Thursday, May 13, 2010

Stupid 9/11 Experiments

I don't know what is scarier, the fact that this guy claims to be an actual engineer, or the fact that he fails to understand the basics of gravity. Skip to 5 minutes in for the entertaining "experiments".




30 Comments:

At 13 May, 2010 18:48, Blogger b. j. edwards said...

Gosh.

I never thought of using FEMA and the USGS to debunk NIST.

And FEMA.

And the USGS.

What a novel concept.

 
At 13 May, 2010 22:41, Blogger Steve said...

I just started watching this...

I seem to remember something in physics class about -9.8m/s^2.

 
At 13 May, 2010 23:14, Blogger Steve said...

Well there's ten minutes of my life I'll never get back. And I feel dumber now.

So, if I understand this correctly, by using ice, mortar and cinder blocks, he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that super nano thermite was used to bring the towers down. That's some experimentation right there.

 
At 13 May, 2010 23:20, Anonymous Jay said...

Lol, well my previous video showed what idiots they are, and this proves it once again... Do these idiots really dont understand the laws of physics? Or how the buildings were actually constructed? And then that stupid question "what can we conclude?" Uhm that your a total idiot.....

 
At 14 May, 2010 06:19, Blogger Triterope said...

I like the title: "Arbitrator of Competing Hypotheses." Eight and a half years and the Truth movement is still at the hypothesis stage.

 
At 14 May, 2010 06:31, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

These idiots think just because something is big it is conversely strong, when in fact the strength to mass ratio is never exponential equal. This little fact was observed by none other than Galileo

"Yet I shall say it and will affirm that, even if the imperfections did not exist and matter were absolutely perfect, unalterable and free from all accidental variations, still the mere fact that it is matter makes the larger machine, built of the same material and in the same proportion as the smaller, correspond with exactness to the smaller in every respect except that it will not be so strong or so resistant against violent treatment; the larger the machine, the greater its weakness."
Galileo:

So even if this loon built an exact replica of the towers to scale with every nut bolt and weld, his test would mean nothing. And he is supposed to be an engineer but does not understand this basic fact of physics? He has a child's view of physics, playing with Tinker Toys and baby blocks to make a building.

 
At 14 May, 2010 06:33, Anonymous troyfromwv said...

This little fact was observed by none other than Galileo


Quit poking fun at Alex Jones

 
At 14 May, 2010 06:53, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

I found this rather funny in the comments over at YouTube

---punxsutawneybarney
4 hours ago
Nice try, but your conflation of the bottom-up collapse of WTC7 with the top-down collapse of the towers is illegitimate, and your small scale models are useless to explain larger scale events.----

As some of you may know punxsutawneybarney is our buddy Brian Good. The same Brian who defends Gages Box trick as physics. The guy I lectured on the scaling issue.

Could he be leaning?

 
At 14 May, 2010 08:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could someone link me to the experiments NIST did to prove the crush down theory? I know they didn't model the entire collapse because it was just too chaotic for the computers.

Thanks!

 
At 14 May, 2010 08:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Don't get insulted, Anonymous, but I must ask: How many years did it take you to learn how to breathe?

And remember, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 14 May, 2010 09:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GuitarBill,

It took me 13 years to learn how to breathe correctly. Despite what the doctors say, the lack of oxygen did NOT permanently damage my brain, and did NOT affect my ability to think rationally and ward off paranoid delusions.

Now where are those NIST experiments?

 
At 14 May, 2010 09:57, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

It took me 13 years to learn how to breathe correctly.

Yeah, but the still breaths through his mouth, and then there is the knuckle dragging issue,

 
At 14 May, 2010 18:43, Anonymous paul w said...

As the truther 'experiments' are so abysmal in regarding physics, it leaves only the comedy aspect open to debate.

The major problem with that is Gage's cardboard box extravaganza; it set too high a standard.

The sheer idiocy of the 'experiment', and his enthusiastic OMG! is gonna be very tough to beat.

I think this one lacked the unintentional humor one finds in a top-notch truther video, plus there was no camera shake.

Also, no-one got arrested - always a highlight.

5/10 for this one.

 
At 15 May, 2010 04:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So... how come we never see twoofer videos in which they CONFIRM their theories by applying OUTSIDE force to wood blocks / cardboard boxes / snowmen / Legos / whatever to produce COMPARABLE results to the WTC collapses?

 
At 16 May, 2010 12:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No experiment scaled to the size of, say, WTC 7, could ever match the likeness WTC 7' demise has to controlled demolition.

WTC 7 could have easily been dropped like it did with shaped charges.

The whole problem is it looks so much like a controlled demolition, the burden of proof lies with those arguing that it's coincidental.

So far, all we have is a deeply flawed NIST report and its reflexive defenders, such as the Billshitterâ„¢, torture supporter Shat Turdley and his buddy the racist stalking child abuser Troy Sexton.

Not much to go on.

 
At 16 May, 2010 12:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and I agree with anonymous, please link us to NIST's LS DYNA collapse simulation of the Twin Towers.

Any takers among the dumbunkturds? Sideshow Bill?

 
At 16 May, 2010 13:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous flashes his double-digit IQ and scribbles, "...The whole problem is it looks so much like a controlled demolition, the burden of proof lies with those arguing that it's coincidental."

Wrong! The site was inspected by Controlled Demolition Corporation and no evidence of explosives were found at Ground Zero.


"...Our team, working at ground zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event. You just can't clean up all that det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days." -- Brent Blanchard, Demolition Expert; International Society of Explosives Engineers.


Thus, the burden of proof is yours, and yours alone, troofer.

 
At 16 May, 2010 13:36, Anonymous Gostions said...

Correctamundo. The burden of proof lies with those who believe WTC 7 was demo'ed for no sensible reason, and with explosive devices that miraculously made no sound, miraculously survived a 7-hour fire, miraculously were not noticed by the building's occupants, miraculously left no trace in the debris, and miraculously haven't been talked about by anyone involved.

Any takers? How about you, Anonymous?

 
At 16 May, 2010 13:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The burden of proof lies with those who believe WTC 7 was demo'ed for no sensible reason"

You must have missed Shapiro's "Silverstein discussed controlled demolition" blunder, in his recent anti 9/11 truth hit piece.

"and with explosive devices that miraculously made no sound,"

False.

"miraculously survived a 7-hour fire,"

How do you know? If I recall correctly, there were plenty of explosions inside WTC 7, including those discussed by Barry Jennings and the one recorded near the payphone.

"miraculously were not noticed by the building's occupants"

Buildings can be modified with a cover story. The Citibank Tower retrofit demonstrates this. Furthermore, I believe that *if* WTC 7 was demolished, it could have been done by a military demolition team in the time between WTC 1's demise and ~5 PM.

"miraculously left no trace in the debris,"

Bare assertion. You are aware as well as I that there are temperature anomaly issues with WTC 7. Furthermore, the claim that explosives must always leave traces, such as wiring, is false.

"and miraculously haven't been talked about by anyone involved."

There is nothing miraculous about remaining silent about involvement in a covert operation.

"Any takers? How about you, Anonymous?"

I just did. However, it's a merry go round, you'll never show some intellectual integrity. You're just reading the script.

 
At 16 May, 2010 14:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyways, where is that collapse simulation of WTC 1 and 2?

Here's a clue:

"WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation"

Somehow, collapse resistance isn't much of an agenda point at NIST, which is why a collapse simulation of the Twin Towers is apparently redundant.

 
At 16 May, 2010 14:29, Blogger Triterope said...

The whole problem is it looks so much like a controlled demolition, the burden of proof lies with those arguing that it's coincidental.

Sure, buddy. While you're at it, why don't you declare yourself President of the United States and assert that the burden of proof lies with those who think you're not.

 
At 16 May, 2010 14:43, Anonymous Gostions said...

"You must have missed Shapiro's 'Silverstein discussed controlled demolition' blunder, in his recent anti 9/11 truth hit piece."

And what would the big bad gov't have to gain from it? Why would they go along with Silverstein's insurance money scam? Why would NIST cover for Silverstein? Why would Silverstein admit his intentions to those around him?


"and with explosive devices that miraculously made no sound,"
"False."

Then show us some WTC7 footage with audible explosions at the initiation of collapse. Aw, sorry, you can't.

"If I recall correctly, there were plenty of explosions inside WTC 7, including those discussed by Barry Jennings and the one recorded near the payphone."

I'm not talking about random explosions before the supposed demolition (which are reported often in building fires); I'm talking about the demolition itself. No loud explosions, no controlled demolition.


"I believe that *if* WTC 7 was demolished, it could have been done by a military demolition team in the time between WTC 1's demise and ~5 PM."

The building was on fire, you absolute fucking idiot. Buildings smaller than WTC7 (e.g., the Hudson's building in Detroit), required weeks for prep by demo teams that had complete run of the building, and those buildings were not on fire.

"miraculously left no trace in the debris,"
"Bare assertion."

Not a bare assertion. Read GuitarBill's reply above which contains Brent Blanchard's account of working at Ground Zero. Neither he nor anyone else saw signs of controlled demolition in the debris.

"the claim that explosives must always leave traces, such as wiring, is false."

Now *that's* a bare assertion.


"There is nothing miraculous about remaining silent about involvement in a covert operation."

It's miraculous that the demolition team would agree to mass murder their own people; and if they were unaware of what they were doing (as Jesse Ventura claims) then they would likely talk about it afterwards, knowing that they were tricked.

"Any takers? How about you, Anonymous?"
"I just did."

Did what? You demonstrated you're an out-and-out lunatic, willing to defy all common sense and reason just to maintain your religious adherence to a paranoid delusion.

 
At 16 May, 2010 14:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sure, buddy. While you're at it, why don't you declare yourself President of the United States and assert that the burden of proof lies with those who think you're not."

Except, I am not the president of the United States. I'm not a mass murdering, pathologically lying totalitarian sociopath who tortures, kidnaps, wiretaps and assassinates everyone who displeases him.

Since I lack that semblance, there is no need for a burden of proof discussion.

You could easily run for president though, since you display all the psychopathic, maniacal traits commonly associated with career politicians.

 
At 16 May, 2010 15:00, Anonymous Gostions said...

"I believe that *if* WTC 7 was demolished, it could have been done by a military demolition team in the time between WTC 1's demise and ~5 PM."

I'm still laughing about that comment.

Fireman: Excuse me, but what exactly are you guys doing here?

Ninja demolition man: Oh, don't mind us, we're just going to stick these little doodads on the columns, just like so... Oh, by the way, there's a fire engulfing that column over there; could you kindly put it out for us so we can plant our bom--- I mean, thing, on it?

Fireman: Why sure, no problem!

Ninja demolition man: And can you do us another favor -- never tell anyone that you saw us here?

Fireman: Mum's the word!

 
At 16 May, 2010 18:25, Blogger Triterope said...

Except, I am not the president of the United States. I'm not a mass murdering, pathologically lying totalitarian sociopath who tortures, kidnaps, wiretaps and assassinates everyone who displeases him.

Since I lack that semblance, there is no need for a burden of proof discussion.


** facepalm **

 
At 18 May, 2010 07:46, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'I'm not a mass murdering, pathologically lying totalitarian sociopath who tortures, kidnaps, wiretaps and assassinates everyone who displeases him.'

Great, we've established that you're not Kim Jong-Il. But you are still a complete fucking loon.

 
At 21 May, 2010 03:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Great, we've established that you're not Kim Jong-Il [sic]. But you are still a complete fucking loon."

Bushbama have more killings under their belt than Kim Yong-Il could ever hope to achieve. That said, if it's loony to oppose mass murder for empire, then I'm one happy loon.

 
At 21 May, 2010 03:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ninja demolition man: Oh, don't mind us, we're just going to stick these little doodads on the columns, just like so... Oh, by the way, there's a fire engulfing that column over there; could you kindly put it out for us so we can plant our bom--- I mean, thing, on it?"

Lest you forget, there was a camera crew inside WTC 7 on 9/11. I guess the fire wasn't that bad after all. Smoke isn't fire. There was no "massive" WTC 7 fire. There were all sorts of military personnel walking around. The FDNY was moved back out to a "collapse zone".

Last I recall, there were no ninjas at the scene. Reductio ad absurdum fail.

 
At 21 May, 2010 03:47, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's miraculous that the demolition team would agree to mass murder their own people; and if they were unaware of what they were doing (as Jesse Ventura claims) then they would likely talk about it afterwards, knowing that they were tricked."

Ah..somebody would have talked. Well I do know somebody who talked. Haven't you heard of Ollie North's "twelve guys" who rigged the building?

Of course, now you're going to backtrack on your argument and claim this is a joke or a lie and that nobody would have talked. Like you deranged, mentally ill pseudoskeptic kooks always do.

 
At 21 May, 2010 05:40, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Haven't you heard of Ollie North's "twelve guys" who rigged the building?'

Er, no. Funnily enough I haven't. But until I found this site I also hadn't heard about the WTC towers being destroyed by space weapons or nukes.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home