Thursday, September 21, 2006

The Most Interesting Work on the CT

Is being done by the no-planers. Don't get me wrong, they're the nuttiest of the nuts, but they are doing some fascinating stuff. Here's a detailed look at Flight 175, the second plane into the World Trade Center. It's a fascinating glimpse at the mind of a CTer.

In order to analyse the film and stills photography the exact camera position, aircraft position, aircraft attitude and sun position were reproduced in Flight Simulator to provide a visual reference image to judge the respective UA175 picture.


Because, you see, Microsoft Flight Simulator is reality, and the pictures have to be judged as to whether they fit reality. Simply amazing stuff!

184 Comments:

At 21 September, 2006 09:10, Blogger Abby Scott said...

Makes perfect sense. Kind of like the time I solved the Lindbergh baby kidnapping case using Grand Theft Auto.

 
At 21 September, 2006 09:28, Blogger Chad said...

That's an insane amount of work. That much I'll give credit for. Just saddens me to think of what this person would be capable of were they not so deluded.

Abby: Who did it?

 
At 21 September, 2006 09:30, Blogger James B. said...

I proved the Seahawks really won the Superbowl last year by simulating it in Madden 2006 on the X-Box.

 
At 21 September, 2006 09:35, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Well said Chad.

That is a ridiculous amoubnt of "work".

My friends sister (who had a masters degree in something) suffered a psychotic break a few years back (before 9/11) and she had put together something alot like this. She had actually written and documented a 500+ page report about the people out to get her. Along with citations from books and websites (that had nothing to do with her, but if a site had her first name in it, Bamm, there was evidence).

The amount of work it took her was probably weeks.

I never got to read her rantings, but I'll bet they were saner than this no planes stuff.

 
At 21 September, 2006 09:46, Blogger tnculp said...

You know, this would/will convince a lot of morons.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:00, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

No, I think the most interesting work on CT, has to do with molten metal (underground) and metal which has bent but not buckled. I'd love to see you debubk that. But sorry, I will not accept the "friction is a source of heat" argument. Got anything else?

Also, please explain the horizontal trajectories of objects.

If, as Eager claims, the building had no where to go but down, why were there large pieces embedded in other nearby buildings?

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:03, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

Also, please explain the guy whose hands caught on fire in the basement.

PMs theory of fire coming down the elevator shafts is flawed because the building was divided vertically into 3 parts, each with its own elevator shaft.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:15, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

Also, if fire caused the steel to soften, why don't we see any buckling of the exterior columns?

We only see sudden failure.

I would expect steel to bend first, before giving way.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:19, Blogger Billythekid said...

No, let's debunk the no-planers first. Much more fun!

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:20, Blogger Billythekid said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:23, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

And for the record, Dunn's emotional debunking of the pentagon was a waste of time, it's has been debunked a long time ago by Jim Hoffman ... so for all of you that call us "deniers" I think you are wrong. If we were deniers, we wouldn't debunk our own theories.

I think in any case of critical thinking, you have to have an open mind. If you come to a conclustion before hearing and considering the counterpoint, then you are a "denier".

There are deniers on both sides of this argument. Are there any "truthers" on your side?

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:28, Blogger CHF said...

Also, if fire caused the steel to soften, why don't we see any buckling of the exterior columns?

Ummm.....we did.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

Moron.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:29, Blogger Chad said...

Hey smart guy (aka 911 Mysteries):

As far as the elevators are concerned, you're just wrong. Each tower had at least two that ran the height of the building. One for freight, one for tourists going to either the restaurant or the observation deck.

As for the warping columns, go here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

Page 110 and 112 of the PDF (62 and 64 of the actual report).

Then, when you're done with that, stop asking questions like you've actually researched anything regarding 9/11. Didn't think it was possible, but you're an embarassment even for the "truth" movement.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:33, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

Ok, I will find out from Willie if the guy came out from either of those two elevators.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:34, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

By the way, have you worked up your blood pressure at all with the insults? LOL, the truth is I don't care. Make yourself sick and insult me to death.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:37, Blogger CHF said...

911 mystery guy...

If Jim Hoffman put an end to the Pentagon BS then why do your movement's leaders (Fetzer and LC) still buy into it???

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:38, Blogger Good Lieutenant said...

What. a. PSYCHO.

All that, merely to attampt to "debunk" what is plainly obvious in a few seconds of raw footage that the "truther" has no control over.

A+ for sheer time spent spinning and pleading for people to believe this steaming pile.

F minus for veracity of actual content.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:40, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

You have NO ANSWER to molten metal underground and horizontal trajectories. If you do, I'd like to hear it.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:41, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

And your fire down the elevator argument will be refuted as soon as I get word from Willie. Fire travelling down 80 floors with little oxygen. Come on, you can do better than that.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:43, Blogger Chad said...

Hate to burst your bubble MysteryMan, but even Willie Rodriguez said he smelled kerosene in the lower levels.

Keep up pal.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:45, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

>If Jim Hoffman put an end to the >Pentagon BS then why do your >movement's leaders (Fetzer and >LC) still buy into it???

You're right on this one, they are wrong as far as the 'no-planes' or 'missiles' go. But as far as CD is concerned, how do you explain the 1500C + temperatures found days after. Does not make sence ... but maybe you can make some sense of it ...

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:46, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

>Hate to burst your bubble >MysteryMan, but even Willie >Rodriguez said he smelled >kerosene in the lower levels.

Do you have a cite for that?

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:47, Blogger Chad said...

The fact is bud, bombs don't set people on fire. They rip them apart.

And your oxygen argument is laughable. Are you one of those people who believe the elevator shafts were hermetically sealed?

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:48, Blogger Chad said...

If I could cite a conversation with him at Ground Zero the Saturday before the anniversary, I would.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:49, Blogger CHF said...

A fireball travelled down the elevator shaft after a B-25 impacted the Empire State Building back in the 1940s.

Explain that one for me, Mystery man.

And I'll tell you why your leaders won't ditch the Pentagon crap: they can't!

They've built their religion on this horse manure and so they can't abandon it now without looking like complete morons.

Granted, holding on to it makes them look like even BIGGER morons, but apparently they're willing to take the gamble.

As for the fires in the rubble, there was plenty to burn.

How do you explain it? Thermite???

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:51, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

kerosene burns off nearly instantly. for it too last 80 floors of freefall is laughable.

I bet you could not replicate it, given money, equiptment and time.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:53, Blogger CHF said...

So how did the same thing happen when the B-25 hit the Empire State Building?

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:54, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

I would say the fire was local. I don't buy the 80 floor fuel leap. How it started, I don't know.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:54, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

cite plz for B-52

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:54, Blogger Chad said...

kerosene burns off nearly instantly. for it too last 80 floors of freefall is laughable.

Tell that to the people who were burned asshole. Be sure to laugh in their face when you do it.

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:56, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

Tell that to the people who were burned asshole. Be sure to laugh in their face when you do it.

The concept of fire travelling 80 floors is laughable ... i.e. absurd. I'm not laughing at the event.

plz do refrain from insults ... its does not help

 
At 21 September, 2006 10:56, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

and i still need that cite for B-52

 
At 21 September, 2006 11:01, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

without a cite for elevator shafts, I'm afraid your assertion is NOT VERIFYABLE. And hearsay, regarding willie smelling kerosene IS NOT VERFIYABLE. So they will be stricken as "evidence" until further proof is received.

 
At 21 September, 2006 11:02, Blogger Chad said...

The concept of fire travelling 80 floors is laughable ... i.e. absurd. I'm not laughing at the event.

So are you saying it did or did not happen?

As for the Empire State Building, just go to your local bookstore, find the Popular Mechanics book, flip to the middle where the pictures are.

It's right there.

 
At 21 September, 2006 11:03, Blogger Malcolm said...

I find that site seriously disturbing.

Forget the witnesses; forget the hundreds of photos; forget the videotape from several angles; forget even the fact that we watched it live on TV.

No, the better answer is that some secret society (no doubt tied with the international bankers who stole our money by taking us off the gold standard), put forth this giant plot against us.

No, they didn’t do it the easy way; they didn’t simply use a car bomb that couldn’t be traced; they didn’t do it somewhere where the cameras wouldn’t be pointing.

No, instead, they created a multi-billion dollar devise to project ghost images in the sky. They created the most complex projection devise ever imagined, and they did it all by using the lowest bidder.

As those of you who have read my prior comments can figure out, I am easily amused by conspiracy theories, and consider them “light entertainment.”

But this is starting to get seriously disturbing.

In the “old days”, every town had their “nut”; who would walk down the street telling people that water floridation was actually a form of mind control; that Russian mind control specialists had planted a diode in their head, etc.

In the old days, everyone would just say “oh, there goes fred again”, and laugh him off. But now, with the internet, the lone nut can now talk with the other lone nuts, and a “focus group” of insanity is the result.

No, forget the fact that millions of people watched the plane hit the second tower. Forget the evidence. Let’s just give ourselves over to crazy theories.

Hey, tell you what….if all it takes to start a crazy theory is a computer, I’ll start one for you: Bin Ladin is trying to sneak liquid explosives onto planes inside of breast implants.

There….at least now the TSA guys will want to show up for work.

 
At 21 September, 2006 11:03, Blogger CHF said...

LOL!

Is that you, Dylan Avery?

B-52???

The new Popular Mechanics book has a photos of the Empire State lobby after the B-25 crash.

 
At 21 September, 2006 11:05, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

so they have pictures of fire travelling down the elevator shaft on the empire state? I must buy this book, it's got to be good.

 
At 21 September, 2006 11:09, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

sorry, B-25 ... and yeah I will be sure to check out the pic of the lobby of the empire state ... btw ...were there fires? Or was it just blown out?

 
At 21 September, 2006 11:10, Blogger Chad said...

They have a picture of a charred lobby from the ESB.

Perhaps you have an alternate theory as to how the lobby caught fire?

 
At 21 September, 2006 11:12, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

hmmm ... that is interesting no doubt ... I will check it out.

Maybe some other time, we can discuss molten metal and horizontal trajectories ... I've got to get going now ... think on those, I'll be expecting good answers when I return.

 
At 21 September, 2006 12:08, Blogger CHF said...

911 Mystery man...

Here's a crazy idea.

Instead of asking us to do your homework for you, why not do some investigating yourself?

www.911myths.com

www.debunking911.com

Your "molten steel" issue has been done to death.

 
At 21 September, 2006 12:12, Blogger CHF said...

BTW,

on the ESB incident with the B-25:

An engine from the B-25 fell down the elevator shaft and a fireball blew out the lobby as a result.

On 9/11 similar damage took place to the WTC lobby. Your star witness Willie Rodriguez claims to have a) heard a loud bang, and b) smelled kerosene.

Connect the dots! A piece of debris fell down and blew out the lobby causing horrible burns to victims. Explosives would have a) blown victims apart and b) caused the tower to collapse bottom-up, not top-down.

 
At 21 September, 2006 12:16, Blogger mbats said...

Full height shafts: there is a diagram on the second page of this pdf showing that there are indeed elevators going the full height of the towers. Also, you don't need fire to extend the entire distance from impact to landing; you only need fuel and a separate ignition source (pretty easy to find a spark if metal debris strikes metal elevator guide rails).

Hot spots in the debris: We can quibble about specific temperatures on specific floors, but we can all agree that the towers were still burning when they collapsed, correct? the burning items did not stop being hot simply because they fell, and all of a sudden they were under tons of debris. The sheer mass of the debris provided insulation that kept the heat from escaping, plus they added fuel to the fire. Also, I've seen pictures of very hot metal being pulled from site, but I haven't seen pictures of molten metal. Got any handy?

Horizontal trajectories (just some preliminary ideas, I haven't done all my homework here): as the exterior column assemblies were struck by the falling floors, they were still braced from below, but some momentum still transferred to them, giving them a horizontal vector. the falling floors took out the floor they were attached to before they "hinged" down, so they had a horizontal vector and gravity acting upon them.

 
At 21 September, 2006 12:32, Blogger AbrashTX said...

911mysteries, did you know that the entire "molten metal" claim originated with that liar Christopher Bollyn? You just got conned by a Holocaust denier.

Even if there was "molten metal," that would be consistent with fire, not with demo explosions.

 
At 21 September, 2006 13:00, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

when I get a big mac, and I squish the top bun toward the bottom bun, what happens to the stuff in the middle. where does it go?

SIDEWAYS...HORIZONTALLY...lol

TAM

 
At 21 September, 2006 13:01, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

wrt bending of exterior columns, didn't markyx show us just such a thing in a pic over at JREF?

TAM

 
At 21 September, 2006 13:03, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

It goes without saying, that the only way I am believing anything you tell us that "Willie" said, is if you present it as a video of him saying it in front of the camera, with you asking him that very question on the video as well (you can hide your image if you like). Otherwise, let me tell you what "Willie" told me...

 
At 21 September, 2006 13:30, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

aircraft attitude

Losers Logic
"as the plane smashed into the WTC it had a scared look on its face THEREFORE we can conclude that this place was a patsy"

 
At 21 September, 2006 13:32, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Got anything else?
Yes structural engineers you douchebag

 
At 21 September, 2006 13:34, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

If, as Eager claims, the building had no where to go but down, why were there large pieces embedded in other nearby buildings?

Sorry that tons of falling debris didnt fall perfectly to fit into your bullshit way of looking at things you douchebag.

 
At 21 September, 2006 13:37, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

PMs theory of fire coming down the elevator shafts is flawed because the building was divided vertically into 3 parts, each with its own elevator shaft.

This is what experts in the field have stated so go talk to an expert instead of trying to come across so superior you useless bag of cow testilce sweat.

 
At 21 September, 2006 13:38, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

And your fire down the elevator argument will be refuted as soon as I get word from Willie. Fire travelling down 80 floors with little oxygen. Come on, you can do better than that.

OOOOOOH NOOOOOOO NOT WILLIE!!!!!!!

DOUCHEBAG

 
At 21 September, 2006 14:08, Blogger HD_Wanderer said...

"kerosene burns off nearly instantly. for it too last 80 floors of freefall is laughable."

Sure, a five gallon can of kerosene would burn quickly, but 10,000 gallons? How about 20,000 gallons?

 
At 21 September, 2006 14:58, Blogger Stevew said...

Horizontal trajectories. When the thousands of tons pushing down on the outer girders,they snapped at the bolted sections some the vertical motion then turned lateral and some of the 24' sections shot out like spears. There were one or 2 express elevatiors so it would be very easy for a liquid or vapor to sink as it is heaver than air. There are no benchmarks for these crashes so the whaks can make up any theory they want but it does not make it true. I wonder how many of these whak experts have done any crash investigation?

 
At 21 September, 2006 15:29, Blogger default.xbe said...

Maybe some other time, we can discuss molten metal

you talk alot of verifiable sources, whats your source for pools of molten metal? also, you know aluminum melts at about 650C, right?

and horizontal trajectories ...

you guys are pathetic

buildings fell straight down, CD!
buildings ejected debris, CD!

Sure, a five gallon can of kerosene would burn quickly, but 10,000 gallons? How about 20,000 gallons?

also consider a large (for lack of a better word) blob of kerosene falling down the shaft will burn much slower than an atomized spray

 
At 21 September, 2006 15:53, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 21 September, 2006 15:56, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

The very fact that

- Explosions were heard coming from below

- Someone from the basement was caught on fire

Leads me to believe he got burned from a local fire.

It's really that simple.

Any other theory would be less probable, given the facts that explosion like sounds were heard coming from the basement.

As far as horizontal trajectories goes, metal pieces weighing over a ton were flung hundreds of yards out. This is too much for a normal collapse scenario. See the movie 9/11 mysteries on Google for more info.

As far as molten metal is concerned, temperature readings in excess of 1500C were recorded on Sep 15. This is too high for any office building fire. It's really that simple.

I read 2 debunking stories claim that:

1. Friction caused the heat (debunking911.com)

2. Hydrogen was released as the result of a reaction and that burned which caused the heat.

BOTH theories are innovative but improbable.

Why can't you go with the EASY WAY OUT (Occam's razor)

The building was blown the f*** up and as a result the steel melted and debris was flung helter skelter.

 
At 21 September, 2006 16:05, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

the example of kerosene falling down elevator shafts is the perfect example of starting with a conclusion and going towards an explanation.

* note that no one was witness to this fact of fuel falling

* note that I have witnesses - more than one.

And we have TWO THEORIES ON WHAT HAPPENED.

One is based of observed evidence (witness) the other based on speculation. Unless you were there at that elevator shaft, you could not know what happened. So what makes you think your theory is better?

 
At 21 September, 2006 16:49, Blogger default.xbe said...

This is too much for a normal collapse scenario.

This is too high for any office building fire.

what are you qualifications to make these statements?

The building was blown the f*** up and as a result the steel melted and debris was flung helter skelter.

name one other building demolition or any explosion that caused steel to melt

One is based of observed evidence (witness) the other based on speculation. Unless you were there at that elevator shaft, you could not know what happened. So what makes you think your theory is better?

well here is ware ockhams razor really comes into play, we have:

fires in the basement
rodriguez smelling kerosene

we know:

jets hit the building
kerosene started fires all over
elevator shafts ran the full length of the building

the logical conclusion: jet fuel travelled down the shafts into the basement

to assume it was explosives we have to assume there were explosives in the building, which there is no evidence of.

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

 
At 21 September, 2006 17:07, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

It's really that simple.

No you douchebag it really isnt that simple but I mm pleased that it took you all of minutes to come to that conclusion.
I am glad though that REAL INVESTIGATORS following REAL FACTS investigated this properly.

 
At 21 September, 2006 17:20, Blogger MarkyX said...

911 Mysteries, look at this video of a demolition expert on the Two Towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlOG3g-mOXU

Bombs would've been burnt out at around 320 degrees. It's physically impossible to have a bomb blow up INSIDE a raging fire.

Also, what you suggest is not Occam's razor.

 
At 21 September, 2006 17:29, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Official Story:
100's of qualified engineers
100's of Demolition Crew
100's of various other scientists

CT Quackery:
1 dental engineer
1 nutcase economist
1 aged civil engineer
1 religious zealot Physicist
4-5 computer programmer/software engineers who know shaite about what they speak
500+ hippie superleftwing arts/phillosophy/theology/history proffs.
30,000 teen moron hermits
3 arrogant 20 something idiots

ITS REALLY THAT SIMPLE!!!!

TAM

 
At 21 September, 2006 17:30, Blogger Stevew said...

Debunking Controlled Demoltion If any one believes the CD theory, just read the PDF written by experts in the CD industry, after reading this and you still believe ther were brought down by CD then there is no hope for you. All you whakos, read this if you dare. All samasshole's questions are answered by someone who has been in the business for 20 years
One of the complaints that the 9-11 Deniers raise about the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC Towers and WTC7 is that the possibility of controlled demolition was not examined. So Brent Blanchard of Implosion World decided to rectify that with
a paper that demolishes the CD theory http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

Much of it is material that we've gone over before. For example, that controlled demolition starts from the bottom, that the buildings did not collapse neatly into their own footprint, that the much-remarked "squibs" actually show compressed air being forced out of the building by the collapse, not by explosives. I did find this part interesting:

One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion was that the initianl failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended-duration "pancake" effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure creating a giant "mushroon" effect around its perimeter.
Lots of good solid information from experts in the CD industry.
There are well over 300 qualified experts in the relative fields that have proven all this whaks claims to be 100% bogus, every real scientific, engineering and architectural publication agrees with the current findings, only the unqualified whaks do not believe

FACT... Not a single Institute of Civil Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single of Institute Structural Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Fire and Safety Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Demolition Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Architects on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Engineers in any field on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

Nobody, not a single institute of engineers in the world agrees with the controlled demolition theory, Every single professional institute of Engineers from everywhere, including Russia, China, Germany, the rest of Europe, the entire planet agree with NIST.

They do not investigate the controlled demolition theory, because they all agree with the progressive collapse theory.

 
At 21 September, 2006 18:09, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Stevew
That is because ALL OF THOSE people are agents of the "secret" government.

It is OBVIOUS that ALL OF those people received fat paychecks to LIE!

Please go back and edit your post to reflect this, thanks!

What agency do you work for?
What are you sins?
You are a murderer!!

 
At 21 September, 2006 20:37, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

The movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlOG3g-mOXU is interesting. Makes some good points.

But it all makes ASSUMPTIONS that standard demolition techniques were used.

Theorising here, please do not flame :)

There could have been a few powerful bombs (military) that were easy to install because of the small number. If the bombs were protected suffiently, fire would not matter.

To give him credit though, the dhattering of the core and outward movement of the exterior columns does fit well.

I would like to hear his opinion on
(1) powdering of concrete
(2) high ( >1500C ) temps in rubble
(3) horizontal ejection
(4) curved steel

In the end, you have TWO THEORIES, both of which can be made to work by adjusting the theory as necessary. ( maybe with the exception of high temp rubble for you guys )

Is there any modeling showing the weight would lead to total collapse? NIST only goes until collapse initiation and then too had to fudge the numbers.

Too me, also the fact that 60,000 sq ft of fireproofing was blown off seems a little excessive.

But, congrats on getting another expert on your side. I think if the topic were not so touchy we'd have more people willing to weigh in different options.

 
At 21 September, 2006 20:43, Blogger default.xbe said...

In the end, you have TWO THEORIES, both of which can be made to work by adjusting the theory as necessary. ( maybe with the exception of high temp rubble for you guys )

and how does explosives explain the high temperature?

how much explosive would be needed to powderize the concrete?

how much for the horizontal ejection?

how many is "a few powerful bombs" given the above values?

when could they have been planeted?

where could they have been planted?

what kind of protection would be required to survive the airplane impacts and fires?

if you cant answer any of these questions what makes your theory more believable than the accepted version?

 
At 21 September, 2006 20:45, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

PS. If you check out 9/11 mysteries you see a hugh chunk of perfectly curved steel. I don't think fuel is capable of that ...

 
At 21 September, 2006 20:52, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

and how does explosives explain the high temperature?

well, obviously a lot of energy is released, some (or alot) of which gets converted to heat. I'll do more research on this.

how much explosive would be needed to powderize the concrete?

how much for the horizontal ejection?


I will get back to you on these


how many is "a few powerful bombs" given the above values?

maybe one every 3 floors

when could they have been planeted?

well they really had the whole year to go about this at their leasure. of course, in the dead of the night.

where could they have been planted?
cabinets only accesible to sedcurity personnel, freight areas, many others possible.

what kind of protection would be required to survive the airplane impacts and fires?

Something like an airplanee black box?
Not all would need this thoughm just the one in the vicinity of the crash.

 
At 21 September, 2006 20:58, Blogger default.xbe said...

well, obviously a lot of energy is released, some (or alot) of which gets converted to heat. I'll do more research on this.

actually most explosives produce a relatively low amount of heat, heat doesnt accomplish what explosives are designed to do

and any explosive certainly wouldnt produce heat that woudl persist for weeks and months

maybe one every 3 floors

funny how you answer this before even considering how much youd even need to do what you propose

well they really had the whole year to go about this at their leasure. of course, in the dead of the night.

were the towers ever empty? everyone who i speak to said their were people there 24 hours a day

cabinets only accesible to sedcurity personnel, freight areas, many others possible.

so you implicate all security personel as being complicit? im just trying to see who you all think was "in" on this

Something like an airplanee black box?
Not all would need this thoughm just the one in the vicinity of the crash.


would the "black box" protection help it in a fire?

would fuses, timers and detonators be able to remain intact if the bomb was subjected to a large force?

 
At 21 September, 2006 21:21, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

i'm not ready to into specifics yet ...

but the equivalent for you would be : do you know the downward force required to shatter the cores (inner and outer) ?

assuming X (1-5) floors were completely destroyed and the upper portion came crashing down onto it, would that force suffice?

 
At 21 September, 2006 21:38, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

and now, to be more of a pest:

- what's the energy required to pulverize the concrete?
- is graviational potential energy sufficient for this?

and finally,

where does the energy for the high temp rubble come from? If it was a hydrogen source, or friction (two of the non CT theories I am aware of) has such a phenomenon been observed before? Can such a thery be verified in any practical or simulated way?

 
At 21 September, 2006 22:20, Blogger Alex said...

There could have been a few powerful bombs (military) that were easy to install because of the small number. If the bombs were protected suffiently, fire would not matter.

There could have been the USS Enterprise in orbit shooting photon torpedoes at the WTC. The point is you have absolutely no evidence to support your absurd ideas, whereas the accepted scenario fits perfectly, and has been accepted by all experts in their related fields. For you to theorize about "powerful bombs" just shows how desperate you are to prove the government did it.

but the equivalent for you would be : do you know the downward force required to shatter the cores (inner and outer) ?

First, there's no such thing as an outer core. They're called columns.

Second, when you think about shattering, you're picturing it wrong. The enterior (concrete and steel) columns didn't just shatter on impact, and the exterior (steel) beams didn't shatter at all. They bent and moved out of alignment. With so much force coming straight down, they either had to buckle in place, or move sideways. Now, picture hundreds of long vertical metal tubes connected by much weaker trusses in between, impacted by hundreds of tons of material. What's going to happen? Well, the steel columns will move away from eachother, causin their connecting beams to sheer off. Once tey become disconnected for a height of one floor or so, each column is now just one single piece of vertical metal supporting hundreds of tons of debris. It'll buckle and bend like a nail being driven into concrete. Now, repeat that proccess for the height of the building.

That's why you see so many curved, bent, and even rolled columns in the pictures of the debris. They didn't shatter, they just bent and sheared, adding their weight to the collapse.

- what's the energy required to pulverize the concrete?
- is graviational potential energy sufficient for this?


I guess you've never used a sledge hammer on concrete.

where does the energy for the high temp rubble come from?

1. Fire.
2. Friction.
3. Not sure exactly what to call it, but take a piece of thick wire some time, bend it in half, and then put your finger on the bend. Feel that heat? Now imagine how much is generated when a few thousand pieces of steel columns get bent that way.

 
At 21 September, 2006 23:11, Blogger Blind Avocado said...

assuming X (1-5) floors were completely destroyed and the upper portion came crashing down onto it, would that force suffice?

The short answer is yes. This is from the NIST FAQ.

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

 
At 21 September, 2006 23:25, Blogger Blind Avocado said...

where does the energy for the high temp rubble come from?

It seems to me that that 500,000 tones of falling building represents a lot of kinetic energy. When it stops falling when it hits the ground the law of conservation of energy says that energy has to go somewhere, so it gets turned into heat.

 
At 21 September, 2006 23:32, Blogger Blind Avocado said...

I would expect steel to bend first, before giving way.

You mean like this?

 
At 22 September, 2006 06:10, Blogger CHF said...

Mystery man,

why don't you run your controlled demo theories by a few structural engineers or controlled demo experts and see what they think, ok?

Your opinions are based on 100% pure ignorance.

 
At 22 September, 2006 06:38, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

why don't you run your controlled demo theories by a few structural engineers or controlled demo experts and see what they think, ok?

Your opinions are based on 100% pure ignorance


I like your tactic of simple rebuttal, with no points offered. It's a great way to win an argument. Simply state something forcefully, and more people will believe you are right. Just like Cheney keeps saying 9/11 and Iraq are correct and half of america is a sucker enough to beleive it.

 
At 22 September, 2006 06:39, Blogger Stevew said...

That reminds me of the time I tried an experiment of my own. After watching numerous videos found on YouTube and Google Video, I was convinced that what happend to the towers was not a result of fire or structural damage.

To prove this I made two tall hollow square tubes out of clay. These were to represent the towers. I then took my mechanical Bic pencil and poked many many holes in one face of each "tower". This was to simulate the damage done by the supposed planes.

My next step could be argued as overkill, but I placed each tower in a kiln. This was to simulate the fire. Now, we all know that clay is not as strong as steel, so I figured the raging inferno inside the oven would positively vaporize both of my clay structures.

Imagine my suprise when, upon removing them from the kiln, I found them to be hard as a rock!! The fire actually made the towers MORE stable!!! (I thought to myself, that they were almost like trees.)

This begged the question then: What brought the towers down? If the fire actually made the buildings stronger, some foriegn force must've been at work.

I took a hammer out and whacked the towers to simulate Bush whacking the towers with a hammer... Nothing. I shot at them with an AK-47 to simulate Israeli soldiers shooting at them with AK-47s... Still nothing!!

Finally, I went down to Ace Hardware and picked up some yellow cake. I made myself two mini-nuclear bombs and detonated each at the base of the towers (always wear protective goggles).

That was the one to do it, although not as I expected. It seems from my observations that the strength of the outer tube carried the force of the nuclear blast up vertically to the top of each tower whereby it proceeded to facilitate collapse at the areas weakened by my Bic, from the top down.

I have proceeded to post my findings on reputable websites known for hating this administration and have found them to be very well received for some reason.

This is concrete proof that the government story is a sham.

 
At 22 September, 2006 06:42, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

It seems to me that that 500,000 tones of falling building represents a lot of kinetic energy. When it stops falling when it hits the ground the law of conservation of energy says that energy has to go somewhere, so it gets turned into heat.

Has this EVER been observed before? When they do purposely demolish buildings has it been observed? Do you have any mathematical calucations to back up your statement? Simply stating it means nothing, without the numbers. Is there enough energy to increase the temp by one degree or 1500 degrees? You need something more substantial if you want me to beleive it.

 
At 22 September, 2006 06:48, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

I need numbers, not the statement form some report. What does "minimal resitance" mean? Obviously to state something liek this, they must have done SOME calculations? How many floors are necessary to initiate a collapse?

The core was strong enough to keep to buildings up for many many years, so the resistance couldn really not have been "minimal" This is disingenuous at best.

 
At 22 September, 2006 06:52, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

Also, I love the way you state a theory (like friction to heat) as if it is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. With no evidence whatsoever to back it up? I have never heard of such a phenomenon. Certainly there will be heat released, but enough to turn metal to liquid? I mean you really have some gall to state this. And also the "iron rusts and water feeds the fire" is as bogus as I can find. Maybe I should buy a piece of iron and put it in my bathstub to heat my apartment ... no wait it will be too hot ... 1500degrees!!!

 
At 22 September, 2006 06:56, Blogger Chad said...

MysteryMan, did you ever comment on the photos that showed the exterior columns bowing inward? Some as much as 4-5 feet?

You had asked if that had happened and were provided with links and photographic evidence to see for yourself.

I must've missed your response.

 
At 22 September, 2006 06:58, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

MysteryMan, did you ever comment on the photos that showed the exterior columns bowing inward? Some as much as 4-5 feet?

I look at them but have not analyzed them closely. They seem to back up your theory though.

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:06, Blogger Stevew said...

All you hear from the CT mystryman and whaks are the same stupid questions. When hard proof is given to destroy their stupid theories, a they do is ignore it and come back with the same dumb questions yet never provide a shread of proof to back up what they say. What is even funnier is none of the whaks ever give one of their qualifiactions.

What were their qualifications again? You know, the qualifications that allow you to make assessments about what it takes for buildings to fall? What school granted you a degree in architectural engineering? What school educated you in civil engineering? What institution of higher education matriculated you with training in structural dynamics? C'mon A-hole-a, tell us so we can guage your credibility.

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:09, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

anyway guys, aside from the name calling, i must say for the most part you guys are good debaters. i do appreciate the exchange of ideas as it enables the full set of possibilities to be exposed.

i have to say one thing - there are always multiple ways of looking at things. but we need to look at ALL the facts before making a judgement. there is always room for error i.e. a false theory.

also, as a sidenote, i would like to tell you that I would be happy if you are correct. it would make life much simpler (I live in NY and worked in the trade centers when it crashed) But if lingering questions remain, they must at the very least be asked.

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:11, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

addendum: stevew seems to be an ass

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:14, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

"When hard proof is given to destroy their stupid theories"

What HARD PROOF do you have that friction causes steel to melt?

WHAT HARD PROOF do you have that the rusting of iron releases heat of the magnitude observed.

What you don't realize is your HARD PROOF is nothing but an alternate theory. It's not HARD PROOF you were not there nor was I. So why don't you shut the f*** up.

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:14, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

I'm sorry to be rude but assholes really need to be treated like assholes.

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:16, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

I'm sick to death of being called names you lousy m*****f****

What rights do you have to insult people like this?

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:23, Blogger Stevew said...

mystryman
Poor baby If you would address my points You would not be treated like the asshole you are. It is real simple

Back up what you say with hard facts of shut up.

Your stupid questions have been answered in great detail with hard facts by the folks here and their links and you are still in denial.

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:27, Blogger Stevew said...

BTW the hard proof has been backed up by hundereds of experts in the respestice fields and all your theories have been propagated by a bunch of whaks thay have no experience in the relative fields
Implosion World - more facts for conspiradroids to ignore...
This is a PDF file from the definitive voice in the demolition industry and what they think of the silly “controlled demolition” at the WTC theory Also titled: "Another smack in the head for the stupid people."
http://www.implosionworld.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
http://www.implosionworld.com/
http://www.protecservices.com/

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:30, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

"like the asshole you are"

first of all, I've been more than polite. so this statement is unjustified.

"you are still in denial"

I'm not in denial, if I was I wouldn't read any of your reports. Frankly, I think some of your theories cannot be proven 100%. If the experiment is not repeatable and not all parts are observable, you have to make some assumptions.

I mean, many things can cause heat. If all you have is photos, how do you know for sure where the hat came from? Don't act like you're 100% cause you're not.

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:36, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

also, you cannot expect me to have read every report out there. if I had, I would be a supercomputer.

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:41, Blogger Stevew said...

Of coures your if you read anything like you say then you simply don't understand. If is difficult to repeat planes crashing into towers so you people always come up with crap like this to justify your position.

There are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline so every conspirisy expert can come out of the woodwork with silly theories and completly avoid the true facts and never give their qualifications to spew these theories, they just spew what ever theory that suits their agenda.

Every real expert who has studied the colapse says the same thing, only the unqualified whaks say otherwise but never back it up.
You still have not addressed anything, all you do is spout opinion and conjecture

Top 4 Arguments Against A 911 Conspiracy

1) Lack of concrete proof. CTers rely mostly on pointing out things that are (in their opinions) fishy about the official story - hense the nonsence about cell phones, passenger manifiests etc. What gets lost in this flurry of "holes" is that CTers have NO solid proof in favour of their theories.

2) Lack of expert endorsement. The fact that no structural engineers IN THE WHOLE WORLD agrees with the controlled demo theory should be a tip off that something doesn't add up for the CTers. Needing the likes of Fetzer, Jones and Wood to bolster their case is another.

3) Lack of whistleblowers. Clinton can't hide a blowjob, Bush can't hide WMD distortions (don't you think he would have planted some?) and the CIA leaks like a sieve. Yet NO 9/11 conspirators have spilled the beans. Hmmmm....

4) Conspiacy theories can't agree on anything! If the "truth" was as obvious as they claim it is then why can't CTers come to some agreement on what it is? They can't agree on what hit the Pentagon, what hit the WTC, what happened to flight 93, where the passengers are or whether the whole thing was pulled off by Arab mercenaries, Bush, or the Jews. In the mind of CTers this simply proves what freethinkers they are; when it fact it simply serves as a glowing example of just how messed up the theory is. They regularly accuse eachother of being "agents" for crying out loud!

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:42, Blogger Blind Avocado said...

I need numbers, not the statement form some report. What does "minimal resitance" mean? Obviously to state something liek this, they must have done SOME calculations? How many floors are necessary to initiate a collapse?

I provided a link to the official report. If you are too stupid to follow it then I cannot help you.

Has this EVER been observed before? When they do purposely demolish buildings has it been observed? Do you have any mathematical calucations to back up your statement? Simply stating it means nothing, without the numbers. Is there enough energy to increase the temp by one degree or 1500 degrees? You need something more substantial if you want me to beleive it.

I did not say that was the only source of the heat. There was also the fires, remember the fires? I have heard that fire also produces heat. You really are not too bright, are you?

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:43, Blogger Stevew said...

BTW I have read everything from both sides since 911 and it does not take that long if you understand what you are reading

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:48, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:48, Blogger Good Lieutenant said...

"Conspiacy theories can't agree on anything!"

Its tought to keep all that scattershot improvising and fantasizing on the same plane of existence.

Then again, when you look at the members of the Truther movement, you have your explanation.

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:51, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

"There was also the fires, remember the fires"

So the fires were hot enough to melt steel and lasted for days? Even after being covered up (smothered) with piles of rubbish?

You really aren't too bright ar you?

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:53, Blogger Stevew said...

AV there has never been proof of molten steel, that is just tommy rot, if there was molten metal it was some of the hundreds of tons of AL

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:55, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

There's a picture of molten steel on your own debunking911 site ... trying to explain it.

 
At 22 September, 2006 07:55, Blogger Stevew said...

LT
The whaks come from a different dimention not another plane of existence :)
These are the rules they follow
http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

 
At 22 September, 2006 08:01, Blogger Stevew said...

That is not molten steel and if you bother to read the whole link it is explained very well

Given that they are dealing with the mechanics of building collapse, one would imagine that having an "expert" in civil or structural engineering would be more relevant, but in fact, out of the 139,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the most prominent civil engineering organization in the country, not a single member has publicly joined the "Scholars" or endorsed their findings.

 
At 22 September, 2006 08:04, Blogger Chad said...

So the fires were hot enough to melt steel and lasted for days? Even after being covered up (smothered) with piles of rubbish?

What's your theory then MysteryMan? Thermite? Thermate? Super-dooper-ultra-top-secret NANO-thermite?

Sorry, but the debris helped insulate the fires. Oxygen still fed them, but the 6 stories of debris on top of them also kept much of the heat from escaping.

I agree that you can't tell from a picture what kind of metal it is, but if you contend that the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel or iron, then a logical explanation would be aluminum (which there was plenty of), which has a much lower melting point.

 
At 22 September, 2006 08:06, Blogger Chad said...

Again, this arguement always comes up from the CT crowd, but they have yet to give a coherent explanation as to WHY?

None of the things they suggest that brought down the towers would be able to create molten pools of metal either.

 
At 22 September, 2006 08:11, Blogger Stevew said...

Very well put Chad but logic and reason will never sink in to the CT whaks.
With a couple hundred foot gash in the side, It is possible that the fire created its own wind and the severed the walls, allowed air to rush in acting like a bellows on a forge, thus increasing the heat substantialy

 
At 22 September, 2006 08:48, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

It was not thermate. It was an Alien technology we got from Bush (who actually comes from the planet Zeta 5000 light years away)

 
At 22 September, 2006 08:49, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

oh, and if you look at the picture carefully, you'll see that there are little green men. You can only see them if you BELEIVE.

 
At 22 September, 2006 08:52, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

Don't forget Elvis, he's in on this too.

By the way, do you think I look cute in my tin foil hat?

 
At 22 September, 2006 09:03, Blogger Chad said...

You're not helping your 'cause MM. Answer the questions.

 
At 22 September, 2006 09:05, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

The three laws of government (and structural engineers)

1. Anything we say is true
2. Anyone who challenges us or asks questions is a CT, a denier, mentally challenged and unpatriotic.
3. We have no whistleblowers because we are perfect. We have nothing to hide. We only classify information so our enemies cannot get their hands on it.

 
At 22 September, 2006 09:08, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

What cause, there is no cause. I got all my answers from NIST. They have very qualified people, and I trust them 100%

 
At 22 September, 2006 09:30, Blogger Stevew said...

The Paladian extraterrestrials were in on this too. They know that if all humanity is not soon brought under one world government, the onrushing AI singularity will spin out of control, and then the Galactic Watcher squadron charged with the preservation of the cosmic order of the heavens would have to step in and sterilize the planet. Then there would be no hominid slaves to dig the Anunnaki gold when the 12th planet approaches, and the Anunnaki atmosphere would breakdown and the sun would go supernova. The Paladians are working with the Bilderburgers and the Bushes and Bill Gates to create fake security emergencies that will justify mandatory universal chip implants and mind-control of the masses. Under the guise of TV camera traffic signal monitors, they are already installing death ray machines at most major intersections for the non-implant holdouts. Don't worry, the destiny of mankind is in good, but very deliberate, hands. To survive the coming rough transition to the Illuminati/Jesuit/Masonic/Gates governed age, however, you will need to report for chip implanting, biometric scanning, and taking the number of the beast.
It's simple; the Paladians replicated the 757 landing gear and beamed it into the Global Hawk that crashed into the Pentagon to lend authenticity to the deception. The actual 757 and all the passengers were beamed aboard the giant Paladian mother ship, where they have been placed into secure an comfortable stasis until the new world order is established. Almost nothing is as simple as it seems. Abandon the false logic of Occam's razor and live by Yomama's unshaved beard.

 
At 22 September, 2006 09:34, Blogger mbats said...

911 mysteries, I prefer to keep the debate on a civil level, as well. You sounded (to me, anyway) like you were willing to listen to reasoned arguments, as you actually verbally recognized evidence supporting the Progressive Collapse theory more than the Controlled Demolition hypothesis; it's amazing how many people who come through here won't do that. I do have to lend credence to the frustration of others, however, when you demand hard evidence without providing any yourself.

 
At 22 September, 2006 09:44, Blogger Chad said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 22 September, 2006 09:45, Blogger Chad said...

MM, you're obviously more interested in being condescending and have taken on a sarcastic tone which goes against your previous statements calling for civility and debate.

Well done. If only the truth movement had more people like you.

Oh wait....

9:44 AM

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:08, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

why should I be civil you douchebag when every comment you guys make is condescending in some way, moron

There, now I'm on your level!

Would you take this kind of s***. You should listen to yourselves.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:14, Blogger Alex said...

The three laws of government (and structural engineers)

As opposed to the three rules of 9/11 deniers?

1) THE JOOS DID IT!
2) YOU'RE A CIA SHILL!
3) If the Jews didn't do it and you're not a shill, refer to rules 1 and 2.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:15, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

don't forget that the Haulocaust di not happen. That's rule number 4.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:16, Blogger CHF said...

MM,

you admit that photos of structural bending back up our claims, you can't explain how a controlled demo would create "molten steel" and you still have no experts on your side.

Yet you still believe the CT bullcrap.

Your belief in 9/11 conspiracies seems deeply rooted a religious conviction of some kind that cannot be shaken by facts or evidence.

So why do you keep asking for it?

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:16, Blogger Alex said...

why should I be civil you douchebag when every comment you guys make is condescending in some way, moron

No particular reason. We already know you lack the cranial matter to form a coherent argument or conduct a logical and unbiased study of the material we present you with. If you want accompany your display of those shortcoming with profanity and ad-hominem attacks, it really won't make your position any worse.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:19, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

You also forgot oil, money, PNAC, imperialism, IslamoFascism.

Actually, it was the Arabs who did it. You see the Arabs knew there would be a conspiracy. They also knew that we would eventually blame it on the Jews and all their problems would be solved.

So they planned a false flag attack and blamed it on themselves, knowing a conspiracy would come up. Brilliant, eh?

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:20, Blogger CHF said...

None of the things they suggest that brought down the towers would be able to create molten pools of metal either.

That's cuz problem #1 with conspiraacy theories is:

Lack of concrete proof. CTers rely mostly on pointing out things that are (in their opinions) fishy about the official story - hense the nonsence about cell phones, passenger manifiests etc. What gets lost in this flurry of "holes" is that CTers have NO solid proof in favour of their theories.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:21, Blogger CHF said...

911 MM,

is this what you do when you find yourself unable to answer simple questions or explain your own beliefs?

You get sarcastic and stupid?

Pretty lame.

Just admit that you don't have a clue and be done with it already.

You're making this way more difficult for yourself.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:21, Blogger Alex said...

It's nothing we haven't heard before numbnuts. Every one of those theories has been floated here before by morons just as convinced that they were right about their pet theory as you are about yours. The one thing you all have in common is that no matter how much evidence you're given you will not modify your beliefs, nor will you admit that any part of your CT is wrong.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:23, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

"You get sarcastic and stupid"

I already was stupid numbnuts. And I still am. ROFLMAO.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:26, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

I worship two gods:

1. Jesus
2. Shyam Sunder

For those of you who don't know, Shayam Sunder is the UBER genius who co-authored the one and only original NIST report, superb and flawless, the ultimate reference to all things WTC related. It can also help you with your personal problems, for staring at those WTC column diagrams will help you realize what true brilliance is.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:27, Blogger Alex said...

It seems we're done here. Well done gents, this looser's been dismantled. Next!

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:29, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

I love this swearing thing. It's so easy. You just insult your opponent and you

(1) Feel Good
(2) Win the argument
(3) Don't have to think

Thanks to all you morons, numbnuts & douchebags, I can always stand proud. Hurray!

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:32, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

Oh, and thanks to you loosers too, another great word, I'll add it to my insult dictionary.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:37, Blogger CHF said...

Why is it that even the polite and mature twoofers turn into idiotic little children once they find their backs to the wall?

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:39, Blogger CHF said...

By the way 911M,

where exactly are you located?

You sound suspiciously like a guy I know who I recently referred to this board.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:44, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

"Why is it that even the polite and mature twoofers turn into idiotic little children once they find their backs to the wall"

I'm just using the same language you guys use. Every swear word I've used, is one of yours, in case you did not notice.

This is what you guys sound like. I challenge you to find a swear word I used that is not one of yours.

I am located in NY, and no one referred me here.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:45, Blogger Stevew said...

All MM does is whine and still has provides no proof to back up his mindless babble. I wonder why that is?
http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/

ht
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:46, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

Why don't you total up your posts, and count

(1) the number with insults and/or condescedning
(2) the number not so

You guys think you're superior. Just like the Nazis thought they were better than the Jews. Honestly, it's pathetic.

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:51, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

"All MM does is whine and still has provides no proof to back up his mindless babble"

Another insult. You really do think you're better. If it were so mindless, you would not bother countering it. How many "Screw_I_Saw_Elvis" sites to you see.

The bottom line is, there are questions worth asking and it's not all mindless. If it were all mindless, all your replies would be mindless too. Why do you spend so much time refuting mindless junk? Got nothing better to do?

 
At 22 September, 2006 10:59, Blogger Stevew said...

LOL you get funnier every day trying to pretend you are holier than thou and yet still you have given no proof to back up anything all you do is fall back on the I am only asking questions excuse.

It is very simple even for you, I just won't let your lies go unchallenged, it only hurts my country

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:02, Blogger Chad said...

Mystery, you ever go down to Ground Zero on Saturdays?

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:07, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

nope. I should though. Do you?

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:17, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

"you have given no proof to back up anything"

give me an example of something you would consider proof of "CD"

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:22, Blogger Stevew said...

You can't give proof so you ask another dumb question. This is a trademark of CT'ers

What were your qualifications again? You know, the qualifications that allow you to make assessments about what it takes for buildings to fall? What school granted you a degree in architectural engineering? What school educated you in civil engineering? What institution of higher education matriculated you with training in structural dynamics? C'mon, tell us so we can guage your credibility.

I can't give proof of CD because there was none

What CD really looks like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBw9v0xs_9k

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:24, Blogger mbats said...

give me an example of something you would consider proof of "CD"

Blast residue on the columns. Witnesses to workers opening the walls to the steel & installing charges prior to the attack. Demolition clean-up crews that saw what they would recognize as traces of explosives.

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:25, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

It's a simple question. ASSUMING 9/11 was CD, what evidence would you need to see to confirm it?

My degrees have nothing to do with it. Don't avoid the question. It should not be that hard an answer.

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:28, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

ok, so we have two things now:

"blast residue"
"traces of explosives"

Witnesses would be nice, of course, but not every crime has witnesses.

If someone could expand on "traces or explosives" that would be helpful.

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:29, Blogger Stevew said...

I can see why you have no degree's
and I answered you. But again, there was no CD so there was no evidence of CD, I think even you can understand.

The facts are on the side of truth
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/
Totalsceptic posted this on another thread, but I thought it deserved more attention for its profound yet simple logic:

FACT... Not a single Institute of Civil Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single of Institute Structural Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Fire and Safety Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Demolition Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Architects on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

FACT...Not a single Institute of Engineers in any field on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.

Why have you not answered me?

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:32, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

"But again, there was no CD so there was no evidence of CD"

I'm asking a HYPOTHETICAL. And you HAVE NOT ANSWERED ME.

I repeat, ASSUMING it was CD, what WOULD you expect to see as proof.

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:41, Blogger Stevew said...

I don't deal in HYPOTHETICAL's
Among other things I have a report from a 20 year expert in CD who says you CD idiots are full of crap.
There are well over 300 qualified experts in the relative fields that have proven all this whaks claims to be 100% bogus, every real scientific, engineering and architectural publication agrees with the current findings, only the unqualified whaks do not believe
You still have not answered anything

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:45, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

"I don't deal in HYPOTHETICAL's"

I guess that question is too hard for you to answer.

"You still have not answered anything"

Well, I don't know what answer would suit you. And since you cannot give me an example of what to look out for, I really cannot help you.

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:50, Blogger Stevew said...

The question was not hard, just nonsequiter.
You simply can't answer so all you do is tapdance and try and divert. This is typ of you whaks and is all you have. Well charlie it won't work
you have no rebuttle, just your opinion, excuse and no hard proof that will dubunk what I say
why is that?

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:51, Blogger Stevew said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:55, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

"You simply can't answer"

Yes, I can't. My conclustion at this point is that there is NO EVIDENCE that could coclusively proove a CD. So the whole discussion is moot. Without being on the scene, it is simply something one cannot prove. Hence, I will waste no more time trying.

However, if you do think of something that could be regarded as conclusive proof, let me know.

 
At 22 September, 2006 11:59, Blogger Stevew said...

As I said, there was no CD, there for no evidence and you are still tapdancing

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:05, Blogger Chad said...

I'm usually there every Saturday. Come on down and see all your friends!

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:10, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

All I'm saying is proving a CD is not in the realm of possibility, without physical access to the original site.

Now maybe proving it was NOT a CD is in the realm of possibility. I don't know. But you didn't bring that up.

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:13, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

P.S. And if you think proving a CD is in the realm of possibility ... let me know what you expect as proof. That's all I'm asking. No tap dancing.

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:13, Blogger Stevew said...

I once proved how the Titanic was actually blown up in a secret government / Mossad covert operation by blowing up a plastic model with a Black Cat firecracker in my bathtub. I mean, the ship broke in two, right? - there was no WAY a ship of that size, strength and structure could have "just broken" after "hitting an iceberg." I know what all the eyewitnesses and survivors say happened, but they're all in on the mission to cover up the REAL truth. The actual victims' families are still alive and well - spread out all over the world. The US government, under Republicans, won't let this information see the light of day, and have blocked my every attempt to look into the matter. I say we get the truthout.

That about sums up the loosers. More wheels coming off the bus daily, and they keep doubling down. There must be a new mental condition among these folks - I think I'll call it Severe Acute Leopoldism

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:15, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

steve - you're not making sense any more

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:26, Blogger Stevew said...

LOl I thought it would make perfect sense to you, it makes as much sense as what you post

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:40, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

A+ for flaming
A+ for circumlocution

 
At 22 September, 2006 12:59, Blogger Stevew said...

Thanks now when you get some hard evidence to back up your conspiricy theory's please post them

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:04, Blogger Yatesey said...

So, 911, you were just wondering what type of evidence would be needed TO prove a CD, right?

And, now, after the discussions, what is your stance? I've read through most of the comments. There are times when you appear to be just asking questions, and not blindly adhering to the "looser" theory, and other times when you seem like you are backing the "loosers" and demanding hard evidence from the official side.

So, which is it? I'm only curious myself, and I'm not bashing or namecalling.

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:16, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

my stance is that there are

(1) most observations explained by both CD and Freefall

(2) some observations like molten metal not fully explained by freefall. (I don't buy rust, friction)

(3) CD cannot be conclusively proved

(4) I don't back CD per say, only say it is a possibility.

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:21, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

for me to buy rust, friction, I would need to see either

(1) documented example of this happending before 9/11

OR

(2) mathematical analysis that energy from freefall is sufficient to generate those temperatures

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:31, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

also, I feel that just because A THEORY explains what happens, it donesn't mean it did happen that way, that could BE MULTIPLE THEORIES explaining all observations.

Since we do not have enough evidence positive conclutions are not possible.


To give you another example:

Someone is shot. Police arrive on the scene. Accused has a gun.

During the trial, police

(1) produce a gun
(2) refuse to testify
(3) show no ballistics reports

the jury is asked to convict

well now we have serveral possibilities

(1) the man committed the crime
(2) the police committed the crime
(3) someone else committed the crimw

Without ballistics, you can't tell.

May not be a perfect example, but illustrates the point.

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:41, Blogger Stevew said...

{(1) most observations explained by both CD and Freefall]
100% false, only the whaks believe this

[(2) some observations like molten metal not fully explained by freefall. (I don't buy rust, friction)]
Never claimed

[(3) CD cannot be conclusively proved]
CD did not happen so it is irrevelent

[(4) I don't back CD per say, only say it is a possibility.]
It is only a possibility in the minds of the CT whaks

Do you think he will ever address the crucial paper by Brent Blanchard on the Implosion World
website at: www.implosionworld.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
This paper alone should end any credulity towards the demolition theory, though its points need more elaboration for a non-technical audience. The reason that I highlight this paper is because it is the only one to date written by an authority on controlled demolition, based on access to data not available to either the official account or the counter-orthodoxy. I consider this paper so important that I would recommend reading it

 
At 22 September, 2006 13:53, Blogger Stevew said...

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change

"At 1000C iron burns as easily as wood." http://www.learning-org.com/01.09/0073.html

Iron smiths (Blacksmiths) modern and ancient are aware that glowing Iron Burns:
"With bellows blowing additional air through the fire, it can reach temperatures of about 3,000° Fahrenheit. Iron burns at 2,800°, however, so the smith has to be careful to not ruin his work! … The smith's fire contains too much oxygen to allow iron to melt; as it approaches its melting point the iron burns instead."
http://www.osv.org/cgi-bin/CreatePDF.php?/tour/index.php?L=12&PDF=Y

Also of note: Faraday's lectures and a demonstration of iron powder burning incandescent in air (and more brightly in pure oxygen): http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/1859Faraday-forces.html

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm
For hundreds of years, Blacksmiths took advantage of this well-known property of sulfur dioxide by "welding" iron parts together over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron at its surface.
Sulfur Dioxide gas can be released by the burning of ANY ORGANIC substance, including wood, paper, flesh, fabrics, and especially plastics (carpets), and rubber (rubber is "vulcanized" by adding sulfur to it).

 
At 22 September, 2006 14:19, Blogger CHF said...

911 M,

It's a simple question. ASSUMING 9/11 was CD, what evidence would you need to see to confirm it?

For starters,

1) there would have been a series of rapid loud bangs that everyone in lower Manhatten would have heard. Believe it or not, 911M, when CD charges snap steel support beams the sound is rather loud.

2) There would have been a series of flashes clearly visible to everyone in the area.

3) The buildings would have collapsed from the bottom up.

4) The towers would not have failed at the point of jet impact because there was a huge fire there and CD charges would not survive the fire.

5) structural engineers and CD experts would be lining up behind you.

If your theory has a problem on any of these points then you're probably full of shit.

 
At 22 September, 2006 14:35, Blogger default.xbe said...

(2) some observations like molten metal not fully explained by freefall. (I don't buy rust, friction)

you still havent said how this is explained any better by explosives

any luck on how much military grade explosives is needed to powderize the concrete?

i dont know how much GPE would be needed to do that, thats not my area of expertise, however people who DO have that area of expertise dont seem to think theres anything wrong with the accepted version, why is that?

 
At 22 September, 2006 14:39, Blogger Stevew said...

There was a 3 to 4 inch layer of concrete on the average floor, they were not designed to be self standing they were designed for lateral loads. With 50-100K tons crashing down on top of them, it woulsd be suprising if it did not pulverize

Contrary to what some conspiracy theorist say, the core walls were NOT concrete reinforced and all the girders were bolted together creating weakpoints.

 
At 22 September, 2006 14:44, Blogger Thomas said...

It's a simple question. ASSUMING 9/11 was CD, what evidence would you need to see to confirm it?

Photographic evidence of det cords, blast caps or other residue indicative of explosives in the WTC rubble.

Photographic evidence of WTC steel columns which display damage conclusive of a CD, or chemical residue which is conclusive of a CD (and can't be explained otherwise -- like the Sulfur thing)

Eye-Witness reports of WTC tenants/office workers who confirm extensive rigging and restauration work going on in the weeks prior to 9/11 (extensive meaning: dismantleing fire insulation and concrete walls and drilling into steel columns as well as cableing)

Seismographic records which are conclusive of a CD.

One example of a CD on a comparable building that started from the top down.

A detailed specification of the type of explosive used and how they caused the witnessed effects.

A specification of the AMOUNT of explosives used and where exactly they were planted.

A specification of how many man/hours it would require to place said explosives in said fashion to reach witnessed effects.

An explanation why airplanes were used when just demolishing the buildings and blaming some Arabs for it would have sufficed (with 93 being the perfect pretext).

An explanation why it is so important for you guys that this was a conspiracy and what you actually WANT to happen once it has been proven.

 
At 22 September, 2006 15:26, Blogger Stevew said...

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 “primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.

Yeah according to Jones, 10 men making 4 trips should be enough to wire a two 110 story office buildings. I could do that over my lunch break.

Walls are ripped apart and knocked down, beams are cut, holes are bored, wires are run to detonators. Keep in mind, this is just the amount of time needed to emplace the explosives, not to prepare the building in the first place:

How did the hijackers hit the exact spot of the so called explosives

 
At 22 September, 2006 15:32, Blogger default.xbe said...

How did the hijackers hit the exact spot of the so called explosives

thats actually one of the funniest things about debating these people

they say not many people would be required to rig the buildings because they just had to wire a few floors at the impact site

then you say how did they know the plane wouldhit exactly there, and they CTers will tell you they probably had all floors wired so they could make it look right regardless of where the plane hit

of ocurse then you increase the amount of explosives and work to plant them by 20x

 
At 22 September, 2006 15:44, Blogger Stevew said...

LOL most of the whaks are too stupid to get screwed like this guy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836

 
At 22 September, 2006 16:43, Blogger Thomas said...

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 “primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.

You might want to add that the building you are referring to had a fraction of the size of either of the WTC towers

 
At 22 September, 2006 17:06, Blogger Stevew said...

I know but to people who understand it is a given but the whaks will not understand LOL

 
At 23 September, 2006 09:38, Blogger Blind Avocado said...

So the fires were hot enough to melt steel and lasted for days? Even after being covered up (smothered) with piles of rubbish?

Here is a fire that has been burning for 40 years buried underground. And I have never seen any pictures of molten steeel at WTC. Provide a link or shut up. I am tired of debating morons.

 
At 23 September, 2006 09:51, Blogger Blind Avocado said...

You guys think you're superior

That is because people capible of rational thought *are* superior to those who are not.

 
At 23 September, 2006 10:44, Blogger Pepik said...

I have to say something about the insults here - while I can't resist sometimes, and there's no doubt the CTers deserve it, it just isn't good PR. If you had a friend or family member who had seen Loose Change and was taken in by it, would you send them to a website where crude insults are thrown around constantly? I wouldn't.

 
At 23 September, 2006 10:50, Blogger CHF said...

I don't like hearing insults either, but it sure is tempting some times.

When you hear the same stupid claim for the 50th time...

 
At 23 September, 2006 17:57, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Pepik:

You are right, of course. It still bothers me that I have decided to bring myself down to their level, but it is the only way to speak to these guys. They do not listen to reason, or to logic. They seem to have neither at their disposal at ANY time. I just make sure that my insults count, and are more wit and sarcasm than profanity.

TAM

 
At 23 September, 2006 21:49, Blogger 911 Mysteries said...

actually, if you see a "CT" who doesn't want to talk to you, do realize it could be one of two things

(1) they are not interested in what you have to say
(2) they are not interested in speaking with abusive people. for this reason, I would be less willing to have a debate with any of you guys, unless you agreed to stay away from the insults (that means throwing out haulocaust denier is a no-no) otherwise, we can go our merry (or not so merry) way and not speak to each other.

 
At 24 September, 2006 06:01, Blogger shawn said...

(2) they are not interested in speaking with abusive people. for this reason, I would be less willing to have a debate with any of you guys, unless you agreed to stay away from the insults (that means throwing out haulocaust denier is a no-no) otherwise, we can go our merry (or not so merry) way and not speak to each other.


At this point there's nothing to be but abusive. We hear the same debunked points over and over again from you people and either you're willfully ignoring the facts in the case, or you come along like it's some new "information" we never heard before.

 
At 24 September, 2006 06:28, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

mysteries:

If I had been the one to start off being abusive and profane, I might be inclined to agree. For 10 weeks I tried to debate with these people, and all I got in return was "Your a wanker" or "Shut up government shill", among other, less tolerable insults. It was then I realized that is the only thing they respond to.

If you doubt me, go through my earlier posts, for the first two months I was discussing these issues. Most people can point to a post I made where I openly made the concious decision to fight fire with fire, as the other way was getting me nowhere.

As for them not wanting to hear what I have to say...(1) don't post an opinion on a blog or forum if you do not expect to have someone reply. (2) be courteous enough to listen to what they have to say.

Now if the CTers obeyed these simple, civilized rules, I would still be debating and discussing things with them in a civil, rational manner, but they never appply these rules. They do not want to hear what I or other Debunkers have to say, because it does not agree with the CT code/mantra/way. EOS.

TAM

 
At 24 September, 2006 07:11, Blogger Stevew said...

Shawn
The CT'ers think that they have enough credibility so that real experts would debate them, but to the pros who do this for a living, I am sure they think it would be like debating Daffy Duck. I am sure they have better things to do with their time. They critisize the editor and chief who has nothing to do with the research, then they post their whaks qualifications but edit them so they appear to be more qualified than they actually are. J Wood is an example. They call her a mechanical engineer that does stress anaylsis but never say that her expertise is in dentistry, it goes on and on like that. I wonder what a Software Developer,Computer Scientist, Biologist Physician, Computer Programmer, Cellphone Engineer Webmaster & Editor know about building design or aircraft crashes and which ones have they investigated

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home