exactly? "Basic psychology?" I think I missed that chapter. You're also forgetting that, at first, the CIA said it was the FBI's fault and the FBI said it was the CIA's fault. Some individual members of each organization came forward (with evidence) and admitted their failure. But officially speaking, neither organization was willing to accept responsibility even after the 9/11 commission had determined both organizations had failed. [EDIT]A correction: The CIA director maintained that his organization during and after the 9/11 Commission, the FBI director had acknowledged his organization's failure by that time.[/edit]

    One quick question, kojax; do you bother to research anything you say? Do you even perform a quick google search? It just seems to me like you're typing the first things that pop into your head.
    And yet, the Bush Administration's publicly announced position has constantly been to claim incompetence.

    I've told you already that I don't believe every member of government was "all in it together". Those who weren't in it, would do what I suggested, and try to avoid being accused of incompetence. As for the Bush Administration themselves, maybe they know what happened, and see an incompetence claim as a way of avoiding further scrutiny. (Doesn't necessarily mean they're accomplices, just covering something up.)


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If you're using a heat driven attack, like thermite, then all you've got to do is make sure and apply pressure long enough for the heat to melt and/or cut through the beam. There are lots of destructive mixes you can make using exotic chemicals, custom made machines, or creative approaches. And, you don't need to obliterate the beam, just cut it. The main key is to attack it in a way, or from a direction that it is not designed to resist an attack from.

    We're not talking Lex Luthor, super-massive-secret-organization either. You sound really ignorant about the subject at hand when you go off on that tangent. One guy with expertise in a relevant field (or maybe even just a very smart hobbyist) could easily devise a method of doing it, secure the materials, and come up with a plan to implement it, so long as they had a big enough bank roll.

    You seem to operate under this illusion that all the competent people in the world pursue ordinary careers in science or industry, and none of them would ever be available for a thing like this. I can tell you that a lot of geniuses are nihilists too, and lack the social skills, or patience to engage the academic world. It doesn't stop them from learning the materials. A good social networker who was planning a job could easily recruit such an individual, offer them money, appeal to their over sized ego a little, and then use them to plan the technical aspects. (They wouldn't go to the police afterward, because even if they did they wouldn't have the social skills to be taken seriously.)
    One thing you simply don't understand, kojax, is that everything you say is nothing but wild speculation. You can imagine all these complex ways someone could possibly bring down a building and make it look exactly like a fire-induced progressive collapse, but the fact remains that you do not have a single shred of evidence that supports your claim. All you have to offer is speculation (often uninformed speculation) and excuses as to why you think you shouldn't have to provide any evidence in the first place.
    Just research safe cracking techniques that have been used over the years sometime. Things are not nearly as hard to destroy as you're making them sound, and I think you know it.

    Among the myriad ways criminals have found to destroy the walls of a bank vault, I'm certain a few methods exist that would work to destroy a horizontal beam in a sky scraper. Heat driven methods are the ones I lean toward because we know for a fact that heat was a vulnerability. Are you going to tether yourself to the ridiculous position these beams were heat resistant?

    At the simplest level, if you want to make a cut on the cheap, just take a whole bunch of welding rods, mount them so they're all in contact with the beam, put a spring behind the mounting so pressure will continue to be exerted as they cut deeper into the beam. (You could do this by attacking two beams at once. The spring pushes one set of rods left, and the other right, into nearby beams.) You can devise the whole device just by going to a local machinist shop and telling them what you want done. Just open a phone book. There are at least 5 in my area, one of which I've done business with before, and they've shown me their abilities. I'm not certain this method would work, but it's one of several that are worth trying out on a beam.

    If I were given the task of sabotaging the WTC, I would follow a very simple procedure.

    Step 1: Get specs on the building. (Hopefully the person who hired me has them.)

    Step 2: Having determined that the horizontal beams are the best target, I would go online and start researching chemical compounds until I find one that does what I want. (Or narrow it down to a top 5 list of favorites).

    Step 3: Ask my handler to try and acquire those materials for me.

    Step 4: Head over to a machine shop in my area, and have them dummy up some steel beams for me that match the specs for the ones in the WTC.

    Step 5: Go to Radio Shack for bomb parts. (I've done enough electrical wiring projects that I can say with authority: Radio Shack does in fact sell all the parts you need to build a basic bomb ignition)

    Step 6: Get some cell phones, and modify their smart cards so that I can use them as precise timers.

    Step 7: Find a secluded place to start testing. (Just so happens my family owns some land out in Montana that would be suitable. It's secluded, and Montanans have a tendency not to consider it their business to know what you're doing on your own land. )

    Step 8: After devising the most compact and effective means I can for cutting the beams, I'll need an insider at the WTC to grant me clearance, and a cover as an electrician doing electrical work, so I can freely access the crawl spaces. It might take me a week or two. I'll probably want to set up 15-25 floors.


    Like most things in life, the problem is only complicated if you make it complicated. Terrorists have been blowing up our soldiers for years now using shoe-string technology, and we're having a hard time coming to terms with that because people are so quick to assume that you need a sophisticated method in order to destroy a sophisticated target. This is simply not true. It might be true in the world of make-believe-because-I-want-to-feel-safe-at-night, but it's the furthest thing from the truth in real life.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Ok, I'll try and be more specific.

    As the horizontal beams warped, their horizontal length shortened. That exerted a horizontal force on the vertical columns. The vertical columns didn't have any way of resisting a horizontal force. (Or rather, the horizontal beams were supposed to be the one resisting horizontal forces, not exerting them.)
    How is this any different from the standing explanation? Why would the building structure have to be sabotaged in order for this to happen?
    You'd only need it if you wanted simultaneous failure on multiple floors. (Or progressively timed failure, for a more controlled collapse)

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Finger has made a number of very suspect arguments that make me doubt his objectivity. Not that my arguments have been perfect either, but at least I make them for both sides of the debate.
    Objectivity isn't about arguing for both sides, it's about studying the nature of the object without bias. Straddling the fence the way that you do is like having a dual bias and is why compromising between the two viewpoints (as you're trying to do) doesn't help anyone get to the actual truth of the matter.
    I'm not trying to compromise. I'm trying to pursue both simultaneously. But whenever I'm in a chat room where one side is overrepresented compared with the other, then I usually choose the underdog.

    My goal is to be presented with all the evidence I possibly can for both views, and gradually accumulate the best evidence, while discrediting the evidence that deserves to be discredited.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    5. Just so we are absolutely clear: I love conspiracy theories. I long for one of them to be true. I am predisposed to believe in them, because I would find it intellectually and emotionally satisfying. But I will not allow this desire for them to be real blind me to where the evidence is pointing.
    It may surprise you to know, kojax, that the above is true for me as well. Conspiracy theories (especially ones involving politicians you don't like) are intriguing and make people feel smart for seeing what most others don't (that's why they make for good plots in movies.) But unlike people who buy into these types of conspiracy theories, I care more about finding out what actually happened. The reason I'm not straddling the fence -- arguing for both sides like you are -- is the same reason I don't straddle the fence between evolution and creationism, or between geo-sphericity and flat-earth theory. I know too much about the Earth to think it's flat and I know too much about the 9/11 attacks to think that the towers were brought down by anything other than planes and subsequent fires.
    I wish you'd present what you know, then, rather than make arguments from incredulity. Why don't you tell me what has convinced you?


    I don't really need the boost to my ego. (In case nobody has noticed, I am already quite arrogant.) I just don't want to be one of those WW2 Germans who lives next to a tire factory and thinks the bad smell is coming from burning tires instead of burning humans.

    Everything I've read about WW2 points to a method called "Big Lie Theory". It's the theory that people will not question a lie if it is of a sufficient magnitude, or affects their paradigm too greatly. And, contrary to what it might seem, the method worked perfectly in WW2 at accomplishing what it was intended to do. No lesson against doing it was learned. (Most of the real perpetrators got out of Nazi Germany before it fell, kept all their money, and lived prosperous lives in other countries after the war.) Do you really expect those people won't try to go for round 2?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #278  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Conscience wise? Sure.

    Tactics wise? Identical.
    Tactically speaking, it makes zero sense to kill 3,000 of your own people, destroying two of your major financial buildings, and wrecking your own economy. Tactically speaking, it is impossibly difficult for thousands of people (and yes, there would have to be thousands of people involved or complacent in your conspiracy theory) to remain absolutely quiet about anything even remotely as damaging to the conscience as murdering 3,000 civilians. Your organized crime comparison only makes sense to you because you, apparently, get all your information from movies.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    And yet, the Bush Administration's publicly announced position has constantly been to claim incompetence.

    I've told you already that I don't believe every member of government was "all in it together". Those who weren't in it, would do what I suggested, and try to avoid being accused of incompetence. As for the Bush Administration themselves, maybe they know what happened, and see an incompetence claim as a way of avoiding further scrutiny. (Doesn't necessarily mean they're accomplices, just covering something up.)
    You still don't understand anything. At least the CIA and the FBI would have to be involved in order to fabricate the evidence for the hijackers. The 9/11 commission would have to be involved to keep their investigation from reaching the truth. NIST would have to be involved in order to keep from discovering how the towers actually fell. FDNY and NYPD would have to be involved so as not to contradict NIST's findings. Structural engineers and demolitions experts everywhere would have to be involved so as not to notice the fraudulence of NIST's finding. That's not to mention all the air-traffic controllers who heard and saw the hijackings happen in real-time, the families of those who called from the planes, the video tapes that didn't hear explosions. You are beyond foolish if you think a small number of people could pull off what you think happened simply hoping that all those people would fall in line. Again, real life isn't like a movie.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Just research safe cracking techniques that have been used over the years sometime. Things are not nearly as hard to destroy as you're making them sound, and I think you know it.

    Among the myriad ways criminals have found to destroy the walls of a bank vault, I'm certain a few methods exist that would work to destroy a horizontal beam in a sky scraper. Heat driven methods are the ones I lean toward because we know for a fact that heat was a vulnerability. Are you going to tether yourself to the ridiculous position these beams were heat resistant?

    At the simplest level, if you want to make a cut on the cheap, just take a whole bunch of welding rods, mount them so they're all in contact with the beam, put a spring behind the mounting so pressure will continue to be exerted as they cut deeper into the beam. (You could do this by attacking two beams at once. The spring pushes one set of rods left, and the other right, into nearby beams.) You can devise the whole device just by going to a local machinist shop and telling them what you want done. Just open a phone book. There are at least 5 in my area, one of which I've done business with before, and they've shown me their abilities. I'm not certain this method would work, but it's one of several that are worth trying out on a beam.

    If I were given the task of sabotaging the WTC, I would follow a very simple procedure.

    Step 1: Get specs on the building. (Hopefully the person who hired me has them.)

    Step 2: Having determined that the horizontal beams are the best target, I would go online and start researching chemical compounds until I find one that does what I want. (Or narrow it down to a top 5 list of favorites).

    Step 3: Ask my handler to try and acquire those materials for me.

    Step 4: Head over to a machine shop in my area, and have them dummy up some steel beams for me that match the specs for the ones in the WTC.

    Step 5: Go to Radio Shack for bomb parts. (I've done enough electrical wiring projects that I can say with authority: Radio Shack does in fact sell all the parts you need to build a basic bomb ignition)

    Step 6: Get some cell phones, and modify their smart cards so that I can use them as precise timers.

    Step 7: Find a secluded place to start testing. (Just so happens my family owns some land out in Montana that would be suitable. It's secluded, and Montanans have a tendency not to consider it their business to know what you're doing on your own land. )

    Step 8: After devising the most compact and effective means I can for cutting the beams, I'll need an insider at the WTC to grant me clearance, and a cover as an electrician doing electrical work, so I can freely access the crawl spaces. It might take me a week or two. I'll probably want to set up 15-25 floors.


    Like most things in life, the problem is only complicated if you make it complicated. Terrorists have been blowing up our soldiers for years now using shoe-string technology, and we're having a hard time coming to terms with that because people are so quick to assume that you need a sophisticated method in order to destroy a sophisticated target. This is simply not true. It might be true in the world of make-believe-because-I-want-to-feel-safe-at-night, but it's the furthest thing from the truth in real life.
    See what I mean? You've made absolutely no attempt to provide any evidence for your theory. You're just making excuses as to why you think you shouldn't have to provide any.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You'd only need it if you wanted simultaneous failure on multiple floors. (Or progressively timed failure, for a more controlled collapse)
    So, what you're saying is that it looks exactly like a progressive collapse in every way, but you're going to believe it was controlled anyway. Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm not trying to compromise. I'm trying to pursue both simultaneously. But whenever I'm in a chat room where one side is overrepresented compared with the other, then I usually choose the underdog.
    So you just pick whatever side seems weakest and argue for it ad-nauseum. This gives you psychological gratification since you're predisposed to sympathy for "underdogs." Not surprising since most people are. That's why conspiracy theories and fringe beliefs are so appealing (especially in movies.) But did it ever occur to you that the reason the conspiracy theory is "underrepresented" is because it's full of shit?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My goal is to be presented with all the evidence I possibly can for both views, and gradually accumulate the best evidence, while discrediting the evidence that deserves to be discredited.
    You have not looked at evidence this entire thread, kojax. You simply ignorantly rationalize away all the evidence I bring up that contradicts you.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Everything I've read about WW2 points to a method called "Big Lie Theory".
    I think you just read 1984, found it compelling, and decided that people are sheep. Hitler's lie didn't work just because it would have been devastating to the world-view of the people of Germany, it worked because Hitler had direct control over virtually everything in the German government and media. Power that he achieved through the solidarity and near-religious devotion of his party members which had been built upon the back of political scapegoating, uber-nationalism, and deep-seeded European antisemitism. By contrast, Americans (even those of the same political party) are constantly arguing over almost everything. Of course we learned the lesson of Nazi Germany. That's why the civil rights movement happened, why the Vietnam War was so unpopular, why we never locked up all the Muslims after 9/11, why half the country knows how bullshit Fox News is, and why conspiracy theories are so trendy among celebrities. We Americans love to argue about everything all the bloody time and we're goddamn proud of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    My conclusion is that you are a self deluded prat who is allowing their over active imagination to act without benefit of logic, common sense, adherence to the laws of physics, awareness of human psychology, or any other intellectually beneficial trait. You spurt disconnected nonsense that is refuted by Fingers consitently logical and well supported arguments which in your enthusiasm to be 'open minded' you fail uterly to see, before moving on to the next piece of childish nonsense that has grabbed your attention. It is clear you have absolutely no idea of the complexities involved in any of the scenarios you are painting nor in how any aspect of business, government and the world at large work. In short you should get an education and a grip before allowing yourself to indulge in this kind of nonsense again.
    What he said.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #279  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Conscience wise? Sure.

    Tactics wise? Identical.
    Tactically speaking, it makes zero sense to kill 3,000 of your own people, destroying two of your major financial buildings, and wrecking your own economy. Tactically speaking, it is impossibly difficult for thousands of people (and yes, there would have to be thousands of people involved or complacent in your conspiracy theory) to remain absolutely quiet about anything even remotely as damaging to the conscience as murdering 3,000 civilians. Your organized crime comparison only makes sense to you because you, apparently, get all your information from movies.
    Why would you need thousands of people involved, and you saying involved in the sense of having prior knowledge of the attack, or just involved in the sense of having participated (perhaps unknowingly)?

    Suppose we take the minimum conspiracy, with no demolition, and no government stand down. Our characters are:

    Financier A
    Airplane Guru B (Whom I will call Guru B, perhaps he is someone who used to work for an airplane manufacturer but got fired for unethical behavior, or just a guy who knows about airplanes)
    19 Hijackers.

    Airplane Guru B opens up a dummy company that supposed does R&D projects for the major airlines. (Nobody knows who he really works for.) And purchases 3 747's for his company.

    He then hires a team of engineers (lets go with 13, but could be any number), and tells them that he's been hired by a major airline to come up with a way to build an airplane black box that can be overriden by remote control, and these 3 planes are the ones he wants them to set up so he can test their work on them. They all sign non-disclosure agreements. (Because these are always required on R&D projects, no matter who you work for or why.)

    The 13 engineers finish their work, collect their paychecks, and go home, unaware that they have even committed a crime. None of them has prior knowledge of 911, and if they thought about it out after the fact, they still couldn't be sure they had. Anything they bring to the FBI would be both uncorroborated and uncorroboratable, which would make it seem pretty futile for them to violate a non-disclosure agreement over it.

    On the day of the event: 3 flight plans are booked for private jets. (Which is what the drones will be claimed as on that day.) They're carefully planned so as to make it possible for the drones to rendezvous with the hijacked planes.

    The 19 hijackers then honestly hijack 4 planes. The hijacked planes rendezvous with the drones, then swap flight numbers with them. From this point on the hijacked passenger planes will appear to ground control as private planes. The drones set their transponders to the numbers that correspond with the passenger jets, and proceed to their targets.


    The hijackers kill all of the passengers and crew, then either fly the planes back to base, or ditch them out over the Atlantic (where it is highly unlikely they will ever be discovered.) The hijackers on the fourth plane jump out of the plane with parachutes. (Or there's a fourth drone. Either way leads to the same result.)

    You don't think it's possible to keep 21 people quiet? If we include demolition there would be 2 more. The number required for a government stand down on interception is uncertain, but there's no saying for sure that a government stand down was even necessary.






    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    And yet, the Bush Administration's publicly announced position has constantly been to claim incompetence.

    I've told you already that I don't believe every member of government was "all in it together". Those who weren't in it, would do what I suggested, and try to avoid being accused of incompetence. As for the Bush Administration themselves, maybe they know what happened, and see an incompetence claim as a way of avoiding further scrutiny. (Doesn't necessarily mean they're accomplices, just covering something up.)
    You still don't understand anything. At least the CIA and the FBI would have to be involved in order to fabricate the evidence for the hijackers. The 9/11 commission would have to be involved to keep their investigation from reaching the truth. NIST would have to be involved in order to keep from discovering how the towers actually fell. FDNY and NYPD would have to be involved so as not to contradict NIST's findings. Structural engineers and demolitions experts everywhere would have to be involved so as not to notice the fraudulence of NIST's finding. That's not to mention all the air-traffic controllers who heard and saw the hijackings happen in real-time, the families of those who called from the planes, the video tapes that didn't hear explosions. You are beyond foolish if you think a small number of people could pull off what you think happened simply hoping that all those people would fall in line. Again, real life isn't like a movie.
    You ever think how easy it is to build a cover as an Islamic fundamentalist? Just attend mosque a few times, then appear at a few radical Islamic rallies and be sure to scream loud enough so people remember you. If you want to go further and actually befriend a few Muslims, then go right ahead. It can't hurt.

    You don't think it's wierd that one of them was spotted at a porn shop the night before the event? (Maybe because he wasn't a real Muslim!)





    See what I mean? You've made absolutely no attempt to provide any evidence for your theory. You're just making excuses as to why you think you shouldn't have to provide any.
    I'm calling yours into question. You think it would be impossible, and I'm pointing out that it would not be. Consider for a moment the number of bank vaults that have been built in history that were supposed to be "uncrackable" and the number of ambitious and inventive criminals who have managed to crack them.

    When it comes to demolitions, all claims of impossibility are suspect. They're arguments from ignorance at best. The reasoning is always "I don't know how it could be done, therefore it can't be."


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You'd only need it if you wanted simultaneous failure on multiple floors. (Or progressively timed failure, for a more controlled collapse)
    So, what you're saying is that it looks exactly like a progressive collapse in every way, but you're going to believe it was controlled anyway. Why?
    You'll notice I've argued both sides of this, and provided the best physics evidence of any poster so far in favor of it not being a controlled demolition.

    I just don't like to hear the word "impossible" about things I know full well are not impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm not trying to compromise. I'm trying to pursue both simultaneously. But whenever I'm in a chat room where one side is overrepresented compared with the other, then I usually choose the underdog.
    So you just pick whatever side seems weakest and argue for it ad-nauseum. This gives you psychological gratification since you're predisposed to sympathy for "underdogs." Not surprising since most people are. That's why conspiracy theories and fringe beliefs are so appealing (especially in movies.) But did it ever occur to you that the reason the conspiracy theory is "underrepresented" is because it's full of shit?
    Whenever one side thinks it has won, they stop presenting evidence, and start congratulating themselves instead. Arguing the losing side is the best way for me to get the most information possible out of the other posters.

    I don't want to merely believe it wasn't a conspiracy, I want to prove it. Then I'll be happy. I'll feel a lot better about it. Or if it was a conspiracy, I'd like to prove that too, but I certainly hope it wasn't. (Because what would I do with that information, other than just be upset?)


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My goal is to be presented with all the evidence I possibly can for both views, and gradually accumulate the best evidence, while discrediting the evidence that deserves to be discredited.
    You have not looked at evidence this entire thread, kojax. You simply ignorantly rationalize away all the evidence I bring up that contradicts you.

    You have presented some good things Finger. I haven't ignored any of it. I just focus on the pieces of evidence I don't have yet. I guess I'm greedy that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Everything I've read about WW2 points to a method called "Big Lie Theory".
    I think you just read 1984, found it compelling, and decided that people are sheep. Hitler's lie didn't work just because it would have been devastating to the world-view of the people of Germany, it worked because Hitler had direct control over virtually everything in the German government and media. Power that he achieved through the solidarity and near-religious devotion of his party members which had been built upon the back of political scapegoating, uber-nationalism, and deep-seeded European antisemitism. By contrast, Americans (even those of the same political party) are constantly arguing over almost everything. Of course we learned the lesson of Nazi Germany. That's why the civil rights movement happened, why the Vietnam War was so unpopular, why we never locked up all the Muslims after 9/11, why half the country knows how bullshit Fox News is, and why conspiracy theories are so trendy among celebrities. We Americans love to argue about everything all the bloody time and we're goddamn proud of it.
    Hitler's original backers were wealthy Germans who were afraid the country was going to go Communist. Without them he'd have gotten nowhere. He'd just be another crazy homeless guy spouting rhetoric on the streets of Berlin. He wasn't mentally fit to be in society, let alone be in charge of it.

    What he had was conviction, and a willingness to go on record saying insane, hateful things that none of his backers would have wanted to put their name to, but which they needed someone to say if they wanted to polarize public opinion in order to defeat the Communists, stay wealthy, and maybe even steer some additional wealth their own way. They found him, not the other way around. How do you think he got to have such a presence in the German media in the first place, other than some wealthy people buying it for him?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #280  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Why would you need thousands of people involved, and you saying involved in the sense of having prior knowledge of the attack, or just involved in the sense of having participated (perhaps unknowingly)?

    Suppose we take the minimum conspiracy, with no demolition, and no government stand down. Our characters are:

    Financier A
    Airplane Guru B (Whom I will call Guru B, perhaps he is someone who used to work for an airplane manufacturer but got fired for unethical behavior, or just a guy who knows about airplanes)
    19 Hijackers.

    Airplane Guru B opens up a dummy company that supposed does R&D projects for the major airlines. (Nobody knows who he really works for.) And purchases 3 747's for his company.

    He then hires a team of engineers (lets go with 13, but could be any number), and tells them that he's been hired by a major airline to come up with a way to build an airplane black box that can be overriden by remote control, and these 3 planes are the ones he wants them to set up so he can test their work on them. They all sign non-disclosure agreements. (Because these are always required on R&D projects, no matter who you work for or why.)

    The 13 engineers finish their work, collect their paychecks, and go home, unaware that they have even committed a crime. None of them has prior knowledge of 911, and if they thought about it out after the fact, they still couldn't be sure they had. Anything they bring to the FBI would be both uncorroborated and uncorroboratable, which would make it seem pretty futile for them to violate a non-disclosure agreement over it.

    On the day of the event: 3 flight plans are booked for private jets. (Which is what the drones will be claimed as on that day.) They're carefully planned so as to make it possible for the drones to rendezvous with the hijacked planes.

    The 19 hijackers then honestly hijack 4 planes. The hijacked planes rendezvous with the drones, then swap flight numbers with them. From this point on the hijacked passenger planes will appear to ground control as private planes. The drones set their transponders to the numbers that correspond with the passenger jets, and proceed to their targets.


    The hijackers kill all of the passengers and crew, then either fly the planes back to base, or ditch them out over the Atlantic (where it is highly unlikely they will ever be discovered.) The hijackers on the fourth plane jump out of the plane with parachutes. (Or there's a fourth drone. Either way leads to the same result.)

    You don't think it's possible to keep 21 people quiet? If we include demolition there would be 2 more. The number required for a government stand down on interception is uncertain, but there's no saying for sure that a government stand down was even necessary.
    Cool story bro. Should put a car chase scene in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    When it comes to demolitions, all claims of impossibility are suspect. They're arguments from ignorance at best. The reasoning is always "I don't know how it could be done, therefore it can't be."
    More like "what you're suggesting relies on nothing but assumptions, doesn't have any evidence that supports it, and apparently comes from someone who doesn't know anything about anything."

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You ever think how easy it is to build a cover as an Islamic fundamentalist? Just attend mosque a few times, then appear at a few radical Islamic rallies and be sure to scream loud enough so people remember you. If you want to go further and actually befriend a few Muslims, then go right ahead. It can't hurt.
    Oh really? It's that easy? Wow.. you should work for the CIA. You have such a firm grip on the subtleties of Islamic extremism.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You don't think it's wierd that one of them was spotted at a porn shop the night before the event? (Maybe because he wasn't a real Muslim!)
    First of all, I don't know where you're getting the "porn shop" thing, but there are reports that some of the hijackers went to a strip club the night before 9/11 and that they frequented other clubs and discotheques while they lived in the US. None of those reports are based on anything particularly concrete. Some people said that Atta got drunk every night, but they also had trouble identifying him from a photo. Others said he drank only a little and mostly played video games. But even if he and some of the other hijackers did get drunk, go to strip clubs, or even had sex with prostitutes, that doesn't mean that they weren't real Muslims. There are plenty of Islamic extremists (one of whom is Ayman al-Zawahiri, second in command of Al Qaeda) who believe that the act of becoming a martyr absolves one of any sin they may perpetrate in order to become a martyr. So operatives can avoid daily prayer, drink, smoke, and have sex with loose women all they want since doing so allows them to blend in with the population. Their martyrdom has already secured their place in heaven. Evidently, the rouse worked since none of their co-workers suspected anything and even you, with your deep understanding of radical Islam, thought that they weren't real Muslims.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You'll notice I've argued both sides of this, and provided the best physics evidence of any poster so far in favor of it not being a controlled demolition.
    This is why I say you don't care about figuring out the truth of the matter. It's because you equate "arguing for both sides" with being objective. Real objectivity involves examining the event itself and determining the best probable explanation. Arguing "both sides" requires the assumption that the two ideas stand on equal ground, already creating bias. It's a way to feign objectivity without actually being objective. This is why creationists want schools to "teach the controversy." They know their position can't stand up on it's own, so they try and force schools to act like it's science too.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I don't want to merely believe it wasn't a conspiracy, I want to prove it. Then I'll be happy.
    Then you'll never be happy. No one's understanding of what happened that day will ever be complete (not that you have a grasp of what the current understanding actually is.) There will always be holes that an overactive imagination will inevitably fill with fantastic stories. The accepted explanation is supported by all of the available evidence and relies on the fewest assumptions. The conspiracy theory (even your conspiracy theory) requires ignorance of the evidence and is entirely made up of assumptions. These two ideas are not equal. Trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't change that.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You have presented some good things Finger. I haven't ignored any of it. I just focus on the pieces of evidence I don't have yet.
    Yes you do. That's called a "God of the gaps" argument. I've already explained how we know the horizontal supports didn't break and how the best explanation for their warping is the fire caused by the plane crash. You either didn't understand this, or chose to ignore it admittedly because you wanted to "focus on what you don't know." In other words, you want to speculate about unknowns and avoid talking about the evidence entirely.

    I'm not going to respond to your wild speculation anymore. If you have evidence that supports your conspiracy theory and only your conspiracy theory, then present it.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #281  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    I don't have time but I figured I'd post this. An excellent read that doesn't focus on the scientific aspect of the conspiracy.

    To sum up, Richard Grove (not to be confused with Richard Gage) was a worker of a WTC building and was fired for "blowing the whistle" on things he found to be strange. It may not be easy to plant explosives in a full and very busy building, unless those who begin to question anything are illegally terminated. I haven't spent the time to read all of it yet or attempt to find out the legitimacy of Richard Grove.

    http://www.freewebs.com/abigsecret/Grove.html

    Perhaps you can relate when I express how truly surreal it is to be trapped in an experience: wherein what you witnessed and what is shown to the world are night-and-day contrasts.
    What you’ll find is that Guiliani, Spitzer, Cherkasky, Patrick Fitzgerald, Louis Freeh, and a few other names you’d recognize, all used to work for New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau; and if one were to investigate the history of these particular men- in contrast to the events of 9-11, the fraudulent transactions of 9-11, and destruction of evidence from Ground Zero- one might readily ascertain that these men- though separated geographically, are still very much conspiring behind the scenes.
    I'll probably write a few replies later if there was anything else directed towards me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #282  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    It's much easier to ask questions than look endlessly for answers...
    Fox News agrees with you. .......But you haven't just been asking questions, you know;
    Yes, I do know this. You've been asking questions (most of which are unanswerable because of no undeniable proof).

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Don't like it? Stop posting.
    This is the reason I don't post as often as I would if the posts were smaller. Good to know I have the option to quit posting, though...

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Second Law: The more mass an object has, the more force is required to move/stop it. (F=ma) Like you said, the potential energy was already there. Buildings are constantly fighting the forces of gravity. All that needs to happen in order to trigger a collapse is to weaken the structure to the point where gravity can do the rest. This is what happened to the top sections of Towers 1 and 2. Once that downward motion starts, it takes all the more force to stop it and is even compounded by gravitational acceleration. If this force is more than the resistance offered by the structure below it, then those floors will fail. This is also what happened to Towers 1 and 2. I know you think it's impossible because Richard Gage said it was. But he has yet to effectively demonstrate how the towers would offer up enough resistance to stop the collapse.
    "All that needs to happen......"

    That goes for any standing structure on Earth. Neither of us can say with any degree of certainty how much weakening of the structure would be required, and how much weakening too place due to fire or damage alone.

    I don't believe things simply because I am told them. This is exactly how I am able to just not believe the official story, if evidence is contrary. The lower floors would have massive resistance. If the bottom floors are, combined, not strong enough to stop the top mass from moving, the top mass continues to fall straight down? Even though the building started breaking apart (evidence of massive resistance) why didn't it slow down? What you seem to be claiming is that a damaged portion of a building can be weak enough that it collapses. This is obvious, I am not disputing this. You leave out fundamental details, like the constant rate of speed during collapse, the perfectly vertical entire collapse, etc.

    Many people think that 9/11 was a good demonstration that buildings can in fact collapse fully due to small fires and damage. Is it not incredible that this example happened the only three times in notable history, hours apart from each other?

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    I've already pointed out that aluminum does glow under the right conditions and even when separated from its heat source. We know that lots of aluminum and debris would have ended up in that corner and that that corner was on fire. So how exactly, is it an assumption that the molten liquid is molten debris? The most you could say is that it's a guess, but not an uneducated one. It still explains a lot more and relies on fewer assumptions than the "molten steel from thermite planted in advance" explanation.
    And I've already pointed out that daylight conditions are not the same as low light conditions. Maybe it was someone else who originally posted that video, but you do understand why the window is covered, correct? It's to stop daylight from entering the room. The reason for this, is because aluminum's emissivity level is low enough that it is very hard even for experienced welders to guess the temperature of aluminum. The room is DARK (despite the video's high exposure) so they can see the aluminum glow. I've literally searched for hours on end, and found not one single video of aluminum being poured while glowing. I saw one picture that seemed to prove aluminum can glow in daylight, after more probing and finding out where that picture came from, turns out it was published in a welding book and the metal was Iron, which makes sense because it was glowing at the exact same brightness as the supposed fluid pouring out of the WTC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Where are they? Who are they? You've provided one so far, while I've provided interviews that demonstrate a consensus among firefighters on the ground that the building was coming down on its own as well as the written statement from the on-duty Fire Chief himself. Only 14 actual firefighters have signed ae911truth's petition and none of them were FDNY or at ground zero that day.
    I don't know who they are but they can be found in many videos. They're easy enough to find, I'll link you to youtube search results. Here's audio and video of first responders also.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kanj8gx4E1M

    http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...F11+truth&aq=f

    "Who, where" It's as if asking the question denounces the answer, removing any reason for an attempt to find it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    "When criminals have unlimited access to mass media manipulation, solid proofs are hard to find"
    The same could be said about the uneducated masses of youtube.
    Youtube is not mass media manipulation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Because burning jet fuel is still subject to gravity. So of course there would be some fires at ground-level.
    Fires causing giant plumes of smoke, from fuel that burns off very quickly. You think the jet fuel would somehow make its way to the bottom floor, start more fires, and create momentary plumes of smoke that are as large as the smoke burrowing out of the central damage point? You really believe this is even a possibility?

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    You still have no appreciation for how loud demolition charges are. This is largely my fault. My posts in the past were too ambiguous. Right now, I'm going to be very specific and very clear.

    A quiet night in a desert is 30 decibels. Human speech is about 60. Eighty-five db is when you start to get mild ear damage and 125db is when your ears start ringing. 120db is when most microphones would not only cut out, but become damaged. A very conservative estimate worked out by my friend (the explosives expert) and me puts the sound of a demolition setup at about 147-150 decibels from about 400 meters away (where the reporter was.) This approaches "ear-death" levels. 180db and your ear tissue would be instantly and irrevocably destroyed. No, you cannot "suppress" something this loud with noise cancellation. This is the type of sound that would hurt all the joints in your body. Remember that and that this is a very conservative estimate, then watch this higher quality version of that video again.
    No it's not your fault. You're being perfectly clear. I completely understand what you're trying to convince me of. Once again we don't know what types of explosives were used. Was TNT not used to measure the probable sound had the buildings been demolished? Also, an argument I often hear is "This hasn't happened to a building of this size before. So why is it so unreasonable to think that maybe the sound from the falling building covered many of the explosions from the louder types of explosives used. Who's to say what kinds of explosives were used, and how loud they would be?

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    I can tell you don't know what you're talking about because you used the word "squibs." But for the very last time, the columns did not fail simultaneously. Look at the video one more time. Here's another angle. Now here's the first one again. East penthouses collapsed. That's at least five* columns failing. Then, six seconds later, more columns fail. Six seconds. Not simultaneous. Is this getting through?
    It's always been getting through, although I constantly need to struggle to explain things to you.

    I know what you're saying, the collapse was not simultaneous. What I'm saying, is that the support columns gave way simultaneously. That is exactly what I said, so what part of the video disproves this? Please try to stay on topic. You often change what I say (this time removing the quote entirely, maybe to stop me from reading what you were replying to) and accuse me of being wrong. Is this scientific thinking?

    Also, when calculating free-fall speed, you do not include ANY time that the building was not falling. You can't start the clock when the first failures happen, stop the clock when the building reaches the ground, and then average the time together to come up with a constant rate of collapse much slower than reality.

    This is why Judy Wood has brought up in court many times, NIST's disinformation, which has lead to several "corrections". One of them admitting free-fall speed did happen. Did you read that part of the NIST report?

    Finger, you really need to stop assuming things. It does nothing for your side of the argument. I know what a squib is, because I looked up the word when I first heard it. I also know it is constantly being used in reference to the bursts of dust and debris randomly ejecting sporadically from the towers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Try comparing flight 93 crash site to any other crash site.
    Ok.
    Iranian Airliner Crash kills 168.

    Went straight into the ground producing a similar, but larger crater (because it was a larger plane.) Most of the debris was buried in the crater. Same type of crash, same result.
    Any more pictures of that crash site? I will be willing to admit I'm wrong about flight 93 if we knew what had been done prior to that picture being taken. For all we know the plane was flying in the opposite direction the picture was taken, and many parts of the plane may be just outside of frame, or possibly already removed from the site.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    I said no such thing. I said that it wasn't a cutter charge because it didn't sound like a cutter charge and I explained specifically why. It's too quiet. On top of that, we would also expect there to be many more of them, and we don't hear them.
    Well to be fair the only one we hear is while the building is not collapsing. Also it's far away from the building, and the building is very high. The distance of the explosion (if the explosion exists) is probably farther away from other demolitions you may have heard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Where did I, or anyone, say that the fires consumed the entire building? They were on the first ten floors and there's ample photographic and video evidence that corroborates this as well as testimony from the firefighters themselves. But that just means that they were in on it.
    I guess that means you're also in on it, because your opinion is different than mine. No. It just means people have different opinions about things. Everyone has a different version of reality. Most people can't accept a lie this big, against better judgment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    I very much doubt that you've seen all the evidence. You hadn't seen the east penthouse collapse until I showed you. You hadn't seen aluminum glow orange until I showed you. The real problem is likely that 100% of the evidence you have seen is from conspiracy theorists sources. Sources whom, as I've already demonstrated, intentionally ignore information that doesn't support their conclusion. So you end up forming your conclusions based on other people's interpretation of things you don't understand. That's why you hear a rumble and call it cutter charges. Why you see a segmented collapse and call it simultaneous and uniform. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm being direct. You don't know what you're talking about so stop making a fool of yourself.
    Finger you're assuming things again. You can say I have not seen videos until you showed them to me. This does not make it true, Finger... When did I call a rumble "cutter charges". In fact I distinctly remember hearing a cutter charge before the rumbling started, which dampened other sounds. You said it didn't sound like a cutter charge because it was too quiet, not because it was a rumble. This is sure a cheap way of making a bogus point, Finger. You're getting angry again, btw. I can tell as your responses become increasingly hostile during your replies. I am not making a fool out of myself. Even if I had a reason to be embarrassed, I wouldn't, because you and everyone here are strangers. So why are you saying I'm making a fool out of myself? It's simple psychology. Maybe now you'll start investigating my side of the argument since you clearly have doubts of your own.

    Here I demonstrated a couple assumptions (that I feel are correct but would normally avoid voicing) based on nothing. Annoying, isn't it. But I don't want to make you angry again so I'll try to avoid this subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    With all the building fires on this planet, how many have happened on entirely steel-framed high-rise buildings? How many had been hit by a commercial jet at 500mph? How many had had their fireproofing blown off by the blast? How many have had bits of a 110 story building fall on it? How many fires went unfought for hours because of a broken water main? How many buildings were designed with an unusually small number of vertical columns? If you were to break your habit of not examining the details, the suspicion would melt away.
    Avoiding details... That's hilarious coming from you.

    No it would not. Do you honestly think most truthers assume there have been many other identical buildings that were hit by the same types of planes traveling at the same speed? If our only measurement for comparison is with situations that exactly replicate each other we would learn nothing, and be able to come to not a single suspicion about anything. I thinkthis is primarily your problem.

    If ONE of the buildings had fallen, I wouldn't be so suspicious, but three buildings fell, and then hundreds billions of dollars of gold went missing from the basement of the WTC building. One day earlier 2.3 trillion dollars was reported by Donald Rumsfeld to have gone missing due to inadequate pentagon accounting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax
    The real question here is: how hard were the horizontal supports to reach?
    Harder than reaching the vertical ones.

    *edited[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #283  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Is this the guy that says the whole attack was to cover up the theft of millions of dollars worth of gold bricks from under the World Trade Center? :sigh: Yes he is. He even tries to play the silly "numbers" game:

    September 11th, 1941: Ground was broken on the Pentagon- noting that it was destroyed exactly 60 years to the day later.

    September 11th, 1971: construction began on both the North and South Tower- that same day, Nikita Khrushchev died, and there was also the famous at Attica Prison, in New York. Noting that the Twin Towers were destroyed 30 years to the day after their birth.

    September 11th, 1973: After Kissinger’s Operation Condor set the scene, the CIA sponsored one of many coups, specifically wherein Augusto Pinochet used planes and missiles to overthrow democratically elected Salvadore Allende in Chile…

    September 11th, 1991: The Infamous GHWB New World Order Speech, 11 years to the day before 9-11

    September 11th, 1995: reports surface of a remote controlled plane that was crashed into the White House
    ...
    This guy's story has all the markings of someone who either fell victim to his own paranoia or is trying to cash in on the paranoia of others. The constant sensationalist rhetoric, the disjointed political rants, the hilarious logic, the evidence he assures you he has but can't provide for fear of "repercussions." It's nonsense. There's no difference between him and other "whistle-blowers" for UFOs or the Reptilian Agenda.

    I'll get back to the other stuff later.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #284  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    I've been dissecting his writing whole heatedly. I wish he would go further into explaining what he apparently saw on the ground level on 9/11, and the names of some of the people he mentioned. After already looking into the deaths of Vince Foster and the Oklahoma police officer who called his wife the day of the Oklahoma bombing, it's pretty clear that men are murdered. This is always covered up with suicide. That officer, on his way to concealing information, apparently slashed his arms and wrists 11 times, before crawling a mile and then shooting himself in the top of the head.

    Vince Foster was lured out of his home by officers disguising themselves as rowdy teenagers, because the radio broadcaster was reported to be waving a gun around intimidating passer by's. When he figured out what was going on, he ran back to his car, shot an officer in the head, and then was shot dead.

    According to the autopsy report, he had blunt trauma to his head, neck, and upper body. I guess it wasn't enough to just kill the guy.

    No, I assume the blunt trauma was caused BEFORE his death, contrary to the police report which claimed no physical contact before Vince's death. If you're spreading truths, the people hiding truth aren't just going to kill you, they'll torture you. People with enough sense to know these were not suicides or lawful acts will surely be silenced to a degree.

    There is youtube audio of Miguel Rodriguez, an FBI agent involved with investigating Foster's "suicide" blowing the whistle on the cover up. He left the agency. I looked into him also, turns out he may have had a sex change, changed his name to Michelle, and is now working for the same agency he left due to corruption.

    When I'm finished reading Grove's article I'm going to look into this guy because I don't know how credible he actually is, or if he's worked for the people he says he has. But once again dismissing everything he says because of a couple missing bits of information he justifies is ill logic, same can be said about believing him without reason, which I believe you accused me of doing lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #285  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Why would you need thousands of people involved, and you saying involved in the sense of having prior knowledge of the attack, or just involved in the sense of having participated (perhaps unknowingly)?

    Suppose we take the minimum conspiracy, with no demolition, and no government stand down. Our characters are:

    Financier A
    Airplane Guru B (Whom I will call Guru B, perhaps he is someone who used to work for an airplane manufacturer but got fired for unethical behavior, or just a guy who knows about airplanes)
    19 Hijackers.

    Airplane Guru B opens up a dummy company that supposed does R&D projects for the major airlines. (Nobody knows who he really works for.) And purchases 3 747's for his company.

    He then hires a team of engineers (lets go with 13, but could be any number), and tells them that he's been hired by a major airline to come up with a way to build an airplane black box that can be overriden by remote control, and these 3 planes are the ones he wants them to set up so he can test their work on them. They all sign non-disclosure agreements. (Because these are always required on R&D projects, no matter who you work for or why.)

    The 13 engineers finish their work, collect their paychecks, and go home, unaware that they have even committed a crime. None of them has prior knowledge of 911, and if they thought about it out after the fact, they still couldn't be sure they had. Anything they bring to the FBI would be both uncorroborated and uncorroboratable, which would make it seem pretty futile for them to violate a non-disclosure agreement over it.

    On the day of the event: 3 flight plans are booked for private jets. (Which is what the drones will be claimed as on that day.) They're carefully planned so as to make it possible for the drones to rendezvous with the hijacked planes.

    The 19 hijackers then honestly hijack 4 planes. The hijacked planes rendezvous with the drones, then swap flight numbers with them. From this point on the hijacked passenger planes will appear to ground control as private planes. The drones set their transponders to the numbers that correspond with the passenger jets, and proceed to their targets.


    The hijackers kill all of the passengers and crew, then either fly the planes back to base, or ditch them out over the Atlantic (where it is highly unlikely they will ever be discovered.) The hijackers on the fourth plane jump out of the plane with parachutes. (Or there's a fourth drone. Either way leads to the same result.)

    You don't think it's possible to keep 21 people quiet? If we include demolition there would be 2 more. The number required for a government stand down on interception is uncertain, but there's no saying for sure that a government stand down was even necessary.
    Cool story bro. Should put a car chase scene in it.
    You're the one who keeps trying to make movies out of things.


    When we were talking about controlled demolition you wanted Lex Luthor in the background. You seem to think a demolition requires ninjas in black tights to drop in by helicopter by night and use a glass cutter to enter the WTC through a window, then acrobatically dodge through a bunch of laser detectors while one of their buddies hacks into a security system to disable the cameras.

    The reality would be too boring to make a movie out of. A guy shows up posing as an electrician and uses a legitimate security card to gain access to the necessary crawl spaces, then proceeds set his charges in broad daylight. No suspense, no cliffhangers, no drama even.

    I used to install Satellite TV systems in peoples' homes, crawling through attacks or under their house...etc... to try and get all the wires to their TV. One thing I was amazed by is the degree to which people don't watch what you are doing. If I didn't have a deadline I could take a nap down there and nobody would know or care. I highly doubt WTC security would have seriously scrutinized a guy who spent too long in a crawl space, especially if he's supposed to be spending a long time in there.








    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    When it comes to demolitions, all claims of impossibility are suspect. They're arguments from ignorance at best. The reasoning is always "I don't know how it could be done, therefore it can't be."
    More like "what you're suggesting relies on nothing but assumptions, doesn't have any evidence that supports it, and apparently comes from someone who doesn't know anything about anything."
    Your sanctimonious assertion that your view doesn't require evidence but mine does is getting tiresome. If you say its impossible, then you need to support the assertion that it is impossible.

    If all you're saying is that you don't believe that it did happen, despite it being possible to happen, then that is a much more reasonable claim and doesn't require evidence.

    In physics, any theory that specifically rules out an occurrence (by way of it being impossible) requires the same proof as a theory that specifically guarantees an occurrence. It is the fact that you are making a guarantee that determines whether you need to prove it or not. You can't just throw out certainties willy nilly.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You ever think how easy it is to build a cover as an Islamic fundamentalist? Just attend mosque a few times, then appear at a few radical Islamic rallies and be sure to scream loud enough so people remember you. If you want to go further and actually befriend a few Muslims, then go right ahead. It can't hurt.
    Oh really? It's that easy? Wow.. you should work for the CIA. You have such a firm grip on the subtleties of Islamic extremism.
    There would be no such thing as undercover police officers if it was easy to know a person's true affiliations. Do you think the CIA has psychics working for them who can reliably tell the difference between somebody setting up a cover and somebody who really means it?

    People don't know you as well as you think they know you. If I told all my friends and family that I was going into Islam, started wearing Islamic symbols, attending Mosque and making Muslim friends, how would anyone on Earth know if I was lying? Would even my new Muslim friends know?





    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You don't think it's wierd that one of them was spotted at a porn shop the night before the event? (Maybe because he wasn't a real Muslim!)
    First of all, I don't know where you're getting the "porn shop" thing, but there are reports that some of the hijackers went to a strip club the night before 9/11 and that they frequented other clubs and discotheques while they lived in the US. None of those reports are based on anything particularly concrete. Some people said that Atta got drunk every night, but they also had trouble identifying him from a photo. Others said he drank only a little and mostly played video games. But even if he and some of the other hijackers did get drunk, go to strip clubs, or even had sex with prostitutes, that doesn't mean that they weren't real Muslims. There are plenty of Islamic extremists (one of whom is Ayman al-Zawahiri, second in command of Al Qaeda) who believe that the act of becoming a martyr absolves one of any sin they may perpetrate in order to become a martyr. So operatives can avoid daily prayer, drink, smoke, and have sex with loose women all they want since doing so allows them to blend in with the population. Their martyrdom has already secured their place in heaven. Evidently, the rouse worked since none of their co-workers suspected anything and even you, with your deep understanding of radical Islam, thought that they weren't real Muslims.
    And at this point, the claim that they were motivated by Islamic extremism has removed itself from disprovability. No matter what they do, they could have been doing it just as a ruse to throw all of us infidels off, and make it appear that they didn't seriously believe in Allah.

    I might as well stop looking for evidence right now and just assume you're right. Thanks for setting me straight on that.




    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You'll notice I've argued both sides of this, and provided the best physics evidence of any poster so far in favor of it not being a controlled demolition.
    This is why I say you don't care about figuring out the truth of the matter. It's because you equate "arguing for both sides" with being objective. Real objectivity involves examining the event itself and determining the best probable explanation. Arguing "both sides" requires the assumption that the two ideas stand on equal ground, already creating bias. It's a way to feign objectivity without actually being objective. This is why creationists want schools to "teach the controversy." They know their position can't stand up on it's own, so they try and force schools to act like it's science too.
    That would be true if you didn't initially believe that the two theories stand on equal ground, or near equal. I could go 40/60, 70/30, or maybe even 80/20 and still have reason to investigate both theories. It doesn't need to be a perfect 50/50. I would only stop investigating both theories I perceived that one were overwhelmingly more probable, like in that 95/5 range.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I don't want to merely believe it wasn't a conspiracy, I want to prove it. Then I'll be happy.
    Then you'll never be happy. No one's understanding of what happened that day will ever be complete (not that you have a grasp of what the current understanding actually is.) There will always be holes that an overactive imagination will inevitably fill with fantastic stories. The accepted explanation is supported by all of the available evidence and relies on the fewest assumptions. The conspiracy theory (even your conspiracy theory) requires ignorance of the evidence and is entirely made up of assumptions. These two ideas are not equal. Trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't change that.
    I hope you're not trying to imply that my ignorance is deliberate. I do need to read more about the 19 hijackers themselves. (I wasn't aware that reliable information even existed on them until you mentioned it.) However, in general, I read everything I can find, preferring reliable sources when I can find them, and moving toward the fringe when I have to (whilst attempting to verify what I can.)


    What astounds me about 911 questions is that, usually, if you ask somebody to explain to you why an observed event happens (and should be expected to happen in further repetitions of the experiment), they're happy to tell you. If I ask why aspects of the 911 collapse happened the way they did, however, people just tell me to stop asking questions and accept it.

    Is it a bad thing for me to want to know more about structural engineering?


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You have presented some good things Finger. I haven't ignored any of it. I just focus on the pieces of evidence I don't have yet.
    Yes you do. That's called a "God of the gaps" argument. I've already explained how we know the horizontal supports didn't break and how the best explanation for their warping is the fire caused by the plane crash. You either didn't understand this, or chose to ignore it admittedly because you wanted to "focus on what you don't know." In other words, you want to speculate about unknowns and avoid talking about the evidence entirely.
    I never disagreed with you about the supports on the 3 floors that got hit. The controlled demolition theory suggests sabotage of other floors that weren't hit the plane in addition to the floors the plane hit.

    What I've been suggesting is that the same attack method that worked on the floors hit by the plane would also have been successful if applied to other floors by deliberate means. I'm not trying to deny that the fires caused the failure of the floors that were hit.


    Studying into 911 is a wonderful opportunity for me to learn more about a wide variety of subjects (at least when people can get past being offended). I'm carefully storing away all the data you feel inclined to give me, and not just because I want to refute you but because I want to know. If another similar event happens, I would like to be able to understand it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #286  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    I want to make a clarification that I failed to mention earlier. I was wrong to say the support columns all failed simultaneously. In order for a building to collapse into its footprint all support columns do in fact need to fail simultaneously when the collapse begins. Fire is the main cause due to "...compressing the beams along their length..." (- NIST) but this was after the failure of other columns due to the impact of WTC 1 debris.

    The buckling and failure of the columns did not cause the building to immediately fall, it was the fire. So the fact still remains that all remaining support columns must be failed at the same time when the universal collapse begins; if this does not happen, asymmetrical collapse is inevitable.

    Take time to understand that. The fact that a portion of the building fell while leaving other portions in tact and using that to argue "No stupid all the columns didn't fail simultaneously" is actually missing the point entirely, but that's my fault for not being clear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #287  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101