911 inside job - for what?

[Babe Ruth]

The argument that each damaged floor joins the falling mass that hits the next floor down is specious and invalid.

[Spinebreaker]

So, lemme see if I'm understanding.

WTC1 and 2's collapses are compared to the other WTC complex buildings sometimes, then compared to some completely different buildings other times. But the only footage that looks even remotely similar in any way is the controlled demolition footage posted by Skyeagle a few posts ago.

If the comparisons for an argument are constantly shifting, that indicates an inherent weakness in the argument.

I'm not even a believer in the controlled demolition theory, but I'm starting to think it's possible, and one of the main reasons is the circular and frankly amateur rebuttals and arguments of Skyeagle, Don'teatus and a couple of others.

WTC1 and 2 collapsed, and 17 floors forced their way through almost 6 times their own mass straight down through the path of most resistance, Why?

[DONTEATUS]

No offense meant in any way there Mate ! But like your avatar name Spinebreaker. It says it all Do you have any idea what the Mass of the Two towers were above the weakened structures WT1 WT2 ? The damage at impact zone,the weakened central core I.E. the Elevators shafts,Main enternal structures that were totally destroyed from the Impacts ?

Well Watch very ,Very Closley to the tapes from the actual coverage that day ! Watch the buildings come down, Listen to the audio, Its All right in ones Face !

Thousands of people died that day ! Its quite sad that some people think for one second that They were brought down by anything other than The Laws of physics,And the Two Aircraft that Went into them !

I guess the best thing in our world is we all Can Say what we believe is the truth is. And Most of Us Know what happened that Day !

Thats my Proof ! I know What happened. And I can Very well Live with it !

[Stundie]

What they had in common with the WTC buildings is that they suffered collapses due to fire.

And its no difference to show that other high rise structures that I have shown like the One Merdian Plaza, First Interstate Bank and Caracas Tower fires which are much better comparators to the WTC than a fricking Toy Factory built in a 3rd world country and an over pass, none of which collapsed due to fires.

I won't wait for you to say...Well none of them were hit by a plane? lol

Neither was WTC7, even though WTC 5 & 6 suffered much more damage and larger fires in comparison to the size of the buildings, yet they didn't collapse either

Oh the circles you spin...lol

[skyeagle409]

And its no difference to show that other high rise structures that I have shown like the One Merdian Plaza, First Interstate Bank and Caracas Tower fires which are much better comparators to the WTC than a fricking Toy Factory built in a 3rd world country and an over pass, none of which collapsed due to fires.

On the contrary, the WTC buildings collapsed due to fire and the freeway overpass collapsed due to fire when fire weakened its steel structure.

Neither was WTC7,

WTC7 suffered severe structural impact damage, and it too, collapsed due to fire.

... even though WTC 5 & 6 suffered much more damage and larger fires in comparison to the size of the buildings, yet they didn't collapse either

On the contrary, WTC5 had suffered from internal structural damage due to fire as well.

[Spinebreaker]

No offense meant in any way there Mate ! But like your avatar name Spinebreaker. It says it all Do you have any idea what the Mass of the Two towers were above the weakened structures WT1 WT2 ? The damage at impact zone,the weakened central core I.E. the Elevators shafts,Main enternal structures that were totally destroyed from the Impacts ?

and proceeded to collapse. Damaged, burning floors ripped apart by a Plane crunching and forcing their way through 90 or so solid, undamaged floors. A small, weakened portion of a building driving it's way through 6 times it's own mass.

Well Watch very ,Very Closley to the tapes from the actual coverage that day ! Watch the buildings come down, Listen to the audio, Its All right in ones Face !

Thousands of people died that day ! Its quite sad that some people think for one second that They were brought down by anything other than The Laws of physics,And the Two Aircraft that Went into them !

Saw it on the day. Even interrupted my game of Tekken 2 if I remember correctly.

Here's the ironic thing. I didn't believe in any of the demolition theories, until joining this forum, and seeing you and Skyeagle's terrible, TERRIBLE arguments.

I guess the best thing in our world is we all Can Say what we believe is the truth is. And Most of Us Know what happened that Day !

2004 CNN survey said 90% believed a cover-up happened.

Skyeagle's own pie chart (I *think* it's from 2008) says 54% of people don't believe the official story

So yeah, you're right. MOST of us do know what happened, and it's not the official story.

[skyeagle409]

2004 CNN survey said 90% believed a cover-up happened.

Skyeagle's own pie chart (I *think* it's from 2008) says 54% of people don't believe the official story

So yeah, you're right. MOST of us do know what happened, and it's not the official story.

But, how many actually accuse the government of planning and carrying out the attack? How about 4.6% to start to begin with. Check the small print here.

We can also take a look here.

Scripps Howard polls

Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.

• 59% "not likely"
  
• 20% "somewhat likely"
  
• 16% "very likely"
  

The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.

• 77% "unlikely"
  
• 10% "somewhat likely"
  
• 6% "very likely"
  

The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.

• 80% "not likely"
  
• 6% "somewhat likely"
  
• 6% "very likely"
  

Most Americans Reject 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) – Few people in the United States agree with some of the allegations that have been made in relation to the events of 9/11, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. Only 15 per cent of respondents think claims that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition are credible.

http://www.angus-rei...iracy_theories/

Edited May 15, 2013 by skyeagle409

[RaptorBites]

Where and when will we 'find' that, Stundie? Please, do provide your calculations and the math that you have done. Your immediate mention of engineers you have spoken with doesn't give me a lot of confidence that you have actually done a single calculation, but I may be wrong.

To add to LG's point. JREF is filled with professionals in the field of Engineering, physics, etc. Yet the general consensus there is the official story and the NIST report is more correct than CT theories.

Just because Stundie has consulted one or several field experts who believe the CD/thermite series of events, doesn't mean the consensus is also on your side.

Stundie of all people should recognize the obvious mistake in using the argument from authority.

[Stundie]

Where and when will we 'find' that, Stundie? Please, do provide your calculations and the math that you have done.

Your immediate mention of engineers you have spoken with doesn't give me a lot of confidence that you have actually done a single calculation, but I may be wrong.

The math I've done is very simple because I'm no expert on buildings, physics or anything else and have never claimed to be.

In the case of WTC we know that the steel used tapered in height, so that the steel at lower floors was much thicker and stronger than the higher floors, it had to be because the steel only has to hold up what's above it, and the steel at floor 100 only has 10 floors to hold while floor 10 has 100. So lets say the failure point was floor 94, we have 93 floors below the failure point and 17 floors above it. An upper and lower block. So how does 17 floors which are constructed of lighter/weaker steel overcome the lower 93 progressively heaver/stronger steel.

That's about as far as my maths has got but that don't make me thick or my views less relevant because I do not have the expertise to make such judgements. So I spoke with people who do have the expertise firstly on the Screw Loose Change forum with Newtons Bit whose an Architect. He came across as someone with patience and was quite nice to chat with and told me it was probably my misunderstanding of elastic and inelastic collisions and he explained how and why the tower collapsed. Even though what he claimed made sense, I could tell something wasn't right but I do not have the knowledge or expertise to challenge him. It wasn't until I spoke with Gordon Ross and explained what was going at the forum and with Newtons arguments that he pointed out the flaws of Newtons Bit logic to me. It soon became apparent that once I understood the differences between them, that Newtons arguments had no merits. This led to Gordon Ross writing a short paper pointing out some embarrassing flaws of Newtons Bits work here...

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id5.html

So yeah, I've done a single calculation, just not a very complex one. How does 17 floors overcome 93? It's not one I can answer, nor can any official story supporters without resorting to NWO physics. Yet it's what you believe happened.

[Stundie]

On the contrary, the WTC buildings collapsed due to fire and the freeway overpass collapsed due to fire when fire weakened its steel structure.

And multiple high rise buildings like the WTC didn't collapse due to fire...lol

WTC7 suffered severe structural impact damage, and it too, collapsed due to fire.

So did WTC 5 & 6 and they didn't collapse due to more damage and fires. lol

On the contrary, WTC5 had suffered from internal structural damage due to fire as well.

Didn't collapse though did it?? lol

[skyeagle409]

The math I've done is very simple because I'm no expert on buildings, physics or anything else and have never claimed to be.

In the case of WTC we know that the steel used tapered in height, so that the steel at lower floors was much thicker and stronger than the higher floors, it had to be because the steel only has to hold up what's above it, and the steel at floor 100 only has 10 floors to hold while floor 10 has 100. So lets say the failure point was floor 94, we have 93 floors below the failure point and 17 floors above it. An upper and lower block. So how does 17 floors which are constructed of lighter/weaker steel overcome the lower 93 progressively heaver/stronger steel.

That's about as far as my maths has got but that don't make me thick or my views less relevant because I do not have the expertise to make such judgements. So I spoke with people who do have the expertise firstly on the Screw Loose Change forum with Newtons Bit whose an Architect. He came across as someone with patience and was quite nice to chat with and told me it was probably my misunderstanding of elastic and inelastic collisions and he explained how and why the tower collapsed. Even though what he claimed made sense, I could tell something wasn't right but I do not have the knowledge or expertise to challenge him. It wasn't until I spoke with Gordon Ross and explained what was going at the forum and with Newtons arguments that he pointed out the flaws of Newtons Bit logic to me. It soon became apparent that once I understood the differences between them, that Newtons arguments had no merits. This led to Gordon Ross writing a short paper pointing out some embarrassing flaws of Newtons Bits work here...

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id5.html

So yeah, I've done a single calculation, just not a very complex one. How does 17 floors overcome 93? It's not one I can answer, nor can any official story supporters without resorting to NWO physics. Yet it's what you believe happened.

Why is it that the overwhelming majority of structural and civil engineers, architects and demolition experts agree with the official story?

[RaptorBites]

The argument that each damaged floor joins the falling mass that hits the next floor down is specious and invalid.

Really BR? Surely someone who understands physics such as youself knows that mass does not change regardless if its crumbled concrete or a slab...

Or should we also start questioning your understanding of physics like we do your qualifications as a pilot?

[skyeagle409]

And multiple high rise buildings like the WTC didn't collapse due to fire...lol

So did WTC 5 & 6 and they didn't collapse due to more damage and fires.

Didn't collapse though did it??

The area where the fire was confined is where the collapse occurred.

[Spinebreaker]

But, how many actually accuse the government of planning and carrying out the attack? How about 4.2% to start to begin with. Check the small print here.

Was that my argument? NO.

Was that my point? NO.

Was that even remotely connected to my argument? NO.

Was that a relevant and logical continuation of my discussion? NO.

Is that the argument of someone clutching at straws because he has no valid argument? YES.

If you want to tackle the ACTUAL WORDS I SAID, the ACTUAL POINT I made, then go ahead.

Right, you wanna play the statistics game... OK, I'll Bite

Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.

• 59% "not likely"
  
• 20% "somewhat likely"
  
• 16% "very likely"
  

So 95% of people surveyed thought it was Possible, that's interesting Not a single person asked said an outright "no."

The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.

• 77% "unlikely"
  
• 10% "somewhat likely"
  
• 6% "very likely"
  

So 93% of people surveyed thought it was Possible, that's interesting Not a single person asked said an outright "no."

The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.

• 80% "not likely"
  
• 6% "somewhat likely"
  
• 6% "very likely"
  

So 92% of people surveyed thought it was Possible, that's interesting Not a single person asked said an outright "no."

See. I can tae your posts and respond with unconnected nonsense too.

I'm not discussing demolition here, or cruise missiles. Not thermite, not nukes, not any other half-arsed 'research' you think you have been doing.

>>>ACCORDING TO THE 2004 CNN POLL AND THE 2008 PIE CHART THAT YOU GOT FROM WIKIPEDIA. MOST. PEOPLE. DON'T. BELIEVE. THE. OFFICIAL. VERSION.<<<

If you wish to discuss this sentence please do so, but concentrate on the words in capital letters between the >>> <<< marks, and try not to drag in loads of random pictures and quotes about other things.

[Spinebreaker]

Really BR? Surely someone who understands physics such as youself knows that mass does not change regardless if its crumbled concrete or a slab..

Excellent point. So the 17 floors of mass, still had to force their way through over 90 floors of mass. That's the equivalent of me, forcing my way physically through 6 other people my size, destroying them all on the way.

[Stundie]

To add to LG's point. JREF is filled with professionals in the field of Engineering, physics, etc. Yet the general consensus there is the official story and the NIST report is more correct than CT theories.

Just because Stundie has consulted one or several field experts who believe the CD/thermite series of events, doesn't mean the consensus is also on your side.

Stundie of all people should recognize the obvious mistake in using the argument from authority.

I am not arguing from authority...lol Or arguing that consensus is on my side...lol

I may have spoken with people with the relevant expertise from both sides of the arguments, but all my points that I argue come from me based on my understanding surrounding the events and collapse of the WTC. Not from the experts!!

I may cite or use them to reference a point, but that is as far as authoritative as my argument gets.

Isn't using the general consensus of experts at JREF appealing to authority by any chance?? lol

[Stundie]

Why is it that the overwhelming majority of structural and civil engineers, architects and demolition experts agree with the official story?

Using members who have never been asked or haven't publicly stated that they support the official story.......doesn't support your case...lol

[skyeagle409]

Using members who have never been asked or haven't publicly stated that they support the official story.......doesn't support your case...

On the contrary, they have not only voice their support for the official story, but have provided evidence as well.

[skyeagle409]

Was that my argument? NO.

Was that my point? NO.

Was that even remotely connected to my argument? NO.

Was that a relevant and logical continuation of my discussion? NO.

Is that the argument of someone clutching at straws because he has no valid argument? YES.

Why do you continue to ignore facts and evidence?

[skyeagle409]

Excellent point. So the 17 floors of mass, still had to force their way through over 90 floors of mass. That's the equivalent of me, forcing my way physically through 6 other people my size, destroying them all on the way.

Considering that each floor can only support a certain amount of weight, it should be no mystery as to why 17 floors, with the aid of gravity, had managed to force their way through 90 floors...one floor at a time.

[Spinebreaker]

Why do you continue to ignore facts and evidence?

Why do you continue to answer my direct, simple questions with incoherent chunks of 'evidence' about other, completely irrelevant, things?

Considering that each floor can only support a certain amount of weight,

Yes, namely all the floors above it and then some.

it should be no mystery as to why 17 floors, with the aid of gravity, had managed to force their way through 90 floors...one floor at a time.

Just as it's no mystery as to how I, with the aid of gravity, can force my way through the bodies of 6 people, destroying them on the way, one body at a time.

[Stundie]

On the contrary, they have not only voice their support for the official story, but have provided evidence as well.

Those voices only exist in your head....lol

[regeneratia]

That is the kind of thinking belongs in Hollywood movies, not in the real world.

HOney, the real world is not at all as mild as what Hollywood creates.

[skyeagle409]

Those voices only exist in your head...

On the contrary, I have posted facts and their evidence while on the other hand, you have failed to provide anything of substance that refutes their evidence.

[Q24]

Really BR? Surely someone who understands physics such as youself knows that mass does not change regardless if its crumbled concrete or a slab...

And everyone knows that a dispersed/flexible mass acts very differently to a solid/rigid mass. This is why the official story deems it necessary to assume the latter situation for the ‘piledriver’ upper block all throughout the collapse – once the mass is broken the official theory admits to no longer working.

Yes, not only did the smaller, weaker, lighter upper block entirely crush through the larger, stronger, heavier lower block, it did so whilst suffering negligible damage to itself according to the official theory, which of course is a contradiction of long established physics; Newton’s third law concerning equal and opposite forces.

No wonder the foreign scientist from a CIA connected university who created this official theory within a mere two days of the event and rewrote hundreds of years’ old physics has been accused of political favouritism along with criminal and Lysenko-like tendencies and is denounced by thousands of architects, engineers and scientists.

Hmmm, this thread has really lost its way.