Of Billiard Balls and Executive Toys
Earlier, some commenters brought up the billiard ball theory, from mechanical engineer Judy Wood. It is called this because she compares the collapse of the World Trade Center towers to dropping a billiard ball off of the roof. The entire starting premise of this is of course false, since the collapse did not start at the top, and continue all the way to the ground, but knowing this, we will continue on.
She then argues, that in reality we have to look at this as a series of 110 billiard balls. Each billiard ball falls to the floor below it, where it conveniently comes to a complete stop, and then another billiard ball begins to fall, starting from a complete stop, coming up with a leisurely 87.9 to 96.7 second collapse. This is of course ridiculous.
Buildings like this are engineered to hold the static weight of the floors above them. This is several orders of magnitude less than the force exerted by the floors falling on them. This is analogous to holding a bowling ball in your hand, versus dropping it on your foot. I guarantee the second example will get your attention more than the first. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a floor would absorb the tremendous force of the floors above it slamming into it, wait a minute, and then collapse under the significantly less static weight which is now being exerted upon it. Rather, it would collapse immediately under the tremendous force of 300,000+ tons of building hitting it, just like a football linebacker stepping on a soda can, and then pass along its additional weight to the floors below it.
Ironically, the easiest way to describe the physical phenomenon, is listed on Ms. Wood's website on this topic, the executive toy known as "Newton's Cradle".
Click here for an example of how it works.
This demonstrates the principle of momentum. If you drop a ball on the left hand side, a ball on the right hand side swings up. With more force (two balls) two balls swing up. Note that this happens instantly, the momentum is passed through immediately to the next object, just as one floor would to another. The balls don't stop and think about it for a minute before swinging up at a slower speed. Of course this is the extreme example, with perfectly elastic balls, but it makes the point. In the collapsing towers each floor would provide some drag, like pushing a heavy cart through mud rather than on a concrete path, but in no way would it stop it. This is why the debris shooting out to the side can be seen falling faster than the towers itself.
On her website Ms. Wood brings up the topic of momentum, and then in an exceptionally convenient, and completely unscientific manner, just assumes it away.
I wish I could just assume away the fact that there was an attack on the World Trade Center in the first place, 3,000 people would still be alive, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
80 Comments:
Well put. Beyond the first few floors, I doubt any one floor gave much in the way of resistance to the falling building above. The debris field of seem to have almost been in freefall as it pulverized the building below it. The time to destruction would have been only slightly longer than the proverbial billiard ball dropped from that height.
Love your site. Thanks
Absolutely FLAWED analysis. Think of it this way, when you set up dominos to fall, and you tip the first one over, do they all fall at the same time or do they fall one by one? Dr. Wood is correctly pointing out the obvious given the timeframe the collapses occurred. No matter how much you want to ignore that each floor could have offered resistance and thereby additional time to every "pancake" the fact is the building pretty much fell at free fall speeds thereby discounting any "pancaking" as falsely reported by NIST and other "experts."
I wonder if Ms. Wood actually has a real world job as an ME (outside of wacademia)? Because if any prosepective employer ever saw her site they'd quickly tell her "Thanks, but no thanks."
Yet another victim blinded by "qualifications" of "experts." Didn't you know Einstein was just a patent officer at one point? For you guys, you limit yourselves by thinking only people "trained in their disciplines" can look at events and not for a cohesive analysis. Now look at that term "trained in a discipline" for a moment. Isn't that likening to a horse with blinders? Sometimes you just need to look at things from another perspective. People "trained in their disciplines" will almost never conclude other than what their "training" had to offer them. But sometimes, things aren't as difficult to understand that you need a whole "discipline" to understand it.
That's like saying you doubt a line of cars give little resistance to a train. Guess what, get a line of cars long enough and the train will stop.
Except this is a different case. Once the falling debris hits the floor below it and breaks it free, it doesn't continue to become an obstacle and in fact adds to the momentum with its weight.
I have heard conspiracy theorists compare it to a line of cars. The last car hits the car in front of it, and starts a chain reaction which eventually tires out. In this line of cars though, they are all under the force of gravity, so once the first car hits the next, the driver slams down on the accelerator, and both the cars slam into the one in front of them, and so on.
BTW, looking at the collapses, you can notice plumes of debris and dust ejected upwards and outward indicating less downward pressure than you imply in your analysis.
More like I'm someone who has worked in engineering, primarily mechanical engineering, for almost 20 years, so I understand her analysis is completely flawed. A decent engineer wouldn't look at her claim for longer than 30 seconds before busting out laughing at it.
Thanks for proving my point Willburrr
Try this. Put a big pile of dirt in a plastic bag and then make sure there's a good amount of air in there. Now place yours hand horizontal with one on top of the other and then slap them together to break that bag.
Well you just proved controlled demolition there. But what the "official" theory says is that the towers collapsed by their own weight. That's like watching sands go down an hourglass no? I never saw an arcing from sands falling in the hourglass.
That's like watching sands go down an hourglass no? I never saw an arcing from sands falling in the hourglass.
Huh? Did you start the holiday weekend drinking early? That made absolutely no sense.
Think of it this way, when you set up dominos to fall, and you tip the first one over, do they all fall at the same time or do they fall one by one?
Wow. What a horrendous analogy. Dominos are each free standing structures. Each floor isn't a free standing structure, you can't remove, say, the 40th floor and expect the entire tower to suspend itself.
I'm seeing a general pattern here with the CTers that they have a habit of removing gravity from the equation.
Wait a minute....
OF COURSE!
There IS no such thing as gravity. Einstein was in on this whole thing too.
CLICK!
Wow. What a horrendous analogy. Dominos are each free standing structures. Each floor isn't a free standing structure, you can't remove, say, the 40th floor and expect the entire tower to suspend itself.
Oh! Very good observation. Now, put a small wire connecting EACH of the dominos, what happens? Not all of them fall huh? You may get the first ones to tip over but down the line, the others left standing because this structure now has rigidity.
So you guys are saying gravity can account for the immediate collapse of the buildings right? What ever happed to FRICTION? Heck, if a body comes out from space and reenters the atmosphere, there is going to be friction no matter what gravity says! Air pockets (buildings were 90% air), steel reinforced on concrete floors suspending by criss-cross truss systems and massive concrete and steel central columns all would have produced massive amounts of resistance on the way down.
Are you saying friction can overcome the combined forces of kinetic energy and gravity?
What is your point with friction?
Dude... seriously? I don't know where you live, so at the moment, I can't come find you. But if you could to me a favor and smack the shit out of yourself, I'd appreciate it.
Question for you srice.... How long do "pulverized" floors burn?
And if the floors were in fact "pulverized" as you say, then I would imagine the majority of the clean up could've been done with a broom and dustpan.
And how exactly does one "pulverize" steel?
Oh! Very good observation. Now, put a small wire connecting EACH of the dominos, what happens?
YOU'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT VERTICAL STRUCTURES. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?!
Jesus Christ, you could connect them with laffy taffy, the analogy still doesn't stand (badum ching).
Are you saying friction can overcome the combined forces of kinetic energy and gravity?
No, but it can give them a run for their money - or - it can slow them down enough to resist free fall speeds and is what Woods, Jones and others are saying. The WTC "collapse" cannot explain free falling speeds widely observed.
That is static energy that was once held up by the tower that was spent on pulvering the floor and was NOT PASS TO THE NEXT FLOOR!!
You're kidding, right? Momentum is a powerful thing, did you even take physics in high school?
The WTC "collapse" cannot explain free falling speeds widely observed.
The free fall myth has been thoroughly debunked. Not only does it take longer than ten seconds to fall, but you can see debris falling faster than the tower itself.
No I haven't. I'm remided of it everyday when I go to work in an INTACT FIRE FREE BUILDING THAT CAN EASILY RESIST GRAVITY.
Are you forgetting two planes hit the towers with resulting infernos in each?
And I'm still waiting on your tips to pulverize steel.
And if the floors were in fact "pulverized" as you say, then I would imagine the majority of the clean up could've been done with a broom and dustpan.
Except for the neatly cut steel components, this is basically what was done an no bodies ever found.
Nesnyc, you want pictures of free fall stuff with only air resisting it? Watch the debris of the towers. And watch how it falls faster. And figure out in your brain that the reason it falls faster is because only air is impeding its progress. And realize that that is what defines something in "free fall".
(And then continue to slap yourself for being you.)
Nesnyc.... God.
I'm dumber for arguing with you.
You do realize that each floor was comprised of steel with a concrete slab over it don't you?
You are completely retarded if you think they cleaned up Ground Zero with a couple cranes and some 5 gallon buckets.
Are you forgetting two planes hit the towers with resulting infernos in each?
The building was fire resistant as designed and it was also designed to withstand planes crashing into them. In fact, these buildings were designed to resist gail force winds and the airplanes didn't even apply that much force.
But the fires were practically out and the jet fuel burned off in the first 10 minutes according to NIST.
Why will a single large object of mass hurt more then many small objects that add to the same mass as the large object?
What the eff are you talking about?!? You're in the running to de-throne nesnyc as the crackiest of the crack pots here dude....
Pulverize steel for me. Please.
But the fires were practically out and the jet fuel burned off in the first 10 minutes according to NIST.
I'm sure the aerosol jet fuel burned off pretty quick, but the liquid stuff took a little longer. And not before igniting the SHIT ON THE FLOORS IT HIT!!
And the building was desinged for a 707 (the largest at the time) travelling at slow speeds, after fuel had been dumped in case of a crash.
NOT for a 767 travelling at 500+ mph with 10,000 gallons of fuel.
STOP. IGNORING. THESE. FACTS.
Nesnyc.... God.
I'm dumber for arguing with you.
You do realize that each floor was comprised of steel with a concrete slab over it don't you?
You are completely retarded if you think they cleaned up Ground Zero with a couple cranes and some 5 gallon buckets.
LOL! Go and do your research. There was nothing left of the concrete floors but pulverized fine dust. Only the steel components remained and is why no bodies were ever found. That FACT is the strongest for controlled demolition as pointed out by many, even Avery. Funny we got massive doses of "Osama and Al Qaeda" did this from the media but no widely reported accounts of the fine dust that resulted from the "collapses."
SHIT ON THE FLOORS IT HIT!!
So your saying PC's, rugs, paper and office supplies melted the steel? Do you realize what you just said?
NOT for a 767 travelling at 500+ mph with 10,000 gallons of fuel.
STOP. IGNORING. THESE. FACTS.
The fact is, if the planes really had anything to do with the damage, it would have been immediately apparent and part of the building collapse immediately after impact. But that's not the case. In fact, the buildings were designed to withstand hurricane force winds over a sustained period of time. The plane's impact were concentrated in a small point that the rest of the buildings immediately absorbed because they were designed to withstand much larger forces for longer periods of time. Those ARE THE FACTS.
There was nothing left of the concrete floors but pulverized fine dust.
And what of the steel that the concrete was laid on?
And I never said a damn thing about "melting" anything. That's something you CTers latch on to, when any rational person with an 8th grade education knows that steel doesn't have to MELT for it to loose strength and structural integrity.
Hurricane force winds don't take out sections of the buildings structural elements (the outer columns).
767s on the other hand? They have a tendency to do so.
I have a question.... If controlled demolition was used, and the free fall theory holds true, then shouldn't the concrete of the floors be relatively intact?
The only thing that could pulverize the concrete is the pancaking explanation, and you people all say that didn't happen.
So....?
The only thing that could pulverize the concrete is the pancaking explanation, and you people all say that didn't happen.
So....?
Logic is kryptonite to these folks.
You guys are acting like the floors were acting like a solid. Once they pulvered they acted more like a liquid. A gallon of water drop a foot won't hurt my foot, but a gallon of frozen water drop the same distance will hurt it.
Uhh, drop a 30 foot long steel beam on your foot and tell me how much it hurts.
Srice, each concrete floor had a steel sheet underneath it. In order for your cracked-out idea of the floors acting like "liquid" to be anywhere near logical, the steel would also have to be pulverized.
How would that be possible?
And just for the record, you didn't stump me with your statements. You stumped me with your piss-poor spelling and equally crappy grammar.
Get some education on the subjects so you can at least provide the appearance of knowing what you're talking about.
What does your "education" tell us about pulverized concrete ejected several hundred feet? Like I said the "trained in a discipline" supporters of the official fantasy have fancy and very expensive blinders courtesy of a failed or manipulated educational system or their own blind ignorance.
Srice, each concrete floor had a steel sheet underneath it. In order for your cracked-out idea of the floors acting like "liquid" to be anywhere near logical, the steel would also have to be pulverized.
How would that be possible?
And just for the record, you didn't stump me with your statements. You stumped me with your piss-poor spelling and equally crappy grammar.
Nope. Not if what was placed on the concrete, whose intent was to cut the steel, had the secondary effect of pulverizing the concrete. Why can't you guys come up with valid conclusions instead of people spoon feeding them to you? I guess that's part of the problem, no?
Not if what was placed on the concrete, whose intent was to cut the steel, had the secondary effect of pulverizing the concrete.
I'm sorry Nesnyc, I'm having trouble following your crazy. Are you saying that now, in addition to the support columns being fitted with demolitions, that all the FLOORS were fitted as well? You do realize that that would tack on about an additional 6 to 9 months of preparations right?
can't you guys come up with valid conclusions instead of people spoon feeding them to you?
A.) What you said wasn't even in the same universe as "valid".
B.) We don't need to come up with shit, because what's been documented is what's happened.
C.) Drop the "outside the box" thinking. It's only making you out to be an absolute moron (as opposed to the status of "learning disabled" you would've received had you kept your mouth shut and went back to watching the Teletubbies.)
Now the entire educational system is in on the conspiracy, except for those few that have uncovered the truth and proven that basic physics and engineering principles are a con job?
LOL. You're a riot.
I didn't say they are part of this conspiracy, only that "the powers that be" have rigged it so as to prevent people from critical thinking by burying them in a myriad of useless details. It’s not part of the 911 conspiracy, but part of an overall plan to create lemmings of all stripes be they laymen or intellectuals. If the shoe fits...
I'm sorry Nesnyc, I'm having trouble following your crazy. Are you saying that now, in addition to the support columns being fitted with demolitions, that all the FLOORS were fitted as well? You do realize that that would tack on about an additional 6 to 9 months of preparations right?
There are a few scenarios where this could be possible, none of them have anything to do with jet fuel.
What Destroyed The WTC?
It then acted a like a pyroclastic flow, or more simply a liquid.
Right on! The obvious! How unfortunate their "education" didn't given them the insight to see the obvious.
a myriad of useless details
The irony in that statement alone is earth-shattering. Thanks nesnyc.... I now have the title for my book.
Srice said: The the floor acted as a solid until it was broken up.
Fantastic. Now remind me again how 220 floors made of steel "break up" enough to "act like a liquid" and allow a "free fall"?
Here's what I find interesting about the "squibs".
If they truly are explosives and you look closely at them, they knock out one, maybe two, of the exterior support columns.
According to CTers, this facilitates collapse. Yet according to them, the gaping holes left by both airliners should have no effect on the buildings' structural integrity whatsoever....
Convenient.
Nesnyc, if you actually pay attention to the site you link, you'll notice the amount of squibs needed to bring down a 20 to 30 story building. I have yet to see half that number in any photo of the twin towers.
Fantastic. Now remind me again how 220 floors made of steel "break up" enough to "act like a liquid" and allow a "free fall"?
EXPLOSIVES/THERMITE
Nesnyc, if you actually pay attention to the site you link, you'll notice the amount of squibs needed to bring down a 20 to 30 story building. I have yet to see half that number in any photo of the twin towers.
LOL! Does the building in the picture look constructed in the same as the Towers? They only show it so you can visualize what a demolition 'squib' really looks like. Along with that spoon feeding, I guess I'll need a bib for you guys too!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-79610565615
Guys! Please learn basic html!!!! Thank You.
Does the building in the picture look constructed in the same as the Towers?
Right. So now, all of a sudden, the Towers' unique design comes into play. Couple of logical fallacies. You say "EXPLOSIVES/THERMITE" turned each floor into a liquid-like pyroclastic cloud. I still have yet to hear an explanation as to how not only the support columns, but EACH FLOOr was fitted with "EXPLOSIVES/THERMITE".
And please spoon feed my why you think I should believe a couple squibs brought down the towers, but the damage done by each 767 didn't effect them one iota.
And coming to terms that your government hoodwinked you is yours.
Wow, good one. Now use logic to prove that and you'll actually have a point, jackass.
Undense... TinyURL please. :)
I would but I had a feel that it would go in one ear and out there other or you would shut down your brain haft way and turn to insults, fart knocker.
First, I'm smarter than you. I only insult you because logic is constantly going in your ear and out the other (I love how you conspiracy idiots use that age-old defense mechanism of placing your faults on your opponent). I mean you haven't yet had an incident of logic going in my ear and out the other, if so I'd believe everything you guys were saying. Humorously enough, believing what you guys said would prove your accusation.
Even every tenth floor, you'd need a massive amount of explosive, and you'd need months and months to place them all (as in longer than Bushhitlermchalliburton was in office).
And fartknocker? Come up with better insults.
I see lot of twisted metal, and large pile of what look like dirt, but no chuck of concrete bigger then a baseball.
Did you watch the tower collapse? There's enormous chunks of concrete there.
Also, you seem to think we believe the official story because it comes from the government. We don't. We believe it because it has the most evidence and is most logical. We've never said the government is innocent of all terrible doings in history, just they are in this case.
You all fall victim to the post hoc logical fallacy.
The government has done horrible things.
9/11 was a horrible thing.
Ergo, 9/11 was done by the government.
1) Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from build a week before the attack.
2) Complete power outage from floor 30th and up the weekend before the attack.
Bull. This typifies how you CTs rely on lies and distortions to make your arguments.
Bomb sniffing dogs were not removed, extra security was added for a couple of weeks before the attack, then it went back to its normal regimen, which still included bomb sniffing dogs, on the 7th.
And the power outage was only from floor 50 and up, in only the south tower. It only lasted 24 hours, the floors were not blocked off, and security was normal. So are you now claiming that only one part of one tower fell from explosives, and the rest was because of the airplane crash?
The offial story is "more logical" to you because you can come to terms with it.
Don't use scare quotes because you can't come to terms with logical thinking. I already explained how your way of thinking is based off a huge logical fallacy.
Coming to term with ideas different from the offical story would mean your government attacked it's own people. That is something you can't deal with.
Ironic, as it tends to be conspiracy theorists who can't come to terms with a group of maniacs pulling this off (which contrary to your claims, is a lot scarier than government officials we could hypothetically hold accountable).
I'm not saying you believe the story because of the source, I'm saying you believe it because it lets you sleep at night.
No, I "believe" it (it's not based on faith, while your conspiracy theory is) because it has the evidence and logic back it up. Get that through your thick skull. It's not logical because I think it's right, it's right because I know it's logical.
Shawn, if you can, think deeply about what it would mean to you if the government did attack it own people. I'm not talking about 9/11 specifly, but in general the government attacking it own people. Your elected offical attacking and killing you love one. Your friends. Your country man. That stranger you made eye contact with the other. All dead by at the hands of your government. How would that make you feel?
An appeal to emotion (with is irrational and illogical). Isn't that what the big deal is with Bush using 9/11 to justify Iraq is? Nice to see you blowhards aren't hypocrites too /sarcasm.
You best fucking hope everything was normal, else the Chief is working for the biggest terroist of the world, you brainwashed robot.
I've seen more irony in a week on this blog than I had in the entirey of my life.
Try the Deutsch Bank Srice. They're still finding body parts there.
Odd, the WTC didn't act at all like a volcano erupting.
Simply put, a pyroclastic flow is going to pulverize what ever in it's path
If that's the case, then the majority of the financial district should be leveled.
And we're not ridiculing you folk because we fear the truth. We're ridiculing you because you're borderline retarded. I don't mean to make cheap pot-shots, but the spelling and grammar errors that I've seen from you CTers are astounding.
Even if you WERE making valid points, it'd be hard to take them seriously. For example, why should I believe you know what you're talking about with pyroclastic flows, when you still seem to struggle with subject/predicate?
Shawn, you little minded fool. Who said it was like a volcano erupting?
Again, applying your faults to your opponent. You love it.
I was mocking you, by the way, but perhaps your little mind couldn't understand that, huh?
Truth passes through three phases:
* First it is ridiculed.
* Second it is fiercely and violently opposed.
* Third, it becomes self-evident.
So every crazy idea becomes true? Yup, too bad that doesn't happen. Soon we'll all believe reptilian aliens run the world and perform Satanic sacrifices? And a UFO crashed in New Mexico? Or the Holocaust was all a misunderstanding about thyphoid victims and delousing? Or the Jews control the media, and the world? Or an alien named Xenu blew up millions of aliens on Earth and we have those spirits attached to us?
When you stop spouting rhetoric and start using LOGIC, maybe you can prepare a coherent argument.
Critical thinking is not your strong suit, pal.
And truth very rarely goes through those three phases, anyway.
And we're not ridiculing you folk because we fear the truth. We're ridiculing you because you're borderline retarded.
Bingo.
Why not attack me about cuttung the center support in the basement?
Probably because the tower fell from the top down, not the other way around.
Or blowing out the center support every ten floors?
And you haven't proved that. You can't friggin' argue the consequent, that's a goddamn logical fallacy. But of course you didn't know that.
Nope, can't touch those points. You might have to think and confront the truth.
Time and time again we've debunked your points elsewhere (and you seem to adhere to the free fall myth).
or UFO's to mock me.
I was mocking you because you seem to think any crazy idea goes through that "three steps" to truth. In fact, most truth doesn't come about the way you describe.
Start being brave and challege me on the point I have made instead cowarding behind twisting things into claims I never made.
It has been addressed, you ignored the points that you couldn't answer (I believe something about lithification was mentioned). I've also pointed out the logical fallacies you've used (which can't be argued with, just pointed out).
You people are cowards who rather mock and ridical rather then to look at the points brought up.
Ridicule.
And no, it's just more fun to ridicule and mock people who can't allow facts and logic to get in the way of their worldview. We're already debunked fully everything you've mentioned (and you seem to think you're the first person to mention any of it). It gets to the point where we know you morons are brick walls and will never realize they have no evidence or logical discourse. You're psuedoskeptics. A skeptic says "show me the evidence" not "I only accept the 'evidence' that adheres to my preconceived notions".
Why not attack me about cuttung the center support in the basement?
Because you have no proof it happened.
Or blowing out the center support every ten floors?
Because you have no proof it happened.
Or on the fact that the bomb stuiffing dogs were removed?
Because that point's already been justified. (Bomb stuffing dogs?)
Or the fact the power was indeed out?
Because that too has been explained.
Or that to drop the tower at near free you need to drop each floor before the floor above hit it?
Because it didn't fall at free fall speeds.
Give me a point that that hasn't already been explained away fifty-thousand times and I'll go put on my Bravery Boxers, and we'll have ourselves a little debate.
And I'm sorry, but I just cannot take seriously an argument whose spelling and structure is all over the place. I'm telling you this because you need to know: If you want people to pay attention to your theories, you at least need to present them at a high school level.
You may in fact not be dumb Srice. But it comes across that way. And why would I pay even the slightest mind to someone who's dumb?
It is something I'm presenting to you that could be awaking something inside of you? Prehaps it is the fact you're clearly not comfortable talking about the offical story? Truth has a funny way about it that draws us in.
You go 0 for 2 at the plate when it comes to spelling the word "sniffing", and you're gonna sit there and give me a psyche evaluation?
That's brilliant.
Can we get nesnyc in here to bring some sanity back into the dialogue?
Srice, I like you. :)
You make me giggle.
Srice, your "points" have been thoroughly debunked on here a thousand times over.
In all honesty, I watched Loose Change. And it did make me want to ask questions and dig deeper and find out what really happened.
However, I found that many of the accusations in the film were just plain wrong, and those that weren't were severely taken out of context. The rest could be explained away by a little common sense.
I honestly feel bad for the likes of you and nesnyc and BG. There is danger and deception and evil around every corner for you people. You can't trust anyone. You're always suspect. And when you're not and everything's fine in your world, you still go out looking for something to be paranoid about.
That to me is a sad existence.
Your obvious attempt to get me riled up is equally pathetic. You don't know me one bit. You have no idea what makes me tick. Yet you call me a coward only because I know you're wrong.
Very telling.
The fact is that there is nothing I, nor any other sane person, can do to make you see you're wrong. Anything that shreds your theory is either casually dismissed or is said to be "faked". In your world, anything that goes against what you believe can never be true.
A perfect example of this is the new cease and desist order served to Dylan Avery on behalf of the Naudet brothers. Not one conspiracy theorist thought it was suspicious that they were the only ones to get footage of the 1st plane hitting the tower....
.... until today.
There were bomb sniffing dogs permanently assigned to the towers you moron. Remember they had been attacked before. The only dogs that were removed were the ones that were part of the extra security. One of the dogs even died in the collapse.
Police K9 Sirius, Badge Number 17...a four-and-a-half-year old, ninety pound, easygoing, yellow Labrador Retriever...was an Explosive Detection Dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. Sirius, along with his partner, Police Officer David Lim, were assigned to the World Trade Center in New York, where their primary duty was to check vehicles entering the Complex, clear unattended bags and sweep areas for VIP safety. Sirius, who began work at the World Trade Center on July 4, 2000, was the only police dog to perish during the attack on the Twin Towers.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, Sirius and Officer Lim were at their Station located in the basement of Tower Two. When Officer Lim heard the explosion, he thought at first that a bomb had been detonated inside the building. Believing he would be more effective alone, Officer Lim left Sirius locked in his six-foot by ten-foot crate, telling him, "I'll be back to get you," as he rushed to help with the rescue effort. At that time, Officer Lim could think of no safer place for his canine companion other than the basement. However, Officer Lim failed to return to Sirius. Becoming trapped in the falling debris of Tower One, he wasn't rescued until some five hours or more later. Sadly, in the meantime, Sirius had perished when Tower Two collapsed. The remains of the loyal Sirius were recovered on January 22, 2002. Thankfully, it is believed that he died instantly when his kennel caved-in.
Sirius
Just for a second, let's roll back the clock to the 1400's. And the topic for disccusion is the question "Is the earth flat?" The offical stand was it was flat. How were the people treated who did not accept that idea? Remember how Christopher Columbus was treated? People would say "you idiot! Don't you know the earth is flat? Logicaly, if you sail to far, you fall off the edge! It's only logicaly to think that if you want on the bottom of the earth that you would fall off." And so on.
Actually that is a myth, like most of the stuff you post.
Flat Earth Myth
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Srice, your pyroclastic flow obstructs the towers as they near the ground, so it's impossible to know exactly how long they took to collapse. You people say 10 seconds, other people say 14 to 16 seconds.
And I love you brought up the whole "Well people thought the Earth was flat once" argument. As if that proves that thinking Islamists attacked us on 9/11 is wrong.
And to be honest with you, I don't trust the government. I know they're shady when they wanna be. But that doesn't mean they ALWAYS lie.
I also have the common sense to know that there ARE people out there that wish us harm. These people have made that statement time and time again. If you don't believe that, then you must believe that the US government is behind the 7/7 attacks in London, the Bali nightclub bombings, the numerous civilian beheadings, the USS Cole, countless embassy attacks, and David Hasselhoff.
That is just plain impossible (except for Hasselhoff). The reason I believe the official story is because I believe there are members of this "religion of peace" that want us dead. And I believe that because they've told us.
PS - One dog was killed, dipshit.
Just to pile on.
It is sometimes claimed that the reason Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan was that Europeans believed that the earth was flat. This claim can be traced to Washington Irving's 1828 novel, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. Irving's claim has no historical basis. In fact, what was at issue was not the shape, but the circumference of the earth.
The fact that the Earth is spherical was evident to most people of Columbus' time, especially to sailors, explorers and navigators. Indeed, Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) had already, in ancient Alexandrian times, accurately calculated the Earth's circumference. Most scholars accepted Ptolemy's claim that the terrestrial landmass (for Europeans of the time, comprising Eurasia and Africa) occupied 180 degrees of the terrestrial sphere, leaving 180 degrees of water.
Christopher Columbus
Like everything else you post here, your history is based on myth, urban legend and misunderstanding.
Yeah, as soon as we invade Poland and kill 6 million Jews, let me know.
Do svidaniya tovarishch.
Or the Reichstag fire
You're using the post hoc logical fallacy AGAIN. Do I need to explain this for you once more?
James, we have already invaded to country and killed over 100k people.
About 30k, less than a third being from direct US action, but who's counting?
So you basis for believing in the official story is essentially bigotry and racism toward this "religion of peace". My brother-in-law and some friends are Muslims, are you going to attack them?
Strawman logical fallacy.
He never said all Muslims are out killing people. But it's quite obvious that Muslims are the ones committing terrorist actions worldwide, five thousand since 9/11. When Christians and Buddhists and JEws start killing people over cartoons in a newspaper, then I'll raise some concern. The Da Vinci Code is far more insulting than the Mohammed cartoons, yet nobody's died in massive riots over it yet.
There almost was zero support before 9/11
...there was no talk of invading Iraq before 9/11, but don't let that get in your way.
Do you not see the parallels to 9/11?
By your logic, every single attack justifying a war is faked by the government. Pearl Harbor was an attack faked by the government. The invasion of Poland was an act of the French and British governments in cahoots (they just faked Hitler faking an attack on a border radio station). The invasion of eastern Poland was faked by the Soviets to justify war against the Greater German Reich.
What you have admitted here is that your fear of Muslims prevents you from considering the government involvement in 9/11.
Hey guess what dipshit? I have friends who are Muslims too! I have black friends, and Irish friends and Filipino friends. The difference being of course is that my friends (regardless of what race/color/gender/etc. they are) aren't going around cutting people's heads off and flying planes into buildings.
Those type aren't really my crowd.
I am fully aware that not all who practice Islam are terrorists. But it would seem that most who are terrorists practice Islam.
If it makes you feel better to label me a racist, go ahead. You obvsiously have no other argument to stand on.
WHAT!?!?!?!? You must have been in your momma womb or under a rock not to know the neocons wanted to invade Iraq!
"Started planning". Are you aware we have a plan to invade every country on the planet?
Wow Shawn! You're so logicaly!
Was using a logical device called reducio ad absurdum to attack your continual use of the post hoc logical fallacy.
I'll explain here, since you don't seem to get it.
You logic follows this pattern:
The government (Nazis) committed a terrorist act to justify war.
9/11 was a terrorist act used to justify war.
Ergo, 9/11 was a terrorist act committed by the government.
Do you have any idea what so ever what DU is doing to that area?!
The Democratic Underground? What the hell are you talking about?
By the way, your "100k" figure comes from a study that stated the dead were between "1900-100000" with a "95 percent" confidence. Why not say only 2000 people died?
Ah, depleted uranium.
That's one of those something from nothing issues, like white phosphorous.
1) History shows government, like the nazi, have committed terriost event against their own people and blame it on other people to justify taking power away from the people. They later used it to wage war.
Post hoc logical fallacy.
2) The US government release a document in the 60's to fake terriost attack against cuba.
They weren't faking them AGAINST Cuba, they were going to blame Cuba for them. You ignore that no one would die in said "terriost (sic) attack. None of you mention that nobody would die.
3) On September 11, 1991 George H Bush accounced the coming of "The New World Order".
And for normal people that had no odd implications (nor should it be capitalized).
The new world order concept was secondary at best to the Bush administration, and perhaps only a rhetorical tool that implied more than it meant. Throughout the period of the phrase’s use, the public seemed to expect much more from the phrase than any politicians did, and predictions about the new order quickly outraced the rather lukewarm descriptions made in official speeches.
4) In 1992 the Wolfowitz document outlined plans to create a one world super power without rivals.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States was the single superpower.
5) In the early 90’s the CIA funds and train bin laden to fight against the Russains.
Do you ignore every thread on here? Training of bin Laden is a myth. He funded his own batch of holy warriors. Next.
6) In September 2000, the PNAC outline plans to attack country in the middle east to gain control of resources. They said they couldn't do with a "New Pearl Harbor"
No, the plan called for a military builup. And I think any sane individual would make the same conclusion.
7) Pre September 11, 2001, the Government does everything it can to stall, ignore, prevent, hinder, any inestgation into a terrorist attack.
Red herring.
8) On the 9/10 FEMA sets up camp for "a mock terriost attack" the next day
War games aren't "mock terriost (sic) attacks[s]". It had been planned before 9/10, as well. Red herring again.
9) The millarty is performing 4 mock terriost drills.
War games aren't mock terror drills.
10) Advance flight path is used to avoid radar detection and possible plane switching.
Absolutely, POSITIVELY zero evidence for any plane switching, and if you believe that, you need to end your life because your brain is failed for you. The planes fly lower so they can see upcoming targets, makes perfect sense.
12) Planes hit WTC 1 & 2, and in the first in history, a steel frame building fails due to fire.
Another debunked point. None of those buildings were hit by airliners, compromising their structural intergrity and removing fireproofing. But just ignore facts that don't fall in line with your conspiracy.
13) Puff of smokes from the basement before collapse.
Source.
14) Metal melting looks like termite.
The "termite" (sic) has been debunked on another thread. You would've needed massive amounts to collapse the tower.
15) Squibs of smoke at unformed distances.
There are no squibs. This point has been debunked numerous times. When air is compressed it has nowhere to go but out.
16) Steel does not pass through concrete at near free fall speed.
Quit parroting the freefall myth.
17) Tower fall at near fell fall with a demolition wave proceeding slightly before the falling debris.
Again, the free fall myth. The towers don't fall even close to free fall.
18) Something hits the pentagon. No one is sure because the FBI take 84 videos and release only to after five showing no plane.
Yes, something hit the pentagon. A commercial airplane. We know this because 100 eyewitnesses say so. Two say it was a small plane, but they're the farthest from the event. No one claims it to be a cruise missle or anything similar. Most security cameras do not capture in real time. One or two frames a second being standard.
19) WTC 7 collapse. FEMA says they don’t know why is collapse. The 9/11 Commission won’t touch it.
We do know why it collapsed. Massive structural damage and a raging fire within. Firefighters called for an evacuation of the area because they thought it would collapse.
20) All of the Silverstein property collapses, while other tower, owned by other people, that are even closer to the WTC 1&2 remain standing.
Red herring. Also been debunked on other threads, read everything before commenting.
21) Silverstein says “pull it” in refence to WTC 7. Insiders scramble to cover his statement. They come up with “Pull it’ means the “pull the fireman”. In the same program, other people say “pull it” mean blow up the tower.
Red herring. Whether he said this or not is useless, unless there's physical evidence (thus far none) for a controlled demolition.
22) Mrs Rice lies, Rumfields Lies, Bush lies, heck the whole administration lies to use 9/11 to wage Wars.
How so? The Taliban allowed al-Qaeda (the people who actually pulled off 9/11) free reign in their country. If you're talking about Iraq, the media and the Democrats had the same info as Bush and called for the same action.
23) NORAD is slow to react.
Armchair generals are beautiful. Do you realize the amount of planes in the sky?
24) Planes are moved away from Washington and New York.
Jets? If so, you're wrong. They weren't scrambled till 93 went down. If you mean commercial airliners, how is that odd? Red herring logical fallacy, once again.
25) The same company that does security for United, WTC, and the Airport has a Bush sitting on the board. And his contract just happens to end on 9/11/2001.
HE WAS GONE FOURTEEN MONTHS BEFORE 9/11. Christ, do you know the first thing about the event? Moron.
1) Terriost flew planes into buildings because they want to harm us.
Five THOUSAND terrorist acts by Islamist extremists since 9/11. Absolutely zero government attacks since.
2) The building fell because of office fires
Blast furance mean anything to you? Because that's what the buildings turned into.
3) The government is only trying to protect us.
Strawman, time and time again I agree with the terrible things the government has done throughout history. Of course, those have evidence for them.
Sorry, I'm not a drone and I can think for myself.
Your above points prove otherwise. You have absolutely zero understanding of logic, logical fallacies, and critical thinking.
I sorry you can't connect the 25 items I listed together, but being a fucking retarded drone slave sheep fuck like you are, you could never do that because to do so would mean you would have to come to terms with the fucking fact you government fucking attack you
Ah now we come to the ad hominem spree because you can't stand that not all of us will willingly believe something just because someone says so. We understand how evidence and critical thinking works.
Guess what fucks, when Iran, China, and Russian dumps the dollar, you be fucking hurting.
Red herring, has absolutely nothing to do with this 'debate' (I use the term loosely because you're arguing from ignorance and without an iota of critical thinking). But you're not biased at all? An objective observer are you?
yet, i'm illogical.....
I'm not gonna scroll up and count, but you use at least a half dozen logical fallacies.
I had a long retort to what you wrote but figure what's the use. You will not listen. So why not atack the root of the issue
I felt the exact same way (except I actually wrote mine out). Too bad you'll be looking at the terms I use and wondering what the hell a logical fallacy is.
You will always, forever, until the end of time, think that anything differing from the official story is absurd
Untrue. If there were evidence contradicting the official story, I'd much like to look at it. Hell, I read/watch almost everything the conspiracy theorists post on here. You continually place your own faults on to me. You can NEVER be convinced of the official story. No matter how much evidence there is, no matter how much sense it makes, you will continually believe it was a government conspiracy. Blind faith (such as yours) is powerful.
1) the government lied
You gonna get around to proving this?
2) terrorist did not commit the crimes
Refuting a mountain of evidence is gonna be tough. But you can keep trying.
3) you supported the killing of innocent people and lastly,
How so? I'm not a member of the government. Then again, if I were to turn this around (which would be correct), you're desecrating the victims of those innocents by buying into the unfounded myth that the government perpetrated these acts.
the biggie 4) there was government involvement.
Thus far you (or anyone else) has yet to prove this point. The burden of proof is on you, Einstein.
Until you can come to term with those four items, you will forever think I’m illogical.
No, I know you're illogical because you continually use logical fallacies.
That is your only defense against dealing with those items. Let me correct that, IT IS YOUR ONLY DEFENSE.
No it isn't, I used facts to refute every point you made. And I can't refute logical fallacies, as they're fallacious, I just have to point them out.
For you it is illogical since your mind can not comprehend those four items.
Wow, you are a dumb as dirt. Ridiculously dumb. I CAN comprehend those possibilities. The fact is the EVIDENCE ISN'T THERE. No amount of logical fallacies or appealing to emotion or your continuous ad hominem attacks will make your right.
And it will be forever until you can free your mind.
If believing nonsense with nothing more than blind faith to guide me is having a free mind, then someone changed the dictionary when I wasn't looking.
Whatever you present, which is nothing but insults to date, I can freely consider because I do not sanctify any single idea.
...err I refuted you point by point with facts (or pointing out where you were using logical fallacies). I just peppered in some insults because you ARE an idiot and don't seem to realize it.
I think like this: Eliminate the impossible and what you have left, however improbable, must be the truth.
I like how this is used by conspiracy theorists (such as people who think the moon landing was hoaxed). That isn't the basic of logical thought, Occam's Razor is. You can't ignore all the evidence and then say "well the government did it because of some quote I found on the internet". Critical thought doesn't work that way.
I pray that you will one day find freedom of thought and openess to ideas you don't understand. I bid you good luck and that you will find you way.
Pray in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up first.
Honestly, though, I was smarter than you in my teens (as I understood burden of proof, logical fallacy, and critical thinking at that age). I'm more open minded than you'll ever be, as your posts have made abundantly clear.
You continually place your faults on to me, it would funny if it weren't so sad.
Animation showing military precision of flight paths
Terrorists my ass.
Are you trying to kill me? My sides hurt from laughing so hard. But tell me again that truth always is ridiculed. It's real cute.
And stop pretending you're neutral, you're not.
You're obviously biased towards the conspiracy theory and dumbly blinded by it.
Hey, at least he's not as bad as roger. Guy's only response to you destroying his argument is "that's not a logical fallacy!" or "you're twelve".
Wow, you just wasted so much time for nothing.
To sum up your argument:
Coincidence?
Uh yes. You're using a logical fallacy here called cum hoc ergo propter hoc or "with this, therefore because of this". The fallacy ignores the fact that most things are coincidences, and that correlation does not imply causation. Hell, just skimming through your post I see at least four examples of you using this logical fallacy (or its cousin post hoc).
Until you morons realize most of life is chaos and coincidences, you'll be stuck going on and on about utter nonsense.
Post a Comment
<< Home