3292 replies to this topic

[MID]

Q24, on 05 October 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

I don’t have a study.  But that might be a good abstract description of the inside of my head.  I really need to get a study.  Regarding “fails to get certain technical details right”... this coming from someone who gets basic physics flat out wrong, such as initially believing mass or velocity affect the balance of equal and opposite forces during a collision, until I corrected them... it holds little weight.  Additionally I have physicists, engineers and other relevant professionals on my side – more so than any official theory adherent.




I second that...

1,725 architects and engineers support a new investigation of the WTC collapses: -
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Hundreds upon hundreds of other scientists, scholars and professionals support 9/11 truth: -
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Read the expert opinion in the links – you won’t find this many demonstratably informed individuals who support the official story.

   Yes, again attempt posting unbiased, un influenced opinions and "truth", under the veil of 9-11 truth organizations?/?/?/?

Nice..although somewhat typical a CT response.

Jeez...there are no such real organizations.  You need the engineers and the ascientists involved in the actual investigation; not a bunch of CT-minded wannabes who post incongruous opinions, and fail to back them up...at all!
You need to show legitimate criticism, and illustrate the falacy in their studies.

But you're not going to do that, because you wouldn't dare talk to them, and what you think about what you saw  doesn't exist.

Qualified individuals determined, after lots of work you've never done, exactly what happened on 9-11 and now it is well known.  It's even understood by some!

I understand the doubts.
This was an incomprehensible, astoundingly amazing event.  Not even the most active imagination could've thought up something like that, and that's the impetus for the comments of people like you.  You still can't believe it.   There's got to be a more resonable explanation for the most unreasonable event in modern history!

However, we've seen your "efforts".  Your opinion has been expressed, albeit not proven in the slightest (and it's OK.  I don't think most of us expected that).
I think you're finshed being entertained too much by those, like me, who actually do know something about this matter.

Edited by MID, 05 October 2012 - 11:52 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Quote

Sorry but I don’t think this thread is really the place for you to be going over old ground and easily answered points on the WTC demolitions just because you didn’t understand the first dozen times around.

I'm betting boony and lots of others understand it just fine but find it insufficient.  'Easily answered' is not the same thing as 'easily refuted'.

Quote

There have been many papers written by experts, published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which prove the case for the false flag nature of the attack and WTC demolitions to any unbiased mind: -

Ha, "unbiased", nice, now we're on to just bald 'poisoning the well'.  Classy.

Quote

There have also been a number of papers published in mainstream journals, which unfortunately have been proven biased in applying publishing rules when it comes to 9/11 truth, such is political sensitivity of the subject: -

Double ha, 'have been proven biased in applying publishing rules', the familiar whine of the anti-evolution creationist, great company to be keeping.  Do you have actual evidence from a mainstream journal indicating, 'your paper is scientifically sound and meets all the criteria for publication but we can't do that because of political sensitivity' or anything along those lines?  Or does this also require me to just be 'unbiased'?

Quote

Those who want the truth will find it - move along booNy.

And if they don't find it, perhaps they'll just invent it anyway.

[Babe Ruth]

LG

Regarding historical events, the actual truth about what happened exists SEPARATE FROM human understanding of knowledge of it.  Rather like the tree falling in the forest, whether humans are there to witness it, hear it, or record it, the event happens.

So whether you or I or Q or Boo or any other human understands what actually happened, it happened.

The truth exists, and our goals is to try to find it, if we may.

It is true that the Pentagon was attacked, and it is true that the WTC towers experienced some sort of huge heat event and other phenomena that jetfuel and gravity could not generate.

[Liquid Gardens]

Babe Ruth, on 06 October 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

LG

Regarding historical events, the actual truth about what happened exists SEPARATE FROM human understanding of knowledge of it.  Rather like the tree falling in the forest, whether humans are there to witness it, hear it, or record it, the event happens.

It's not just historical events, in all events the actual truth exists separate from human understanding of knowledge of it, as long as we agree there is an objective reality.

Quote

So whether you or I or Q or Boo or any other human understands what actually happened, it happened.

The truth exists, and our goals is to try to find it, if we may.

Ultimately perhaps, BR.  I don't get the impression from a lot of what you post though that you are actually trying to find it, you come across as insisting you've found it already.

Quote

It is true that the Pentagon was attacked, and it is true that the WTC towers experienced some sort of huge heat event and other phenomena that jetfuel and gravity could not generate.

It is likewise true that you may be mistaken that there was some sort of huge heat event that jetfuel and gravity could not generate, since as you said the actual truth exists separate from your understanding of it.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 05 October 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

It was poor alright – and no matter you failing to take the information onboard, it’s all been refuted except in your own mind.

Should we talk about your contention that "The motion of the lowest affected story is not downward due to gravity but always due to the ‘greater than gravity’ momentum of the upper block." next?

What about momentum is 'greater than gravity' anyway?

More and more evidence that you lack the technical knowledge to fully understand the physics and engineering aspects of the collapses.  Of course people have attempted to help you with this understanding, but you are oh so resistant to the information which has been repeatedly provided for you.

Q24, on 05 October 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

Once you appreciate the significant difference between the application of a boulder and the same mass of sand, despite the fact that each may contain overall equivalent energy, then we can talk.  When you reach that stage, you will understand how the eventual broken mass of the upper tower which initially drove the collapse is no longer like the intact and rigid block/‘piledriver’ the official theory depends upon.  You might also then understand how a collapse may be arrested – because, believe it or not, once a collapse begins, it is not necessarily perpetual.  Sorry but I don’t think this thread is really the place for you to be going over old ground and easily answered points on the WTC demolitions just because you didn’t understand the first dozen times around.

I do understand how a collapse may be arrested, but the conditions present on that day do not meet the requirements of this.  The collapsing portion of the building was simply too massive to be stopped by the structure below.  The requirements are as you quoted from Bazant, the upper block would have to be small; 3 to 5 stories or less.  The upper block wasn't this small.  It was at a minimum a 12 story section of the building.  Too big.  Too much mass.  Stopping that would take an act of God.

Q24, on 05 October 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

There have been many papers written by experts, published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which prove the case for the false flag nature of the attack and WTC demolitions to any unbiased mind: -

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

There have also been a number of papers published in mainstream journals, which unfortunately have been proven biased in applying publishing rules when it comes to 9/11 truth, such is political sensitivity of the subject: -

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

If even one of those papers had accomplished what you claim here, "prove the case for the false flag nature of the attack and WTC demolitions," then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.  The fact of the matter is that none of those papers have accomplished what you claim.

Q24, on 05 October 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

As I have explained this to you and provided the evidence before, I find your complaint to be quite disingenuous.

You've provided nothing of substance to back up your claims.

Q24, on 05 October 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

Those who want the truth will find it - move along booNy.

Those who want to learn will take the time necessary to understand why the 911 Truth Movement is primarily a load of bunkum.  Those who want to cling to the bunkum will avoid at all cost learning why it is bunkum.

[MID]

skyeagle409, on 05 October 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

Were you aware that the majority of architects and civil engineers do not support the 9/11 movement? In fact, they have distanced themselves from 9/11 Truthers.

Well, Sky, I know it doesn't help you all that much, but I am aware of that, and I understand why they distance themselves from the "truthers"* (like the vast majority of engineers do!)!

* Gotta wonder about that "truther" designation, don't ya?

[Babe Ruth]

You got right to the heart of the matter LG.

Objective reality, and how do we define it?

And I appreciate the input about how you think that I think I have found the truth.  I take that as a compliment, for in a sense I have found the truth, and it is quite simple.  So simple that anybody can understand it.

The truth is that the OCT is a lie.

No es dificil.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 06 October 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

And I appreciate the input about how you think that I think I have found the truth.  I take that as a compliment, for in a sense I have found the truth, and it is quite simple.  So simple that anybody can understand it.

The truth is that the OCT is a lie.

No es dificil.

Wrong.  Since all you have is circumstantial evidence (at best) and evidence that has not held up to scruitiny, the only truth you SHOULD have found is how flawed your theories are.

Because you disregard any evidence that refutes your opinion of "reality", does not mean you have a free pass to sit back and claim victory.

Your opinions on the Ross and Furlong paper is riddled with IF's.

IF the timing is correct
IF Rodriguez is not lying
IF FAA crash time reporting is correct
IF the other 12 people in the basement

Then that peice of evidence that supports your demolition theory has not held up to scruitny and shouldn't be considered evidence of any controlled demolitions at all.

Edited by RaptorBites, 06 October 2012 - 07:46 PM.

[skyeagle409]

MID, on 06 October 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Well, Sky, I know it doesn't help you all that much, but I am aware of that, and I understand why they distance themselves from the "truthers"* (like the vast majority of engineers do!)!

* Gotta wonder about that "truther" designation, don't ya?

They should have taken a hint when no one from the AIA was present at Richard Gage's presentation.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 06 October 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

The truth is that the OCT is a lie.

The real truth is, your claims are far from the truth.

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 06 October 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

LG

Regarding historical events, the actual truth about what happened exists SEPARATE FROM human understanding of knowledge of it.  Rather like the tree falling in the forest, whether humans are there to witness it, hear it, or record it, the event happens.

Actually the truth exists because of human uinderstanding and knowledge of it.
And, it's nothing like the tree falling in the forest.
It was like two buildings, observed falling by millions nationwide, and recorded on film, which aided in the study and analysis of the events.

Often, the tree falling in the forest has no one there to record the event.

Those buildings fell and millions of people, in addition to the plethora of live eye witnesses, saw it happen, and it was recorded.

Quote

It is true that the Pentagon was attacked

You're right, that is true, and we know exactly how and what happened there that morning.  I'm glad you see the light.

,

Quote

and it is true that the WTC towers experienced some sort of huge heat event and other phenomena that jetfuel and gravity could not generate.

Well, at least you understand the Pentagon.

But fundamentally, you're a little shy on the tower's fires.

They could only have happened because of jet fuel, and they did happen because of a large quantity of it, exploding into  huge flame balls and igniting all of that fuel inside the buildings...

.  However, it might be interesting to know what gravity had to do with that...but there's no real need to try and explain that.  Fire's kind of simple.  We all understand.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 06 October 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

It is true that the Pentagon was attacked, and it is true that the WTC towers experienced some sort of huge heat event and other phenomena that jetfuel and gravity could not generate.

It has already been proven that explosives and thermite were not responsible, which leaves fires and gravity.

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 06 October 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

Wrong.  Since all you have is circumstantial evidence (at best) and evidence that has not held up to scruitiny, the only truth you SHOULD have found is how flawed your theories are.

Because you disregard any evidence that refutes your opinion of "reality", does not mean you have a free pass to sit back and claim victory.

Your opinions on the Ross and Furlong paper is riddled with IF's.

IF the timing is correct
IF Rodriguez is not lying
IF FAA crash time reporting is correct
IF the other 12 people in the basement

Then that peice of evidence that supports your demolition theory has not held up to scruitny and shouldn't be considered evidence of any controlled demolitions at all.

I accept all the evidence Raptor, including yours.

I just interpret it differently, and I ain't the only one.

You seem to reject evidence that works against your position.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 07 October 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[coolguy]

there is a news clip from a cnn reporter and he said it was not a plane and there was nothing at the site to think it was a plane.
its on youtube iam to lazy to find it lol. if it was a plane how come light poles  where not knocked down and parts all over the place.
that place was built to take a big hit

[Czero 101]

coolguy, on 07 October 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

there is a news clip from a cnn reporter and he said it was not a plane and there was nothing at the site to think it was a plane.
its on youtube iam to lazy to find it lol.

That's not what he said. Stop being lazy, find the clip and see for yourself.

Quote

if it was a plane how come light poles  where not knocked down and parts all over the place.

Light poles WERE knocked down and wreckage WAS all over the place.

It sounds very much like you actually haven't seen the images of the crash scene. Is that part of that whole "too lazy to find it" thing you seem to be so proud of have going on...?

Quote

that place was built to take a big hit

Yes, the Pentagon was built to "take a big hit" inasmuch as its outer walls were reinforced to a certain degree but what makes you "think" that the damage seen there (in the images you seemingly haven't looked at) on that day was any different than should be expected when said building is hit by a 200,000+ pound aircraft traveling over 500 mph...?






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 07 October 2012 - 07:17 PM.