Friday, May 26, 2006

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.

146 Comments:

At 26 May, 2006 12:35, Blogger HD_Wanderer said...

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

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:06, Blogger undense said...

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."

I've met kids still in high school with a better grasp of engineering concepts than she has.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:09, Blogger srice555 said...

I doubt any one floor gave much in the way of resistance to the falling building above.

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.

She make a very good point further down that I don't think the coward James would touch with a ten footh pole.

So, for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone.

Did we see this? I believe it's pretty clear in some of the videos. The "wave" of collapse, progressing down the building, is moving faster than free-fall speed. This would require something like a detonation sequence.

Realizing that, for example, the 40th floor needs to start moving before any of the upper floors have "free-fallen" to that point, why would it start moving? There was no fire there. And, if anything, there is less load on that floor as the upper floors turn to dust.


Exactly! As the upper floor turns to dust the force on the lower floor is reduce.

Here something to try. Replace the steel balls in networn's cradle with eggs and see what happens.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:14, Blogger nesNYC said...

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."

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:21, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:23, Blogger James B. said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:24, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:29, Blogger undense said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:32, Blogger undense said...

Yet another victim blinded by "qualifications" of "experts."

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:34, Blogger undense said...

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.

Only if you weld girders between each car, stick them up about 380 feet high, and then drop the train on top of them.

Think they'd stop that train then?

You're neglecting gravity and structural integrity, so your analogy is basically piss poor.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:41, Blogger undense said...

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.

It's called compression. Do you understand what happens to a volume of air when you squeeze it, nesnyc?

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.

What do you see?

Well damn. Some of that dirt goes up in an arcing pattern too, and you didn't even have any thermite rigged to your palms or fingers.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:44, Blogger nesNYC said...

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

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:48, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:58, Blogger James B. said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:59, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:08, Blogger Chad said...

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!

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:17, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:20, Blogger srice555 said...

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.

Are we forgeting the floors were pulverized? How much energy does it take to pulveried each floor? 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!!

I'm saying not the energy disappeared, I'm saying it was spent.

You're right my analogy sucks. Try this one. It's worst. Take a stack of 110 eggs, remove eggs 80-85. Let eggs 86-110 free fall. How many eggs between 1-80 will be left? :P

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:21, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:24, Blogger Chad said...

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?

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:26, Blogger shawn said...

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).

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:27, Blogger srice555 said...

Hye Chad, oh we haven't forgot about gravity, have you forgot about the resistance of the things designed to resist gravity?

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:28, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:28, Blogger shawn said...

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?

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:29, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:30, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:32, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:33, Blogger Chad said...

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.)

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:35, Blogger srice555 said...

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.

Why will a single large object of mass hurt more then many small objects that add to the same mass as the large object?

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:36, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:37, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:38, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:41, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:43, Blogger nesNYC said...

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."

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:45, Blogger nesNYC said...

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?

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:48, Blogger nesNYC 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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:50, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:52, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:58, Blogger Chad said...

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....?

 
At 26 May, 2006 17:13, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 17:32, Blogger James B. said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 17:56, Blogger srice555 said...

Chad, I said nothing about pulverizing steel. I'm talking about the concrete. Of course you starting talking about steel because I stumped you with my statements. You changed the subject to something abstract as a way to protect yourself from coming to terms with the fact that pulvering concrete reduces the energy passed to the next floor.

Also a controlled demolition increases, not decreases, the likely of pulverizing concrete as more energy is introduced into the equation, were the offical pancaking theory cause energy to be spent as each floor is distoried.

James, wity comment. Did you come up on your own? What you going to do next, call me names and accuse my momma of being so fat she is the real reason why the tower collapsed? You'll break my heart if you do that. Of course I like to see you be more mature and come with replies that add to conversion, but that's like asking a pig to fly. But to answer you question, it would hurt less then your insult directed to me as they will have profound impact on my self-esteem and self worth. The steel beam dropping on my foot will only crush and server my foot, but insults from you will distory my soul, and that hurts far worst.

 
At 26 May, 2006 18:05, Blogger srice555 said...

Logic is kryptonite to these folks.

And coming to terms that your government hoodwinked you is yours.

 
At 26 May, 2006 18:24, Blogger undense said...

Thanks for proving my point Willburrr

You haven't made a point.

You're spewing out garbage in here nesnyc. You don't have the slightest grasp of the most basic of engineering principles or physics and it shows, glaringly.

Get some education on the subjects so you can at least provide the appearance of knowing what you're talking about. Maybe if you had some actual knowledge on those subjects, you'd understand why we're calling BS on them in the first place?

 
At 26 May, 2006 18:38, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 18:42, Blogger srice555 said...

Undense, nesync was likening you "to a horse with blinders". You proved his point because you fail to see anything beyold your narrow view point. Since you such a master of engineering principles and physics, could you kindly explain how the tower fell in your own words and account for all that was seen and where all energy went?

Other wise I think this sounds like the most likely cause:

So, for the building to be collapsed in about 10 seconds, the lower floors would have to start moving before the upper floors could reach them by gravity alone.

Did we see this? I believe it's pretty clear in some of the videos. The "wave" of collapse, progressing down the building, is moving faster than free-fall speed. This would require something like a detonation sequence.

Realizing that, for example, the 40th floor needs to start moving before any of the upper floors have "free-fallen" to that point, why would it start moving? There was no fire there. And, if anything, there is less load on that floor as the upper floors turn to dust.


http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c4

 
At 26 May, 2006 18:50, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 18:51, Blogger undense said...

Undense, nesync was likening you "to a horse with blinders". You proved his point because you fail to see anything beyold your narrow view point. Since you such a master of engineering principles and physics, could you kindly explain how the tower fell in your own words and account for all that was seen and where all energy went?

Yeah, those well-established engineering principles are such a narrow pov. All the well-known material properties and physics that have been verified for decades or centuries are yet another great conspriacy by the illuminati.

Yet you go on to make some dubious claim about steel reinforced concrete floors flowing like a liquid. LOL.

 
At 26 May, 2006 18:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

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?

 
At 26 May, 2006 19:02, Blogger undense said...

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.

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 19:04, Blogger Chad said...

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.)

 
At 26 May, 2006 19:08, Blogger nesNYC said...

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...

 
At 26 May, 2006 19:11, Blogger srice555 said...

Chad, once the floor smashed into each other the debris acted like an liquid. The the floor acted as a solid until it was broken up. It then acted a like a pyroclastic flow, or more simply a liquid.

I really doubt fire brought down the towers because Edna Cintron wouldn't be standing the in the wreackage if the was raging inferno.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html

 
At 26 May, 2006 19:15, Blogger nesNYC said...

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?

 
At 26 May, 2006 19:17, Blogger nesNYC said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 19:19, Blogger Chad said...

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"?

 
At 26 May, 2006 19:19, Blogger undense said...

srice,

The gravitational load of the towers was supported by the central columns, not the periphery columns (they supported the wind/shear load). The appearance of Edna Cintron proves nothing.

 
At 26 May, 2006 19:29, Blogger undense said...

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...

Dude. Get help. And get it soon.

 
At 26 May, 2006 19:33, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 26 May, 2006 19:59, Blogger undense said...

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.

Chad,

That's because the people that are in on the conspiracy theory are really a plant by the Illuminati too. It's all designed to discredit the truth movement.

In actuality, there really isn't any conspiracy theory at all. THEY just want to make you believe that there is one so they can discredit it.

 
At 26 May, 2006 21:47, Blogger nesNYC said...

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

 
At 26 May, 2006 21:51, Blogger srice555 said...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7961056561589268281

 
At 26 May, 2006 21:58, Blogger nesNYC said...

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!

 
At 26 May, 2006 22:01, Blogger nesNYC said...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-79610565615

Guys! Please learn basic html!!!! Thank You.

 
At 26 May, 2006 23:32, Blogger srice555 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 26 May, 2006 23:32, Blogger srice555 said...

maybe i was being lazy

 
At 27 May, 2006 04:32, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 08:08, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 08:35, Blogger undense said...

LOL! Go and do your research. There was nothing left of the concrete floors but pulverized fine dust.

I did my research and looked at many pictures of the WTC rubble. There are chunks of concrete everywhere. If you'd bother to make even a cursory examination instead of spewing your usual false claims without doing any fact checking, you would discover you are completely full of shit.

 
At 27 May, 2006 08:45, Blogger undense said...

This is interesting. The lie perpetrated by the "truthers" claims the WTC debris was quickly carted off and shipped to China. (Which, btw, ignores the navy ship currently being built in New Orleans from reclaimed WTC steel.)

According to this website, the debris was moved to the Staten Island landfill, which was controlled by FEMA from day 1, where it was all carefully examined:

http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history/StatenIsland_photos.htm

Gee, look at all the big chunks of conrete in the rubble piles.

 
At 27 May, 2006 08:50, Blogger Chad said...

Undense... TinyURL please. :)

 
At 27 May, 2006 09:08, Blogger undense said...

Undense... TinyURL please. :)

np chad.

http://tinyurl.co.uk/45k2

 
At 27 May, 2006 09:13, Blogger undense said...

Notice also that the Staten Island landfill webpage states that the reclaimed steel was loaded onto barges and sent for recycling to that famous Chinese province - New Jersey.

 
At 27 May, 2006 09:39, Blogger srice555 said...

There are chunks of concrete everywhere.

I see lot of twisted metal, and large pile of what look like dirt, but no chuck of concrete bigger then a baseball.

 
At 27 May, 2006 09:41, Blogger srice555 said...

I still have yet to hear an explanation as to how not only the support columns, but EACH FLOOr was fitted with "EXPLOSIVES/THERMITE".

If you understodd the theory better, you would know that is said only every tenth floor need explosvies or thermite to bring down the tower, but there why you look at both side of the story the same way?

 
At 27 May, 2006 09:43, Blogger srice555 said...

Wow, good one. Now use logic to prove that and you'll actually have a point, jackass.

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 09:47, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 09:48, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 10:06, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 10:08, Blogger srice555 said...

You guy don't understand how simple it would be to CD the WTC. All that would be required is:

1) Cut supports in the basement. This will cause the core support to drop.

2) Cut supports on every tenth floor from 40th and up.

3) Set off each charge 0.5 seconds part from each other.

4) The resulting pyroclastic flow will destroy the concrete.

Guess what? Things happen that allowed people to do those thing:

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.

3) Some guy wandering the basement with a fake pass doing only god knows what.

But you cowards would rather fling insults then address those issues.

 
At 27 May, 2006 10:21, Blogger srice555 said...

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.

Shawn, I said you couldn't come to terms with the fact the government hoodwinked you. The offial story is "more logical" to you because you can come to terms with it. 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.

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.

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?

This is why I say you can't come to terms with it.

 
At 27 May, 2006 10:23, Blogger James B. said...

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?

 
At 27 May, 2006 10:40, Blogger undense said...

You guy don't understand how simple it would be to CD the WTC. All that would be required is:

Please spare us the unfounded speculation. It would have been easy for aliens to have destroyed the WTCs with invisible destructo rays from outer space too, and there's just as much evidence that that happened as a CD.

If you CTs want to prove it was a CD, go dig up some of the concrete residue from the collapse, which can surely still be found, and have it tested. If not, stop spewing this coulda, woulda crap and the overtly paranoid "the government hoodwinked you" garbage. The only thing you've proven by claiming that BS is that you can craft a mighty fine tin-foil hat out of thin air.

 
At 27 May, 2006 10:44, Blogger undense said...

I see lot of twisted metal, and large pile of what look like dirt, but no chuck of concrete bigger then a baseball.

How could there be chunks even the size of a baseball when it all liquified and became a pyroclastic flow and was pulverized, according to you?

 
At 27 May, 2006 10:56, Blogger srice555 said...

James, so basicly you confirm what I said. The bomb dogs were removed after the 6th and power was shut off during the weekend. Yet, you asert "that everything was normal". You best fucking hope everything was normal, else the Chief is working for the biggest terroist of the world, you brainwashed robot.

 
At 27 May, 2006 10:57, Blogger srice555 said...

How could there be chunks even the size of a baseball when it all liquified and became a pyroclastic flow and was pulverized, according to you?

You idiot. I said it acted like a liquid, not that was liquifed.

 
At 27 May, 2006 11:04, Blogger srice555 said...

If you CTs want to prove it was a CD, go dig up some of the concrete residue from the collapse, which can surely still be found, and have it tested. If not, stop spewing this coulda, woulda crap and the overtly paranoid "the government hoodwinked you" garbage. The only thing you've proven by claiming that BS is that you can craft a mighty fine tin-foil hat out of thin air.

I would've have loved to! but the NYPD had a big sign saying I couldn't enter, nor take photos. I think you took a photo of it. I guess you need secert suritcty level to even come close to the rumble. I wonder why that might be? Maybe they didn't want anyone to find out what the hell they have done! HUH?! You mindless nitwit.

 
At 27 May, 2006 11:06, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 11:07, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 11:25, Blogger undense said...

You idiot. I said it acted like a liquid, not that was liquifed.

Oh, I see. It "acted" like a liquid, but it was not actually liquified. Can you provide some scientific proof of this new form of matter?

I would've have loved to! but the NYPD had a big sign saying I couldn't enter, nor take photos. I think you took a photo of it. I guess you need secert suritcty level to even come close to the rumble. I wonder why that might be? Maybe they didn't want anyone to find out what the hell they have done! HUH?! You mindless nitwit.

Debris was spread all over the city for blocks. You didn't have to get into ground zero to collect samples. In fact, I bet any enterprising person could find places in the city where concrete debris from the collapse can still be collected.

But don't bother thinking out of the box you blatantly clueless, no-nothing moron.

 
At 27 May, 2006 11:56, Blogger undense said...

btw, srice. If you reply with your nonsense about pyroclastic flows, you better be prepared to answer some related questions, such as - If there was a pyroclastic flow, where is all the lithification that would normally occur? Why weren't people in the local area who were coated in the dust debris seriously burned by it? How does steel reinforced concrete suddenly become rhyolitic in nature from demolition charges?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 
At 27 May, 2006 11:56, Blogger Chad said...

Try the Deutsch Bank Srice. They're still finding body parts there.

 
At 27 May, 2006 12:07, Blogger srice555 said...

Oh, I see. It "acted" like a liquid, but it was not actually liquified. Can you provide some scientific proof of this new form of matter?

You have worked in primarily mechanical engineering for 20 years but you know nothing about fluidization? But, I who never went to college, taught himself to program computers, and only read science articals in his spare time does? Damn, you are a mindless twit. Here'a quote I found "A moving pyroclastic flow has properties more like those of a liquid than a mass of solid fragments."

source

 
At 27 May, 2006 12:24, Blogger shawn said...

Odd, the WTC didn't act at all like a volcano erupting.

 
At 27 May, 2006 12:27, Blogger srice555 said...

If there was a pyroclastic flow, where is all the lithification that would normally occur? Why weren't people in the local area who were coated in the dust debris seriously burned by it? How does steel reinforced concrete suddenly become rhyolitic in nature from demolition charges?

Um I think my word was:

It then acted a like a pyroclastic flow, or more simply a liquid.

Is it hard for your little mind wrap itself around the concepts of being and having property like?

 
At 27 May, 2006 12:31, Blogger undense said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 27 May, 2006 12:32, Blogger undense said...

You have worked in primarily mechanical engineering for 20 years but you know nothing about fluidization? But, I who never went to college, taught himself to program computers, and only read science articals in his spare time does? Damn, you are a mindless twit. Here'a quote I found "A moving pyroclastic flow has properties more like those of a liquid than a mass of solid fragments."

You misunderstanding the process of fluidization and how it functions is exactly why I work in engineering and you don't. Fluidization involves granular materials, not steel reinforced concrete. And, no, demolition charges will not convert steel reinforced concrete into granuals. Also, you need a constant, regulated supply of gas to create fluidization. It must also happened in a contained and controlled environment. So, nice try, but way off base. You shouldn't just throw terms out that you are obviously clueless about.

You brought up pyroclastic flow too. Care to answer the questions I already asked? Or did the sneaky, sneaky government unleash a magma chamber under the towers too?

 
At 27 May, 2006 12:41, Blogger undense said...

It then acted a like a pyroclastic flow, or more simply a liquid.

Is it hard for your little mind wrap itself around the concepts of being and having property like?


Uh huh. It was pretending to be a liquid, much like you pretend to have a brain.

You're reading crap off of CT websites without having the slightest idea what those terms imply or how to apply them irl.

If it had the same "properties" as a pyroclastic flow, the same results and after-effects would be exhibited. Apparently you can't wrap your pretense of a brain around that.

 
At 27 May, 2006 12:49, Blogger srice555 said...

Shawn, you little minded fool. Who said it was like a volcano erupting?

I said the cloud acted like a pyroclastic flow. Big different. But then who is the one ridiculing the other because he carreer focused and limtied education doesn't permit him to fully gasp what the other person is talking about?

And if you knew anything about a pyroclastic flow and things like it, you would realized that it had the energy to distroy anything in it's path. Simply put, a pyroclastic flow is going to pulverize what ever in it's path, because it has more surface area then a solid object with the same force!

Ever heard of this:

Truth passes through three phases:

* First it is ridiculed.
* Second it is fiercely and violently opposed.
* Third, it becomes self-evident.

source

 
At 27 May, 2006 12:56, Blogger Chad said...

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?

 
At 27 May, 2006 13:04, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 13:05, Blogger shawn said...

And truth very rarely goes through those three phases, anyway.

 
At 27 May, 2006 13:06, Blogger shawn said...

And we're not ridiculing you folk because we fear the truth. We're ridiculing you because you're borderline retarded.

Bingo.

 
At 27 May, 2006 13:25, Blogger srice555 said...

Can you get in through you fat heads I said it was "like" not "is"?

And yes Chad, if it was true pyroclastic the whole area would be distoried, but it wasn't and I only said it was LIKE not WAS. You dumb shit.

Why not attack me about cuttung the center support in the basement? Or blowing out the center support every ten floors? Or on the fact that the bomb stuiffing dogs were removed? Or the fact the power was indeed out? Or that to drop the tower at near free you need to drop each floor before the floor above hit it?

Nope, can't touch those points. You might have to think and confront the truth. Best to mock and ridical.

But you can turn "like" into "is" and run with that and call me retarded, or toss in steel to confuse the issue, or UFO's to mock me.

Start being brave and challege me on the point I have made instead cowarding behind twisting things into claims I never made.

You people are cowards who rather mock and ridical rather then to look at the points brought up.

 
At 27 May, 2006 13:34, Blogger undense said...

The points about the bomb sniffing dogs and electricity have already been refuted multiple times, even in the previous comments in this thread. Do you pay any attention to the sound debunking and the restraightening of your distorted claims though? Evidently not. Instead you cover your eyes and ears, put your head down, and bull straight ahead repeating the same debunked crap again.

You are stuck on stupid.

 
At 27 May, 2006 13:36, Blogger shawn said...

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".

 
At 27 May, 2006 13:47, Blogger Chad said...

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?

 
At 27 May, 2006 15:19, Blogger srice555 said...

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.



Your standard of proof is “any evidence that came from people who had access to the site and examine the remains”. Fair enough, however, only people who were friendly to the government were allowed on the site. And if there was government involvement, those higher up who knew about it would do everything they can to prevent the lower levels from knowing anything about a government involvement. So, your base of evidence is flawed because Joe Test and Lab Corp could not get access to the site to test for the evidence of termite or other explosives. Only companies friendly to the government had access.

So we must look at it from a distance. What do we see and what do we knew. First we know that kerosene has a hard time melting steel. Second most of the kerosene was burnt outside the building. Thus, the idea of the kerosene (or JET-A) melting the steel core is unlikely and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If it does to you, please tell me because I have time wrapping my head around it. So what the NIST come up with is that core was weak and the trusses melted. This caused the floor to pan cake, but then how did the core collapse? The Nova program made the core weaker then they real are, and other 9/11 pro-government programs even took the core completely out.

What we do see:

dramatic footage revealing yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower just minutes before its collapse.

We see the tower falling before the first floor drops

puff of smoke coming from the basement before the collapse.


What more does it take to consider that the government is hidding something?

Or on the fact that the bomb stuiffing dogs were removed?

Because that point's already been justified. (Bomb stuffing dogs?)



But the fact remains they were removed. You deny that? The question is, can you prove there were bomb stiffing dogs in the tower from the 6th to the 11th?

If there was, and the searhed, the tower, there was no bombs. But if there wasn't then that leave open the possiabitly of bombs being in the building.

Or the fact the power was indeed out?

Because that too has been explained.


And that "was the power was out but all was well". Who told you that and how do you know all is well? Your source told you, therefore it was. Of course everything seamed ok since no one was caught. But then again if my theory is right, they wouldn’t be, now would they? Thus in my my theory and yours, everything would seam “ok”. So this proves nothing, yet it provides an opening for bombs to be placed in the tower.

By the same logic, I could come into you house and take or plant something and everything is ok until it found or missed. If something came missing would you not look at who enter and had the chance to take the item?

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.


Right that's why I said near free fall. Did you overlooked that? You couldn't have because you quoted me saying that.

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?


You have thus far, why do you kept doing so? 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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 16:46, Blogger Chad said...

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?

 
At 27 May, 2006 17:09, Blogger srice555 said...

Chad, you must be a Dodger fan, because you keep dodging my points. I guess they're invalid or "retarded" since they might make you think something other this you cozy offical story fairy tale.

Government around the world love people like.

 
At 27 May, 2006 17:18, Blogger Chad said...

Srice, I like you. :)

You make me giggle.

 
At 27 May, 2006 17:24, Blogger srice555 said...

Chad, your actions and refusaul to talk about the points I bring up, make it painfully clear you simply wish not to talk about things that fighten you.

I can understand you because I ws once like you. Your whole little cozy sheeply world could be over turned at the face with the turth of your government killing your fellowing country man. I hear your wails for the deepest part of you mind, IT was terriost you shumck! Heck, it's between every line you type.

Yet, you are a coward. You hide behind things you aren't even sure about in you own little mind. You rather fling insults then address the issues I crack open in front of you. Oh, how it's a shame to be like you. Too scared to face your own fear. Too fighten even to think out side the box. Always needing someone to shape what you think. Just a sheep in a big mean world. How pittyful it must be to be be you. You may call me what you wish, but you can't touch me. I have already been call those names before. In fact, all you do is show how weak you really are. Like a child, helpless and weak to his own fears. Oh, it is a shame. A shame in deed.

All the love I can mustard goes out to the frighten sheeps like you. Frighten and scared. Trapped in there own crib. Oh what a pitty.

 
At 27 May, 2006 17:35, Blogger srice555 said...

I wait for you to cry back, "I'm not scared! I just don't wanna talk about those things to a nut case like you!"

Crippled with fear Chad you are.

 
At 27 May, 2006 17:45, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 18:59, Blogger James B. said...

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

 
At 27 May, 2006 19:08, Blogger srice555 said...

Actural, Chad, I have a problem trusting people too much, as I believe all people are inheritly good willed, and it's their intentions powered by greed of power and wealth that they do evil things.

The only thing I can never trust are governments. Even our founding fathers taught that we should not trust governments. Yet you do. To do other wise might force you to come face to face with your fears.

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.

Sure, to people living during those time it was logical to them to think that. Now we now that thier logical wasn't based on facts.

Returning back today, your logic is the tower pan caked, but it's flaw when someone asked how did the core collapsed. Your reaction is to attack the person who presented you the idea and evidence of an explosion before the tower fell, evidence of melting metal, and evidence of near free fall speed collapse.

So, may I ask you does does steel pass through concrete at near free fall speed? Any answer other no, is illogical because we all now it doesn't. But your defence is that it didn't fall at near free fall because free fall is 9.2 and the tower took 10 seconds to fall, since it took .8 second longer, then it wasn't near free fall at all. So what is near free fall? 9.21 seconds? Do you see how illogical that sounds?

You also attack me as being illogical being I consider the goverment involvement in the attack. Yet why is that illogical? Because you can;t wrap you mind around the idea that the government would attack it own people to wage war. To me on the other hand I look at histroy. Do you remember the Reichstag fire? That was when a government did attack it own people for the purpose of waging war.

If it was 1936, you'll still be defending Hitler in blaming it was the commies who burned the Reichstag. Yet today, we all know it was Nazi.

 
At 27 May, 2006 19:26, Blogger James B. said...

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

 
At 27 May, 2006 19:27, Blogger srice555 said...

James B, one dog? I thought you said dogs. It's hard to get by one dog isn't it? Almost impossiable isn't it? Unless you get some help...

 
At 27 May, 2006 19:32, Blogger Chad said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 27 May, 2006 19:34, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 19:42, Blogger James B. said...

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 20:15, Blogger srice555 said...

I also have the common sense to know that there ARE people out there that wish us harm.

Sure there are people that would just love to harm us. Guess what? They helped by the US like Osama Bin Laden and

 
At 27 May, 2006 20:32, Blogger srice555 said...

Fine james B. , Center Earth Theory...

Galileo: "Earth moves around the sun"

The Church: "That's illogical! You hertic!"

Or the Reichstag fire ("Like everything else you post here, your history is based on myth, urban legend and misunderstanding.")

hitler: "The commies did it!"

CT: "No they didn't! You did!"

Hitler: "illogical! Kill him!"

 
At 27 May, 2006 20:37, Blogger srice555 said...

Also james, since you are a graduate in Russian and East European studies from the University of Washington, you should know something about the Reichstag fire. Do you not see the parallels to 9/11?

 
At 27 May, 2006 20:40, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, as soon as we invade Poland and kill 6 million Jews, let me know.

Do svidaniya tovarishch.

 
At 27 May, 2006 20:52, Blogger srice555 said...

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.

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?

So if a Christian kills your mother, are you going to attack me? What about Jew? You know the Germans thought the Jew were destroying their country so they sent the Jews to concentration camps. Oh, and the treatment of Japanese in WWII by the US.

What you have admitted here is that your fear of Muslims prevents you from considering the government involvement in 9/11. Hey, at least we are getting somewhere now. Maybe in a month or so you’ll come to terms with your fears and racism!

 
At 27 May, 2006 20:54, Blogger srice555 said...

James, we have already invaded to country and killed over 100k people. Next on the list: Iran!

There almost was zero support before 9/11, then overnight almost every america was saying: "Kill the Musliums!"

 
At 27 May, 2006 21:49, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 21:51, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 27 May, 2006 22:26, Blogger srice555 said...

...there was no talk of invading Iraq before 9/11, but don't let that get in your way.

WHAT!?!?!?!? You must have been in your momma womb or under a rock not to know the neocons wanted to invade Iraq!

1998 - big hopla in congress to attack iraq

Sep 2000 - PNAC release a document outlining the need to invade Iraq.

Jan 2001 - Bush started planning to invade Iraq

About 30k, less than a third being from direct US action, but who's counting?

Do you have any idea what so ever what DU is doing to that area?! Let me guess, you're going to say DU is harmless.

Do you not see the parallels to 9/11?

By your logic, every single attack justifying a war is faked by the government.


Yeah, that's the ticket. Take a mock terrorist blamed on people who had nothing to do with the attach which was used to empower Hitler, which he used to wage war on other countries, twist it around and expand it to cover other attacks on countries that was NOT blamed on terriost who had nothing to do with the attack!!

Wow Shawn! You're so logicaly!

Now if you could only tell the hamster in your head to run fast enough so you may understand what the significance of staging an attack and blaming innocent people on as basis for waging war. But I doubt you could ever do that. Lizard Brain.

 
At 28 May, 2006 02:54, Blogger Chad said...

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.

 
At 28 May, 2006 06:27, Blogger shawn said...

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?

 
At 28 May, 2006 06:56, Blogger shawn said...

Ah, depleted uranium.

That's one of those something from nothing issues, like white phosphorous.

 
At 28 May, 2006 09:55, Blogger srice555 said...

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.


It's more depth the just that buddy:

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.

2) The US government release a document in the 60's to fake terriost attack against cuba.

3) On September 11, 1991 George H Bush accounced the coming of "The New World Order".

4) In 1992 the Wolfowitz document outlined plans to create a one world super power without rivals.

5) In the early 90’s the CIA funds and train bin laden to fight against the Russains.

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"

7) Pre September 11, 2001, the Government does everything it can to stall, ignore, prevent, hinder, any inestgation into a terrorist attack.

8) On the 9/10 FEMA sets up camp for "a mock terriost attack" the next day.

9) The millarty is performing 4 mock terriost drills.

10) Advance flight path is used to avoid radar detection and possible plane switching.

12) Planes hit WTC 1 & 2, and in the first in history, a steel frame building fails due to fire.

13) Puff of smokes from the basement before collapse.

14) Metal melting looks like termite.

15) Squibs of smoke at unformed distances.

16) Steel does not pass through concrete at near free fall speed.

17) Tower fall at near fell fall with a demolition wave proceeding slightly before the falling debris.

18) Something hits the pentagon. No one is sure because the FBI take 84 videos and release only to after five showing no plane.

19) WTC 7 collapse. FEMA says they don’t know why is collapse. The 9/11 Commission won’t touch it.

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.

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.

22) Mrs Rice lies, Rumfields Lies, Bush lies, heck the whole administration lies to use 9/11 to wage Wars.

23) NORAD is slow to react.

24) Planes are moved away from Washington and New York.

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.


Yet, in face of all of this, I’m illogical because I can’t connect

1) Terriost flew planes into buildings because they want to harm us.
2) The building fell because of office fires.
3) The government is only trying to protect us.


Sorry, I'm not a drone and I can think for myself. 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! And that would shatter you little world to peieces. Guess what fucks, when Iran, China, and Russian dumps the dollar, you be fucking hurting.

yet, i'm illogical.....

 
At 28 May, 2006 11:52, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 28 May, 2006 17:19, Blogger srice555 said...

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?

What all this boils down is you consider it to be a absurd or untenable conclusion that the government could be involved in the attack. You will always, forever, until the end of time, think that anything differing from the official story is absurd, because to accept anything outside of the scope of the official would mean 1) the government lied 2) terrorist did not commit the crimes 3) you supported the killing of innocent people and lastly, the biggie 4) there was government involvement.

Until you can come to term with those four items, you will forever think I’m illogical. That is your only defense against dealing with those items. Let me correct that, IT IS YOUR ONLY DEFENSE. For you it is illogical since your mind can not comprehend those four items. And it will be forever until you can free your mind.

Whatever you present, which is nothing but insults to date, I can freely consider because I do not sanctify any single idea. Everyday, I challenge my understanding of everything - God, life, myself, thing I can touch, and things I can’t. Nothing is so sacred that I can’t analyze it. I think like this: Eliminate the impossible and what you have left, however improbable, must be the truth.

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.

Btw, of all thing related to 9/11, I have found this to be the most profound:

Animation showing military precision of flight paths

Terrorists my ass.

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:08, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:10, Blogger shawn said...

And stop pretending you're neutral, you're not.

You're obviously biased towards the conspiracy theory and dumbly blinded by it.

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:13, Blogger undense said...

What all this boils down is you consider it to be a absurd or untenable conclusion that the government could be involved in the attack.

You consider it absurb or untenable that the government was not behind the attack and that Muslims (I guess because you're brother-in-law told you?) didn't do it.

Seems like a stalemate to me. And that you have more personal reasons to be biased than others in here than others.

 
At 29 May, 2006 00:08, Blogger srice555 said...

You consider it absurb or untenable that the government was not behind the attack

Funny, I once believe that terrorist commited the acts. I even debated against people attacking the offical story. I was die hard anti-terorist. I had a American flag and support the troops on my car. I even voted for Bush. I listened to talk radio. I supported the war based! I yelled "this is pay back 9/11 you fucks!"

Then I found out about The Reichstag fire, The North Woods document, The PNAC document, the four mock terrorist attack on the same day as 9/11, FEMA making camp the day before, Rumsfield lying about no one knowing terrorist could attack like this, daddy Bush welcoming in the world order on 9/11/91, the flight path, ties with Bush and the Bin laden Family, the movement of fighter planes, watching Bush sitting in a classroom doing nothing, jet planes intercepting at only 500 mph, the smoke at the bottom of the tower, the explosion heard at the same time the smokes appears, the speed of the collapse, the lady standing on the edge of the tower, the FBI withholding video tapes, the firefighter saying it was like a CD, mom and pop saying they saw a plane shot down, United saying flight 93 landed in Cleveland; government said it crashed, the architect of the WTC building saying it was built to take an impact from a plane, Silverstein saying the building was “pulled”, the comm. tower falling before the first floor dropped, WTC7 collapsing when other tower closer were hit directly, The heat from the rumble, The government resisting investigations, Government prohibiting any photo or video of the clean up of “ground zero”, No outside investigations of the steel, Nova simulation of the “pancaking” doesn’t look anything like the video of the collapse, Nova simulation doesn’t explain how the center support collapsed, Eyewitness account differ from official story, Evidence conflicting with official story disregarded, 9/11 commission says nothing about WTC 7 collapse, FEMA in the “building performance report” states it unknown why WTC7 collapsed, Power shut down the weekend before, Marvin being on the board of the company that had the contract for security of united, WTC and the airport, But mostly it was the comment on page 51 of the PNAC document.

Of course they are all "logical fallacices", according to you. Even the comment on page 51 of the PNAC. Wait that's a one of the thingy; what you called it? Oh yeah, silly of me, that has jack shit nothing to do with what I personaly said to a friend of mine the day of the event. That was "David, this is like a new Pearl harbor."

You see, jack ass, this is personal to me. I didn't realized how decieved I was until I read those words on page 51 of the PNAC document and then I remember what I said to my friend. I put two and two together.

Now you sit behind your little computer ten foot tall and bullet proof and have the balls to say I'm illogical?!

Here are my last words to you. Don't brother replying to me, because I will never read them. I'm finished with you.

If I'm wrong and you're right. I give my apologies and call it a day.

If you are wrong and I'm right, well... just think about it.

And if you can't humble yourself to consider you're wrong....... you are truely lost.


carrier lost

 
At 29 May, 2006 06:48, Blogger undense said...

srice,

Once again you're regurgitating more of the same old crap that has been debunked, dismissed, shown to be distortions, and hinge a lot of your beliefs on unrelated or indirect associations. If that's your evidence then there's no help for you because you want to ignore facts to adhere to your emotionally-driven beliefs.

And please spare me the "humble" line. Humility seems to be an unknown quantity to you and the rest of the conspiracy nutty buddies.

 
At 29 May, 2006 08:07, Blogger shawn said...

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".

 
At 30 May, 2006 15:43, Blogger insidejob said...

it's quite easy to build a big straw-man by debunking some of the errors in loose change. what is not so easy is coming to grips with all of the true claims in loose change, and especially coming to grips with all the very important facts not included in loose change. The site www.911myths.org, mentioned by the creators of this blog, claims to be an objective website, saying that it only wants to show that some claims are without merit, but the site seems to me to be a deliberate disinformation website. They cherry-pick the claims that they can most easily cast doubt on, and they never mention the numerous and damning true claims – the real evidence. They don’t allow people to contact them to refute their claims (and thus test their objectivity), and their dishonesty is often obvious. For example, in “debunking” the claim that progressive collapse hasn’t happened before, the website mentions L’Ambience Plaza and the Ronan Point apartment building. They expect website visitors to not actually look into what actually happened in these 2 incidents:

L'Ambience Plaza was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly. the Ronan Point incident, which happened in London in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this incident actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner of balconies from collapsing progressively. To use these incidents to “debunk” the clear evidence of controlled demolition, without mentioning what actually happened, shows deliberate dishonesty.


Loose Change did make some errors, but to call these ‘lies’ is another matter entirely. As for this issue of bin Laden’s ring, this was indeed an error, but the fact remains that the video is very poor-quality, and although in some frames the person looks somewhat like bin Ladin, in others the person looks nothing like bin Laden. Also, it seems a bit ridiculous that the Administration just happened to find this tape in a house in Jalalabad, and they couldn’t give any other details of how they found it. Bin Laden actually denied involvement in the attacks, as pointed out in Loose Change. Also, the tape released by the Administration just before the 2004 election was obviously fraudulent. This video is much better in quality and the person looks nothing like bin Laden, if you compare actual photos of bin Laden to the person in the video. It was reported in Pakistan months ago that bin Laden was dead (he had health problems before 9/11), but the Administration is perpetuating him as a political tool. It is possible that the person in the 2004 video doesn’t look like the usual bin Laden as a result of his declining health, but even if bin Laden was involved, he was a dupe of the higher powers in Washington who planned the whole thing – terrorists were definitely involved, but the Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI) acted as a middle-man between Washington insiders and the terrorists. I give evidence for this below. Loose Change made minor errors, but these disinformation websites are the liars. There is a lot of strong evidence that Loose Change left out. The makers were doing a good thing, but they only gave us the tip of the iceberg. For example, Loose Change mentions building 7, but it should have highlighted building 7. building 7 may be the single most crucial piece of evidence:

first, my humble assessment of what happened: hijackers were involved, but they were puppets of Washington insiders, without knowing it. Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI) was the middle-man. Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and Israeli government knew the attacks were coming, and may have been directly involved (note - this isn't saying 'the Jews did it.' there are many many Jewish people who oppose the Israeli government, including Israelis). Flight 77 probably did hit the Pentagon, and was probably a red herring to throw us off the scent and discredit the truth movement. the CIA recently released videos, but they don't show anything more than the 5 previously-released frames. they may be planning to release the videos that actually show Flight 77 at some point and say, "look fools. here's flight 77 hitting the Pentagon." The war games on Sept.11, under the direction of Cheney and Rumsfeld, were a smokescreen and an excuse to explain why the Air Force did not respond for over an hour, when the CIA knew planes had been hijacked. Finally, without a hint of uncertainty, WTC 1, 2, and 7 were definitely brought down by controlled demolition. WTC 7 is the most damning:

(1) WTC (a) WTC 1, 2, and 7 were the first 3 steel-frame buildings in history to (allegedly) collapse due to fire. Several steel-frame skyscrapers around the world have had huge fires that burned throughout several floors for several hours, and none of these buildings collapsed. The official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 claims that the impact of the aircrafts weakened the structures (which of course they would have to some degree), but NIST actually admits to fudging its models to make them more plausibly (to the casual researcher) explain the collapses, and it also simply lies and contradicts itself. For example, they alter the path of flight 175 so they can argue that it damaged the core columns. The report is misleading in many other ways. much more here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

The NIST Report completely ignores building 7, saying it will be considered “at a later date.” The Bush-appointed, 10-member corruption-squad known as the 9-11 Commission also ignored building 7 - most Americans don't even know about building 7, because the media have ignored it. (b) WTC 7 is the most obvious - no jet hit this building, and although some mention that the fuel tanks in the building may have contributed, FEMA said they were all intact, and, as already noted, fires to not make steel-frame buildings collapse, and random fires could not, by any stretch of the imagination, make a steel-frame building collapse so methodically into a neat little rubble pile within its own footprint, maintaining perfect radial symmetry all the way down, and falling at freefall speed. This only happens with controlled demolition. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of building 7, but the word is spreading thanks to Loose Change and the work of many serious researchers. FEMA was actually able to obtain sections of the steel beams from WTC 7, and it found sulfidation in combination with rapid corrosion – a trademark of the use of thermate (the military version of thermite) cutter chargers – the presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion can only be explained by the use of thermate. the fires in WTC 7 were only on partial sections of 2 floors, and even if the fires had engulfed the building for days, it would not have collapsed. Silverstein's slip-up about 'pulling it' also gave it away. his publicist later claimed that Silverstein meant 'pulling' the firefighters out of the building. 'pulling' is a term commonly used to refer to controlled demolition. FEMA has actually admitted that it cannot explain the collapse of building 7 (b) the official explanation ignores the thermal conductivity of steel. There would have been a massive heatsink from the steel beams, and the heat would have spread to other parts of the steel-beam mesh, rather than weakening proximal beams (b) the 'Pancake Theory', used to describe the collapse mode, has never existed as a collapse mechanism theory in structural engineering prior to 9-11. ‘Pancaking’ has happened before, but to one building (L'Ambience Plaza) that was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly, and what happened wasn’t called ‘pancaking’ before 9-11. the term 'progressive collapse' has been used before, but no steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to this mechanism. the Ronan Point incident, in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this incident actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner from collapsing progressively. (c)'squibs', a trademark of controlled demolition, can be seen in the videos of the collapses, and are especially obvious in WTC 7. the offical story attempts to explain them away as concrete dust and debris being pushed out of the windows by the force of the collapse, but they occur much below the level of collapse, and they occur just prior to the initiation of collapse in WTC 7. (d) Marvin Bush's contract with Stratesec(Securicom), the company that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles Internation Airport, was set to end on 9/10/01, the day before 9/11. (e) I've verified that there were several unexplained evacuations in the WTC towers in the weeks prior to the attacks: Ben Fountain, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower. "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on." (Source: People Magazine. Sept. 12th 2001). (f) Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer had reached the 78th floor of the South Tower by 9:48 -- 11 minutes before the explosive collapse began -- and reported via radio "two isolated pockets of fire." (g) all three buildings maintained prefect radial symmetry as they collapsed – if the buildings had collapsed due to randomly-placed fires (which simply doesn’t happen – even full-fledged infernos don’t make steel-frame buildings collapse), they would not have fallen straight down into their own footprints (h) as Professor Steven Jones of BYU points out, flowing pools of molten steel were reported by eyewitnesses – impossible with hydrocarbon fires, but easily explained by the use of thermate cutter charges (i) the temperatures simply were not hot enough, and weren’t sustained long enough, to weaken the steel, let alone melt it, in such a short period of time, especially considering the thermal conductivity of steel (j) the explosive force of the collapses cannot be explained by mere gravity – debris was ejected out several hundred feet – huge steel beams were found 300 feet away.

Pakistani Intelligence Agency (ISI, which was founded by the CIA and still has close ties with the CIA, like Al Qaeda) was the middle-man between Washington insiders and the clueless terrorists:

October 9, courtesy of the Times of India:
"While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI [Pakistani intelligence] director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that the general lost his job because of the 'evidence' India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Center. The U.S. authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by [Omar Saeed] at the instance of General Mahmud [Ahmad]."

September 9—two days before 9/11 — Karachi News made the following observation:
"ISI Chief Lt-Gen [Mahmud Ahmad's] week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council . . . What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, [General Ahmad's] predecessor, was here during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by [General Ahmad] in the last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys."

Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and government insiders knew the attacks were coming, and may have been involved in them:

Mossad agents were filming the towers before the airplanes even hit them, and began dancing and celebrating when the planes hit and when the towers collapsed :
This is a link to the article originally published by ABC News:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1405

Source: ABC News, Saturday, June 22nd, 2002.

“A counterintelligence investigation by the FBI concluded that at least two of them were in fact Mossad operatives, according to the former American official, who said he was regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials.”

Source: The Forward, March 15th, 2002


Larry A. Silverstein – signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center 6 weeks before the attacks. A $3,500,000,000 insurance policy, specifically covering acts of terrorism, was included in the lease. This lease was an unprecedented privatization of the WTC complex. After 9/11, Silverstein demanded $7 billion, claiming that the two planes constituted two separate acts of terrorism.

Larry A. Silverstein is a close friend of Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak: “Shortly after the events of September 11, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Larry Silverstein, a Jewish real estate magnate in New York, the owner of the World Trade Center's 110-story Twin Towers and a close friend, to ask how he was. Since then they have spoken a few more times. Two former prime ministers - Benjamin Netanyahu, who this week called Silverstein a "friend," and Ehud Barak, whom Silverstein in the past offered a job as his representative in Israel - also called soon after the disaster.”

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=97338&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0


Flight 77 and the Pentagon:

JUNE 2001: The Pentagon initiates new instructions for military intervention in the case of a highjacking. these new instructions state that, for all "nonimmediate" responses (whatever that means), the Department of Defense must get permission directly from the Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld).

Source: Joint Chiefs of Staff Document:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
http://www.911review.com/means/standdown.html



October 24, 2000: the Pentagon conducted the first of two training exercises called MASCAL (Mass Casualty), which simulated a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Source: The U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)

True, Charles Burlingame retired 20 years earlier, but he still participated in the MASCAL exercise at the Pentagon, a year before the attacks:

Charles F. Burlingame III was the pilot of flight 77. He was an F-4 pilot in the Navy, and as his last Navy mission, he had helped craft Pentagon response plans in the event of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon.

Source: Associated Press. August 22, 2002

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen08.html

Barbara Honegger, who worked in the White House under Reagan, points out another coincidence. Researching press reports, she found a 9/16/01 Washington Post story about the pilot of AA flight 77 that, on the morning of 9/11, was said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

Here's Barbara Honegger:

...the main pilot of the 9-11 Pentagon plane, former Navy and then Navy Reservist pilot Charles Burlingame, had recently, in a Reserve assignment at the Pentagon, been part of a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building - which his own plane then did. It is therefore very possible - in fact extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that Flight 77 pilot "Chick" Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney. and

Burlingame's 9-11 Pentagon plane not only hit the Pentagon that morning, it struck a Command and Control center for that morning's counterterrorism "game" exercise, killing most, if not all, of the "players". We know this because Army personnel from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey were on special duty assignment at the Pentagon that morning for an emergency response exercise and were killed when Burlingame's plane hit. Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey also happens to be the headquarters for White House/Presidential communications, including therefore probably also for Air Force One (this is discoverable) -- and recall the warning "Air Force One is next" and the 'secret code' which was called into the White House that morning which WH press secretary Ari Fleischer revealed as a means of explaining why Pres. Bush left Florida for a military base and did not return to the White House. This "warning" was probably called into the White House, if true, by either the Ft. Monmouth White House communications headquarters and/or the Ft. Monmouth counterterrorism exercise "game" players temporarily at the Pentagon that morning.

This means the pilot of Flight 77 participated in MASCAL in October of 2000, an exercise which simulated a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon.

Coincidence?


Flight 77 hit the one and only section of the Pentagon that had been renovated to withstand just such an attack:

"Luck — if it can be called that — had it that the terrorists aimed the Boeing 757 at the only part of the Pentagon that already had been renovated in an 11-year, $1.3 billion project meant to bolster it against attack. That significantly limited the damage and loss of life by slowing the plane as it tore through the building and reducing the explosion's reach." Source: USA Today (1/01/02)

“Not all the offices were occupied that morning because of the renovation. In addition, the outer ring had been reinforced by floor-to-ceiling steel beams that ran through all five floors. Between them was a Kevlar-like mesh, similar to the material in bulletproof vests, which kept masonry from becoming shrapnel. Together, the beams and the mesh formed a citadel that kept the top floors from collapsing for about 35 minutes, time enough for some people to escape. New blast-resistant windows above the crash site didn't shatter. A new sprinkler system kept the fires from consuming the entire place.
When the plane hit wedge 1, workers were just a few days away from completing a three-year renovation of that section."

Source: USNews (12/10/01)


“The Pentagon has been undergoing some structural upgrades and retrofits, including new blastproof windows made of KevlarT that were, fortuitously, in place on the side of impact. This reinforced section of the building had a significant effect on reducing the extent of damage.”

Source: Fire Engineering Magazine (11/02)

"The 1,000,000-square-foot wedge was five days away from completion when it was struck by hijacked American Airlines Flight 77." Source: Annual Status Report to Congress (3/01/02)

Coincidence?

 
At 30 May, 2006 17:56, Blogger shawn said...

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.

 
At 31 May, 2006 05:57, Blogger geoff said...

It's amusing when the conspiracists set their mind to science, although the result is never edifying nor pretty. Just a quick point:

The speed of the collapse seems to nag at the conspiracists, but there is an effect of "pancaking" that they haven't considered. The shock waves from pancaking will travel through the structure at the speed of sound (5100 m/s in steel), damaging the floors below before an actual impact occurs. This could accelerate the collapse or even lead to a simultaneous collapse of the floors.

 
At 02 July, 2006 23:55, Blogger BoggleHead said...

"The speed of the collapse seems to nag at the conspiracists, but there is an effect of "pancaking" that they haven't considered. The shock waves from pancaking will travel through the structure at the speed of sound (5100 m/s in steel), damaging the floors below before an actual impact occurs. This could accelerate the collapse or even lead to a simultaneous collapse of the floors."

It seems we have two things we need here.

1) Empirical evidence

2) Theoretical modeling

Insofar as the empirical evidence can be explained with models, we want to do so.

Insofar as the theoretical models can be substantiated in evidence, we want to do that too.

I'm unaware of the empirical evidence that lower floors collapsed before or at the same time as upper floors. Maybe the evidence is there and I didn't look at the video properly, but anyway this is just where I'm at.

On the theoretical model end, we have these conservation of energy and momentum equation.

(1/2) (Falling Mass init.) (V when it hits the next floor)^2 + (1/2) (Mass of next [stationary] floor) (V = 0)^2 = (1/2) (Falling Mass final) (V new initial)^2

what happens is that the (1/2) cancels out, and you can cancel the mass out of the equation too by inserting the number of floors (or percentage of the building) or whatever.

this happens for conservation of momentum too so the actual mass of the upper section doesn't appear to matter-----what matters is the ratio of how many floors are falling to the number of floors that aren't yet.

and that would be an empirical concern.

obviously it's not a perfect model, by the way. perfect models are rarely easy.

but how do people propose that it be modified?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home