Thursday, August 07, 2014

Kurt Eichenwald on the Danger of Conspiracy Theories



Agenda 21 is goofy, certainly, but I doubt it is the most damaging conspiracy theory out there. I mean, horrors because bike paths can't get built because of Agenda 21. Hey, I love bike paths myself and I am not a believer in the awful things that are coming as a result of Agenda 21. I probably put a couple thousand miles a year on my bike. I am more in agreement with the point about the anti-Vaxxers.

I do like that he gets the backwards nature of conspiracy theories although he does not explain it particularly well. The point is that CTists start with the conclusion (the government did it) and sift backwards, looking for evidence that will prop up that belief. I also like his point about the minute questions that the 9-11 Truthers ask. Here's one of my favorites from the supposed 91% unanswered widows' questions that Brian likes to natter on about:

Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States

1. Please discuss the advice and plans of the Energy Advisory Council specifically as they relate to pipeline development and gas/oil exploration in Afghanistan, Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, and the feasibility of such development or exploration specifically in those two countries in 2001.

Nothing to do with 9-11 except in some idiot's mind.

BTW, Lorie Van Auken claimed in 2007 that only 70% of their questions were unanswered; she must be a government shill:

“It was a pathetic excuse of a report,” says Lorie Van Auken, whose husband Kenneth was killed in WTC I. “Seventy percent of our questions went unanswered.



70 Comments:

At 07 August, 2014 10:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

The observation that the official 9/11 reports are incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest is presumably a conspiracy theory that supposes that government reports are deliberately engaged in deception. I suppose one could posit that they are incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest because their authors are incompetent--but then you'd have to wonder if the incompetent authors were selected by higher-ups precisely for their incompetence.

But the observation of the unacceptable nature of the reports does not depend on working backwards at all. You start with the reports. Early in 2005 I recognized the shortcomings of the 9/11 Commission Report and the FEMA report on the twin towers and WTC7, and I looked forward to the release of the NIST report, hoping that it would explain some the mysteries of the towers' collapses. I was thus dismayed when I found that NIST did not even address the mysteries, let alone explain them. I did not work backwards from the assumption that the government was covering up the facts. I worked forward from the observation that the re[ports were incomplete, dishonest, and unscientific.

Mr. Eichwald was quite amusing at 14:30 when he denied that he had ever been told to leave anything out of one of his reporters, and then admitted that he had been told to leave stuff out when it was ridiculous. I saw little point in listening to him beyond that.

What is wrong with an exploratory question about pipelines and gas/oil exploration in Afghanistan and Iraq? Exploratory questions are a part of any legitimate investigation. Why do you leap to the conclusion that pipelines and oil had nothing to do with 9/11? Anyone who watched crime show TV knows that it's routine to ask associates and family members of a murder victim about their relationship to the victim and their alibis--and that when an associate responds with "my whereabouts on the night in question have nothing to do with the murder!" we've got a situation worth looking into. So why do you play into that?

Given the participation of so many Saudi nationals in the 9/11 plot, investigation of possible designs on the oil resources in the region are well worth undertaking--and may well be part of the 28 pages redacted from the original House/Senate Joint Inquiry.

Yes, Lorie van Auken said that 70% of the widows' questions were not answered. That is true.

Of 300 questions, 200 (66%) got no response at all, 27 (9%) were answered, and 73 (24%) got responses that were not answers.

If you ask me where I was on the night of the murder and I tell you I like home-baked bread and Bob Dylan, that is a response that is not an answer.

Ms. van Auken simply chose to avoid any boring debate with lawyering liars about whether non-sequitur responses were answers or not. She stuck with 70% unanswered, which is a demonstrable fact quite as damning as the fact that 91% were not answered.




















 
At 07 August, 2014 14:47, Blogger truth hurts said...

..I looked forward to the release of the NIST report, hoping that it would explain some the mysteries of the towers' collapses...

And what mysteries may that be?
You still don't dare to name them.
Ik can only conclude that those mysteries live in your head alone.
You can't expect NIST to handle your delusions.
Als psychiatrist might though

 
At 08 August, 2014 00:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

I have named the ten mysteries many times, and any idiot can google them.

You leap to unjustified conclusions. Bad habit.

 
At 08 August, 2014 02:33, Blogger truth hurts said...

Why are you afraid Brian?
I won't bite...

 
At 08 August, 2014 02:35, Blogger truth hurts said...

You leap to unjustified conclusions...

So do you.

 
At 08 August, 2014 03:33, Blogger truth hurts said...

Like this one:

"Ms. van Auken simply chose to avoid any boring debate..."

 
At 08 August, 2014 03:35, Blogger truth hurts said...

But the observation of the unacceptable nature of the reports does not depend on working backwards at all.

Yes it does: the outcome of the reports didn't meet your conclusion you started with...

 
At 08 August, 2014 03:41, Blogger truth hurts said...

What is wrong with an exploratory question about pipelines and gas/oil exploration in Afghanistan and Iraq?

it is unrelated.

Exploratory questions are a part of any legitimate investigation.

Nope.

Why do you leap to the conclusion that pipelines and oil had nothing to do with 9/11?

Why do you leap to the conclusion that they had anything to do with 911?


Anyone who watched crime show TV

The 911 commission didn't conduct a criminal investigation.


knows that it's routine to ask associates and family members of a murder victim about their relationship to the victim and their alibis--

No it isn't.
Only in cluedo like games it is, not in the real world.


and that when an associate responds with "my whereabouts on the night in question have nothing to do with the murder!"

What does someones whereabout have to do with oil and gaz pipes in afghanistan and iraq?


we've got a situation worth looking into.

No, we haven't.

Given the participation of so many Saudi nationals in the 9/11 plot, investigation of possible designs on the oil resources in the region are well worth undertaking

That is a very poor link: 'they were saudi, so it must be about the pilelines in iraq and afghanistan'...

--and may well be part of the 28 pages redacted from the original House/Senate Joint Inquiry.

And may well be not.
But if they were, then it has been investigated and a new one is not neccesary.

 
At 08 August, 2014 07:05, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

In the words of Spock: "It's not logical."

Damn right Spock, Conspiracy Theories aren't logical.

 
At 08 August, 2014 08:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

So on Planet Stewie, there is no such thing as organized crime, and governments and corporations never do evil or illegal things--because those by definition would be conspiracies, and conspiracy theories are not logical.

Thanks for sharing!

 
At 08 August, 2014 08:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I didn't leap to any conclusions. I expressed an opinion. A supportable opinion, based on my experience in debating lawyering liars.

I didn't start with any conclusion about the NIST reports. I had recognized the inadequacies in FEMA's $600,000 report, and I expected them to be remediated in NIST's $20 million report. When I examined NIST's effort, I was disappointed--as any honest person would be. History will judge, and those of you who go around making up "facts" will be found wanting.

How can you claim that the economic and geopolitical context of Afghanistan and Iraq is unrelated to 9/11 when the direct result of 9/11 was the invasion of those two countries?

I didn't leap to any conclusion that they were related. No conclusion is necessary to ask an exploratory question.

The 9/11 Commission conducted an investigation of a criminal act. I used an example from crime TV simply to show the logic involved in investigations--doing exploratory research to exclude obvious suspects.

I never said "it must be about the pipelines in iraq and afghanistan'". For you to assume there is no connection between a geopolitical act of Saudis and the rivals of the Saudis in their oil business is asinine.

How do you know what is in the 28 redacted pages, and how do you know no further investigation is necessary? Why would any reasonable person ve opposed to new investigations? Why are you afraid of the truth?





 
At 08 August, 2014 11:50, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

LOL! Brian parading around his BS "essential mysteries" again. 0 of which were evaluated by anyone with any relevant expertise in structural engineering or fire science. Why? Brian has deluded himself into thinking he is an expert.

 
At 08 August, 2014 11:53, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

So on Planet Stewie, there is no such thing as organized crime, and governments and corporations never do evil or illegal things--because those by definition would be conspiracies, and conspiracy theories are not logical.

Thanks for sharing!


Of course Brian pulls the stupid Grifter equivocation fallacy.

Yes Brian, not logical, and you prove why you can't figure out the reason, again.

 
At 08 August, 2014 13:41, Blogger truth hurts said...

th, I didn't leap to any conclusions. I expressed an opinion. A supportable opinion, based on my experience in debating lawyering liars.

OK, a complicated way of saying that you actually did leap to any conclusion, but i accept it.


I didn't start with any conclusion about the NIST reports.

Ah, nice smoke screen, brian.
But no cigar.
I was talking about your conclusions about the 911 attacks and the collapse of the towers.


I had recognized the inadequacies in FEMA's $600,000 report

Fun to see how you emphasize the cost of the investigation...

More fun to see that you consider yourself an expert who can find such inadequacies...


and I expected them to be remediated in NIST's $20 million report.

Again, fun to see how you emphasize the cost of that investigation.


When I examined NIST's effort, I was disappointed


Indeed, because it didn't support the conclusions about 911 that you leaped into.


--as any honest person would be.

Fun to see how you qualify yourself and anyone who agrees with you.


History will judge, and those of you who go around making up "facts" will be found wanting.

LMAO!!!


How can you claim that the economic and geopolitical context of Afghanistan and Iraq is unrelated to 9/11 when the direct result of 9/11 was the invasion of those two countries?

Afghanistan was invaded because the country was a playground for al qaeda. The govt of the north alliance warned de US and Europe about it prior to 911 and asked for an intervention by both nations. We didn't listen then, but had to listen after 911 and act.
Iraq is unrelated to 911. Bush and Co tried to use 911 as an excuse to invade Iraq, but failed.
You yourself admitted that most hijackers were saoudi, not afghan or iraqi. yet you used their background as an excuse to ask questions about pipelines through those countries.


The 9/11 Commission conducted an investigation of a criminal act.

Nonetheless, they didn't do a criminal investigation.
The FBI did.



I used an example from crime TV simply to show the logic involved in investigations--doing exploratory research to exclude obvious suspects.

Who the suspects were, that was up to the FBI to investigate, not the 911 commission.


For you to assume there is no connection between a geopolitical act of Saudis and the rivals of the Saudis in their oil business is asinine.

you are simply desperate in trying to defend a completely unrelated question.


How do you know what is in the 28 redacted pages

I never said i did.


and how do you know no further investigation is necessary?

If those papers hold the answers to the questions you want to have investigated, then a new investigation is not neccesary.
You brought the papers into the discussion, not me.


Why would any reasonable person ve opposed to new investigations?

They should have a purpose.
You failed to give any.


Why are you afraid of the truth

you are afraid of the truth, that is why you want to see new investigation, hoping that the truth will be different.
Well: it won't.

 
At 08 August, 2014 18:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMs, the illogic is Stewie's, not mine. He made a generalization about conspiracy theories that is not true. I simply pointed that out.

All of the mysteries have been evaluated as such by experts with relevant experience. It may make it easier for you to pretend they don't exist if you pretend that I I invented them, but I didn't. I merely collected them, and counted them, and noted that all of them occurred AFTER the NIST's investigation turned into a pumpkin, which was at the moment of collapse initiation.

 
At 08 August, 2014 18:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, your energy far exceeds your acumen. Think more, write less.

 
At 09 August, 2014 00:30, Blogger truth hurts said...

'All of the mysteries have been evaluated as such by experts with relevant experience.'

And with their expertise, they were able to solve the mystery, right?

 
At 09 August, 2014 00:36, Blogger truth hurts said...

' I merely collected them, and counted them, and noted that all of them occurred AFTER the NIST's investigation... '

So before the investigation, those mysteries didn't exist.
They surfaced after the NIST investigation.
How could NIST address those mysteries if they weren't there during the investigation?

Also, if those mysteries are a real concern, why are you so afraid to list them here?

What do you have to lose?

 
At 09 August, 2014 01:57, Blogger truth hurts said...

Well, found out what you have to lose:

The ten so called essential mysteries:

Speed: not a mystery, so no reason to address that seperatly in the nist report.

Symmetry: the collapse wasn't symmetry, so no need to address that either. The towers collapsed around the core, leaving the core initially standing. So some degree of symmetry should be expected.

Totally: Not a mystery, not even to you.
As you yourself stated that there was no point in rigging the lower floors with explosives.

squibs: also not a mystery: compressed air leaving the building.

pulverisation of concrete: there was hardly any concrete in the building, only 10 cm of it on the metal floor deks. The towers had more than enough potential energy to pulverize its complete contents.

lateral ejection of multi ton components: also no mystery. Anyone who uses his eyes can see on pictures and video how large portions of the facade and core fell sideways. So one can expect to find elements of those portions at a large distance.

collapse of the robust lower core (meaning that the upper core wasn't robust?): again, you yourself admitted that there was no need to rig the lower part of the buildings with explosives. The force of the collapse would take care of that.

melted steel: none was found.


2 mysteries are missing, perhaps you can fill them in ?
If you dare, that is...

 
At 09 August, 2014 07:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, some of the experts have hypotheses about some the mysteries; some of them just have questions. The mystery of the melted steel and the evaporated steel, for instance, is most convincingly explained by the thermite hypothesis. NIST doesn't even try to explain it.

The mystery of the pulverized concrete is not convincingly explained by anybody AFAIK, though the Judy Wood fans claim she answers that one.

The mysteries were inherent in the collapses of the towers and so they existed before the NIST report, but only after the NIST report were we able to determine that NIST had not addressed them.

Speed of collapse is a mystery, as anyone with any knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics knows.

The collapses were symmetrical, as anyone who looks at the videos can see. That's a mystery. Asymmetrical damage should yield an asymmetrical collapse.

Totality is a mystery, because an asymmetrical collapse should not be total.

Squibs are a mystery because the mechanism for the compression of the air and its targeting of isolated windows has not been explained.

Pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete floors--along with the steel floor pans they were poured in--is a mystery. The energy needed to break up the concrete should have slowed the collapses.

Lateral ejection of building components is a mystery. The videos show isolated multi-ton building components ejected laterally at speeds of 50 miles per hour. This is not perimeter sections peeling off. Watch the movie "Experts Speak Out".

The collapse of the robust lower core is a mystery. The lower 40 stories of the core were built to support the weight of 70 stories above them. And yet when the outer floors had collapsed to the ground, the lower core remained standing--and then fell down under its own weight.

Melted steel was found, as 8 PhDs and FEMA Appendix C tell us. NIST did not explain it.

You invent declarations that are contrary to fact in a desperate attempt to prop up your illusions.













 
At 09 August, 2014 12:02, Blogger truth hurts said...

some of the experts have hypotheses about some the mysteries; some of them just have questions. The mystery of the melted steel and the evaporated steel, for instance

Yup, Judy Woods and James Fetzer are convinced that the steel evaporated.
They believe a starwars like Ray has evaporated the towers.
Judy can be considered an expert if you check her credentials.

Nevertheless: she and Fetzer stand pretty much alone in their hypothesis.

is most convincingly explained by the thermite hypothesis.

Not really, as thermite doesn't evaporate steel. Also, there is no molten steel, only in the minds of the truthers.


NIST doesn't even try to explain it.

and why should they? There is no evidence for molten steel prior or during the collapses of the towers.


The mystery of the pulverized concrete is not convincingly explained by anybody AFAIK

Yes it is, the towers contained enough potential energy to pulverize its complete contents, including the floors.

 
At 09 August, 2014 12:04, Blogger truth hurts said...

The mysteries were inherent in the collapses of the towers and so they existed before the NIST report, but only after the NIST report were we able to determine that NIST had not addressed them.

NIST wasn't assigned to address any of your mysteries.
Their goal was to investigate if and in what way the construction and used materials played a role in the global collapse of the towers.



Speed of collapse is a mystery

It is not.

as anyone with any knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics knows.

Which doesn't include you, so you don't know what you are talking about.


The collapses were symmetrical

They were not.
As i explained, the only symmetry in the collapse was caused by the fact the towers collapsed around their cores, which initially remained standing.
But if you take a better look at the collapses, you can see that some portions of the building collapsed faster than others, that some parts of the facade fell sideways in one direction, but not in the opposite, etc.
Also, looking at the damage to surrounding buildings, you can see that the collapses weren't symmetrical.


Totality is a mystery, because an asymmetrical collapse should not be total.

The collapses weren't total, parts of the core and facade remained standing.
But even if they were also crushed: it is a m00t argument that an asymmetrical collapse cannot be total.
That is just some babbling coming from you, with not even a single shred of scientific backing.

 
At 09 August, 2014 12:04, Blogger truth hurts said...


Squibs are a mystery because the mechanism for the compression of the air and its targeting of isolated windows has not been explained.

It has been explained. Pat for instance compared it with a bicycle pump. Floors are being crushed, air is pushed downward, pressure builds up at lower floors. That pressure breaks the weakest point to get released, wich is obvious one or two windows on that floor.
Nothing mysterious about that.


Pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete floors--along with the steel floor pans they were poured in--is a mystery.

No, it isn't.
First of all, they didn't get completely 100% pulverized, as you are trying to pose.
You also made up that the steel floor pans were pulverized.
You don't have any evidence

The energy needed to break up the concrete should have slowed the collapses.

And it did.
The mystery here is why truthers always deny that.
They are desperatly clinging to their free fall speed, which is simply not the case. Anyone looking at videos can see that de debris falls faster than the tower collapses.
But truthers are trying to hide that and hope that if they continue to say that the collapses were at free fall speed, people will start to believe that.
Even the findings of David Shandler, who found out that wtc7 had only a 2.2 sec. of free fall speed during the collapse, and none prior or after those seconds, is pushed aside.

Lateral ejection of building components is a mystery. The videos show isolated multi-ton building components ejected laterally at speeds of 50 miles per hour.

No they don't. They show how large sections of the tower fall sideways.
The fun in this is that those same experts and truthers argue that the towers collapsed following the path of the most resistance, while at the same time they emphasize how large portions followed the path of least resistance.

Watch the movie "Experts Speak Out".

Seen it, and it is as i stated: perimeter falling sideways.

 
At 09 August, 2014 12:05, Blogger truth hurts said...

But even if there was no video footage: anyone with half a brain and knowledge of explosives knows that an explosion powerfull enough to make multi ton parts of a building eject for several hundreds of feets laterally would not only create a sound wave that is deafening of a distance of several miles, but also a shockwave that would have damaged all surrounding structures in a diameter of a few hundred feet and destroyed all windows in a diameter of several miles of the towers.

None of this happened.


The collapse of the robust lower core is a mystery.


Fun to see how you sway with your arguments.
When i pointed out that the 20 people surviving the collapse did not have any experience with those exploding bombs or the molten steel of the thermite, you said that is was because placing bombs at the lower floors was not neccesary. The collapse would take care of it.


The lower 40 stories of the core were built to support the weight of 70 stories above them.

Yup, but you are forgetting (and i completely understand that, as you want those mysteries to be unsolved) that the floors were hanging between core and perimeter, that all the collapse force had to do is break those connections and that once the floors were gone, the perimeter had no lateral support and would collapse too.



Of course they did.
There is no difference between the floor connections at the top of the building and the floor connections at the bottom
The only difference was that the core columns would increase in size the closer you get to the ground. But since the floors collapsed around the core, that didn't make any difference.


the lower core remained standing

aah, so at least you admit that...

--and then fell down under its own weight.

And it fell because of the damage caused by the force of the collapse.
As experts have stated: the force of the collapse would break every single connection between columns, beams etc. in the core. they were not designed to take such an impact.

Melted steel was found, as 8 PhDs and FEMA Appendix C tell us.

Nope, it doesn't.
It speaks of corroded steel. They argued that a combination of the fires and chemical content of the debris pile could have caused it.
Only the amount of sulphur in acid rain would be sufficient to cause the corroding.

NIST did not explain it.

NIST didn't have to.
It is not present in the preface, of which you only quote 1 sentence (and not even that sentence asks nist to look into this).

 
At 09 August, 2014 12:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, the New York Times said the steel evaporated. The reporter, James Glanz, has a PhD in astrophysics.

Thermite does evaporate steel, as Jonathan Cole's experiments show.

8 PhDs have attested to moelted steel. Dr. John Gross, on eof NIST's lead investigators, was photographed standing next to a piedce of partially-melted steel. The FEMA report said there was melted steel. You are a liar.

Your claim about the energetics is meaningless until you calculate the amount of energy that pulverizing the concrete floors would take. And apparently you are ignorant of the conservation of energy issues in that work.

NIST was assigned to explain "why and how" the towers collapsed. They can hardly claim they explained "how" if they don't explain the mysteries.

Speed of collapse is a mystery, and your willful ignorance about the basic laws of physics does not change that.

The collapses were symmetrical, as the videos show. You are simply being contrary, inventing your facts like a child.

Pat's comparison of the towers to a bicycle pump is absurd. A bicycle pump doesn't have windows, and doesn't blow out isolated portions of its cylinder.

The concrete floors were totally pulverized. Show me a picture of the shattered slabs that were nor pulverized. They're not there. You talk like you know what you're talking about but you just make it all up. You're a liar.

NIST said the towers fell at 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's free fall.

Videos show components ejected laterally at 50 miles an hour--not peeling off. You lie again. Watch the movie, Experte Speak Out. Quit lying.

Stop lying. I am not going to waste my time repeatedly correcting a persistent and repetitive liar who refuses to learn.






 
At 09 August, 2014 15:59, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

If we're going to argue the validity of CT then we should consider that Brian is a CIA misinformation agent working out of the Blue Cube at Moffett Field.

Let's face it, 9-11 Truth prolonged the Iraq War, and has kept us in Afghanistan far longer than we needed to be.

How?

By directly undermining the anti-war effort. Any reasonable argument flies right out when it's made by someone wearing a "911 was an Inside Job" t-shirt, or marches in a rally with that banner.

I don't know why CTers can't see it. Brian is probably three or four CIA agents, because no one person can be that silly.

 
At 09 August, 2014 16:14, Blogger truth hurts said...

the New York Times said the steel evaporated.

He said this, he said that...

I thought you only sticked to the facts, brian...



The FEMA report said there was melted steel.

This is what fema states:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.



You are a liar.

A cheap attack, brian...
I expect better from you (actually, i don't...)


Your claim about the energetics is meaningless until you calculate the amount of energy that pulverizing the concrete floors would take.

Bogus statement.
This is just a desperate attempt to maintain the mystery.

 
At 09 August, 2014 16:14, Blogger truth hurts said...

And apparently you are ignorant of the conservation of energy issues in that work.

Apparently this, apparently that..
You are assuming a lot, Brian.
Based on nothing, since i haven't shown any calculations.
Just the idea that the towers might have had enough potential energy to pulverize its contents scares you so much that you have to debunk it right away, blindly...




NIST was assigned to explain "why and how" the towers collapsed.

They have: they explained why the buildings collapsed, and how.


They can hardly claim they explained "how" if they don't explain the mysteries.

As shown before, these mysteries are non existent.


Speed of collapse is a mystery.

It is not.
It is a mystery because you want it to be a mystery.
Just like people find it a mystery that a plane can fly or that the earth is round.
Explaining it to them is useless, as they choose to cling onto the mystery. Just like you do with the collapses.


and your willful ignorance about the basic laws of physics does not change that.

mirror talk, brian..

 
At 09 August, 2014 16:15, Blogger truth hurts said...

The collapses were symmetrical

No they weren't.
Keeping on repeating it won't make it true, brian.

as the videos show.

The videos show how some parts of the building collapse faster than others, how some parts are falling sideways in one direction, while non falls in the same way in the other direction.
The only thing symmetrical about the collapse was that it occurred around the core of the building, which forced it to go straight down for most of the part and not in any other direction.


You are simply being contrary, inventing your facts like a child.

Again mirror talk, brian..


Pat's comparison of the towers to a bicycle pump is absurd.

It is because you cannot use it.
You want the mystery to stay unsolved.

A bicycle pump doesn't have windows

Aah, so you want a 100% black and white comparisation. You refuse to get the point in what he means.


and doesn't blow out isolated portions of its cylinder.

It would if the cylinder was leaking or had a flaw.
And that is how you can compare it with the collapse: are is pressured down and seeks a way to depressurize. Any weak points in the cylinder will break, releasing the air pressure.
And that is what you see in the videos: air pressure getting released through a broken window.

 
At 09 August, 2014 16:16, Blogger truth hurts said...


The concrete floors were totally pulverized.

No they weren't.
you made that one up yourseld.

Show me a picture of the shattered slabs that were nor pulverized.

Why?
You are the one making a statement, you should provide proof.
Show me pictures of every single floor of the twin towers, turned into dust.

They're not there.

Yes they are, dr Dutch used them in his rebuttal of the nonsense of Judy Woods her website.
But absence of evidence isn't evidence, Brian.
Just because there aren't pictures of it on internet doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.


You talk like you know what you're talking about but you just make it all up. You're a liar.

Mirror talk again, Brian...


NIST said the towers fell at 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

No they didn't.
NIST report states that the time between the first visible sign of the collapse and the first debris hitting the ground was about that time you mentioned.

Also fun to see that you completely dissmiss NIST for being dishonest, corrupted, etc, but don't have any problem in taking over their timing of the collapses...


That's free fall.

No, free fall would have been 8.2 seconds and 9 seconds.

The collapse of wtc2 was about 15 seconds, wtc1 was about 21 seconds.

Including the core, both collapses took about 31 seconds.

That is not free fall speed.
And as said before: video shows how debris is falling faster than the building collapses.
So even without the information that you believed you got from NIST, you could have known that the collapses weren't at free fall speed.

Videos show components ejected laterally at 50 miles an hour--not peeling off.

No, video shows how parts of the perimeter are falling sideways.
Just as i said earlier: the floors came down, the perimeter got pushed outward and the core initially remained standing.

The fun in this is that you omit what i said about lateral ejection of components by explosives.....
You have no answer for that one, so you simply ignore it, repeating what others have spooned into you..

 
At 09 August, 2014 16:16, Blogger truth hurts said...

You lie again. Watch the movie, Experte Speak Out.

That movie has been debunked from A to Z, just like all other so called truther movies.
They are full of lies.

It is time you woke up from those lies, Brian...
This blog is dedicated to the lies posed by loose change and all other movies that came out afterwards.
It is shocking to see that you are refering to a movie that still contains people like Steven Jones, which have been proven wrong over and over again.

For example his thermite history: it began in 2006 or so when the myth about pools of molten steel was still relevant. Pictures on the internet with firemen and rescue workers looking into holes with lights were posed as evidence for those pools of steel. They have been debunked years ago. But the molten steel myth didn't go away. The story just got adapted to the new findings. Just like Steven Jones did. The pools of steel and pictures of cut beams were for him proof that thermite must have been used. Never mind the fact that demolition crews cut the beams after 911 while cleaning up ground zero. It was thermit, Steven said so. And then it was thermate. Later on it was super thermite. And then Jones met professor in nano physics Harrit, and tadaaa!! it was nano thermite...
And the truthers loved it..
Nano thermite painted onto beams...
Others jumped into it and came with all kind of experiments trying to cut a vertical beam...
Just like stated in this article: they started with a conclusion and then looked for ways to make it possible.
Just like Jones did earlier with his scientific research into Jesus his visit to America during his short life...
Jones started with the conclusion that Jesus did come to America and then in his scientific way looked and found evidence for it..
Do you support his believe that Jesus came to America?
If not, then why do you put any value in his other research that was conducted in the same way?

Harrit and Jones concluded in their report that what they found in the redgray chips reminded them of nano thermite. Harrit has admitted in an interview that he has never seen nano thermite in his life..
How can those chips remind him of something that he hasn't seen before?

Truthers don't mind..
As long as it supports their conclusions...

 
At 09 August, 2014 16:18, Blogger truth hurts said...

This one is quite funny:

You lie again. Watch the movie, Experte Speak Out.

You are contradicting yourself, Brian...

If i was lying, i would know the truth and therefore don't need to watch the movie. But if I need to watch the movie, that would mean that i'm not lying, but merely misinformed...


You are losing your touch, brian...

 
At 09 August, 2014 16:21, Blogger truth hurts said...

@marc: you have a point there.
Anyone questioning 911 is gazed upon as if he was retarded or something, thanks to the truther movement...

 
At 09 August, 2014 18:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Marc, if you had any actual experience in the antiwar movement you would know that your claim that the truth movement harmed it is absurd. The truth movement didn't start to get any real traction until 2006, by which time the antiwar movement was already deader'n a doornail.

 
At 09 August, 2014 18:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, your silly lies aren't even worth reading, let alone responding to. You may find it stimulating to play lawyer in the pretend courtroom of your mind, but only your pretend jury finds you convincing.

It is a lie to claim knowledge that you do not have.

 
At 09 August, 2014 22:10, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"The truth movement didn't start to get any real traction until 2006, by which time the antiwar movement was already deader'n a doornail."

Wrong, just scroll through pictures of protests of the invasion in 2003. You can find dozens of "911-Inside Job" banners and signs in the crowd.

Thanks to your buddies at Langley there will never be any reasonable discussion of the over-reach of US Government power, the creation of the TSA, or the wisdom of going into Iraq the way we did.

 
At 10 August, 2014 01:26, Blogger truth hurts said...

@brian,
So you run out of arguments and decided not to repeat the same arguments over and over again like you did earlier.

A wise decision.
It would be even wiser to admit that you were wrong, but that would involve a change of mind after repeating the same arguments for years now.
I know that is too much to ask of you.

You got so stuck in your beliefs that even something as simple as admitting that the towers did not collapse at free fall speed is too much of a change.

 
At 10 August, 2014 01:30, Blogger truth hurts said...

@Marc
And it is still happening.
Like with the shot down Malaysian passenger plane, the local 911 truthers are all over it, calling that it was a false flag, that the plane is a fake, etcetera.

So anyone who has any doubts about the crash is now considered to be yet another nutcase.

 
At 10 August, 2014 09:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Marc, in 2003 there were a hundred thousand people protesting the Iraq war in San Francisco alone. Would you care to explain how a few dozen truthers managed to neutralize a hundred thousand protesters?

My experience with the anti-war movement is that they are accepting of 9/11 truthers and mostly pretty well informed about the issues. They just choose not to affiliate overtly with the movement.

How come you're posting on Saturday night? Slow night at Franco's?

th, what makes you think I've run out of arguments? I just get tired of repeatedly correcting your repeated lies.

I don't know if the towers collapsed at free fall or not. NIST said they did. I see no need to dispute their assessment. Why would they say they did if they didn't?

 
At 10 August, 2014 13:57, Blogger truth hurts said...

Marc, in 2003 there were a hundred thousand people protesting the Iraq war in San Francisco alone. Would you care to explain how a few dozen truthers managed to neutralize a hundred thousand protesters?

Well, you yourself admitted that the movement is dead gone, brian.

Go figure :o)


what makes you think I've run out of arguments?

You are repeating the same arguments over and over again.
Been googling you (like you asked) and noticed that you are doing so for several years now.
Never something new, always the same.
Even in discussions with me, you keep on repeating the same arguments over and over again.

I don't know if the towers collapsed at free fall or not.

So that essential mystery is non existent, like i said.

NIST said they did.

You earlier said that you only look at the facts.
Now you state that you go by what someone els had said, without any fact checking from your side..


I see no need to dispute their assessment. Why would they say they did if they didn't?

Fun to see that you believe NIST on this point and see no reason why you shouldn't believe them.
Yet you say that the reports were reports are incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest and that their authors were incompetent...

But yet, if NIST says the collapses were at free fall, why should you argue with that?

 
At 10 August, 2014 14:41, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"Marc, in 2003 there were a hundred thousand people protesting the Iraq war in San Francisco alone. Would you care to explain how a few dozen truthers managed to neutralize a hundred thousand protesters?"

You are judged by the company you keep. Dr. Martin Luther King held advance meetings for his marchers to cover the ground rules of conduct. The original Free Speech Movement at Berkeley did the same thing.

Those marches on SF in 2003 also feature local anarchists who set fires and smashed windows. The next morning the story was about the damage the demonstration left, not the message.

In 2003, 85% of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. The inept lack of organization of those anti-war marches, and the many that followed insured there would be no credible opposition to the war.

So thanks for nothing.

 
At 10 August, 2014 16:12, Blogger truth hurts said...

in 2003 there were a hundred thousand people protesting the Iraq war in San Francisco alone. Would you care to explain how a few dozen truthers managed to neutralize a hundred thousand protesters?"

Quite easy: ignore the majority of protesters and put the spotlights on those thruthers.
So everyone will think that the anti war protesters are all 911 nutcases..

 
At 10 August, 2014 16:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 August, 2014 16:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Marc, your post only weakens your already-weak thesis that the truthers damaged the antiwar movement. For no apparent reason you invoked the damage done by the anarchists (it's not like the news reporting the next day was all about a few truthers) and then you admit that the antiwar movement was ineptly organized.

th, when you repeat the same bogus claims, I will refute them with the same unchanging truths.

The speed of the collapse is a mystery. Somebody needs to calculate the energy needed to pulverize the concrete floors and dismember and crush the steel structure. NIST didn't do it.

I go by the facts. The fact is that NIST said the towers fell at freefall. That's what they said. I don't know if it's true or not, but if it's not then we need a new investigation to establish that it's not--and if it is true then we need a new investigation to explain it.

NIST's reports are incomplete, dishonmest, and unscientific. I never said the authors were incompetent. You make stuff up.

I see no reason why NIST would lie and say the towers fell at free fall if they did not. Can you explain why they would do that?

 
At 10 August, 2014 17:55, Blogger truth hurts said...

The speed of the collapse is a mystery.

No, it is not.
Anyone who looks at the videos of the collapses can time it and calculate the speed. There is visual evidence, audio evidence and seismic data that can be used to time the collapses.


Somebody needs to calculate the energy needed to pulverize the concrete floors and dismember and crush the steel structure. NIST didn't do it.

NIST wasn't assigned to do so. But others did, like Technical University Delft in The Netherlands.
They calculated how much energy was needed to completely crush the contents of the towers and how much potential energy the towers contained.
Their calculations showed that the towers had more than sufficient potential energy to do so.


I go by the facts.

No you don't.

That is the whole point.

The fact is that NIST said the towers fell at freefall. That's what they said.

But that is besides the point.
I can say that the sky is pink and it would be a fact that i said so. But that doesn't make it a fact that the sky is pink, nor does it make the color of the sky a mystery.


I don't know if it's true or not

It is now 2014, 13 years after the event.
And you don't even know the speed of the collapses?
Are you that daft?
Are you so desperate in maintaining your mysteries that you did not even try to solve this one?

 
At 10 August, 2014 17:55, Blogger truth hurts said...

but if it's not then we need a new investigation to establish that it's not--and if it is true then we need a new investigation to explain it.

Nonsense.
First of all, the nist report times the collapse of wtc 1 at 21 seconds, and wtc2 at 15 seconds.
If you take the trouble in timing it yourself, and i'm sure that you are not willing to do so, you would find out that those times are pretty correct.
And they are also not free fall speed.

And I know you hate me for it, but i'm saying it once more: if you look at pictures of the collapse, you can see with your own eyes that the collapses weren't at free fall speed. You can see how the debris is falling faster than the collapse.

But since you, like a true truther would, leap to a conclusion and take that as a starting point, you cannpot back away from the free fall illusion that you cling onto. It has to be true in your world. So you ignore what you see and desperatly search for people that would confirm your conclusion.



NIST's reports are incomplete, dishonmest, and unscientific. I never said the authors were incompetent.

Let me quote you on that:


I suppose one could posit that they are incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest because their authors are incompetent--


Your words, Brian...
Not mine.

You make stuff up.

Mirrortalk again.
But next time, try to remember what you made up, it saves you from embarrassment.

 
At 10 August, 2014 17:56, Blogger truth hurts said...

I see no reason why NIST would lie

You state that their report is dishonest, but you see no reason why NIST would lie...

Well, i can understand why you need that contradiction. It is what truthers always do.
For example with the BBC: they have their fist in the ass of the NWO when they report WTC7 collapsed before it did. Media scripting said the truthers. BBC was following a script, but were 20 minutes ahead.

But when that same BBC said that the hijackers are still alive, all of the sudden that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because BBC said so....

Here the same thing.
NIST is incompetent, dishonest, and unscientific, but if they say the collapses were at free fall, they all of the sudden tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...


I see no reason why NIST would lie and say the towers fell at free fall if they did not.

Yes you do, but that free fall part is essential for you 911 truthing, so you have to back them up on that.
That is why all of the sudden, NIST cannot be wrong about that.
They cannot lie when they stated the collapses were at free fall speed..


Can you explain why they would do that?.

They didn't.
You made that one up, using quote mining to make NIST say something they did not.

And i tell you again: quote mining means that you did get the words right and in the right order, but you took away the context to give the words another meaning than originally intended.

 
At 10 August, 2014 17:57, Blogger truth hurts said...


For no apparent reason you invoked the damage done by the anarchists


Not really, it is just that you don't understand what he is saying.

But that is of no surprise...

 
At 11 August, 2014 07:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, the speed of collapse is a mystery. NIST tells us that the towers came down "essentially in free fall". Those of us who have bothered to familiarize ourselves with the consequences of the first law of thermodynamics see this as a red flag. Free fall leaves no energy left over for dismembering the structure, pulverizing the concrete, heating the dust cloud, and twisting and crushing the steel components. The speed needs rigorous explaining. NIST did not do it.

Anonymous internet posters can handwave all they want, but they fail to recognize that their observations based on youtube videos posted by anonymous youtube posters are of poor evidentiary value.

I understand what Marc is saying just fine. I understand that his observation about the anarchists is irrelevant to his complaint about the truthers.

When your first claim in your screed and the last claim in your screed are so silly, I see no reason to read the ones in between, thought surely some of them are quite funny.

Think more, post less.





 
At 11 August, 2014 09:37, Blogger truth hurts said...


th, the speed of collapse is a mystery.


It is to you because you need it to be a mystery.
Anyone who doesn't cling onto mysteries can check what the speed of the collapse is.

Either by timing it or by looking at the nist report or seismic data.


NIST tells us that the towers came down "essentially in free fall".

Yup, and you distorted that into making it an exact free fall.
It was essentially a free fall, as in that it was only seconds slower than a real free fall..

Those of us who have bothered to familiarize ourselves with the consequences of the first law of thermodynamics

Which doesn't include you..


see this as a red flag.

No they don't.
They won't go by on some statement made by someone, they would use the exact data, thus the collapse time as exact as possible, as a starting point.
And like i said: wtc was 21 seconds, wtc2 was 15 seconds.
Both were twice the time free fall would have taken..


Free fall leaves no energy left over for dismembering the structure, pulverizing the concrete, heating the dust cloud, and twisting and crushing the steel components.

You are quite funny,
So if you fall of a cliff, at free fall speed, you will survive it because there is no energy left to damage your body once you hit the ground....

Well, i won't ask you to demonstrate that, brian,,,


The speed needs rigorous explaining.

Nope it doesn't.
Earlier you claimed that you don't know what the speed was...
So there is no need to explain it.

Like i said earlier, TU Delft did ask themself such a question and looked into it. Their calculations showed that the towers had more than enough potential energy to make the buildings collapse the way they did, while crushing its complete contents..

I believe a university who actually did do calculations anytime above some john doe who calls himself snug.bug who can't even tell how fast the buildings collapsed, but keeps on insisting that it must be at free fall speed..

NIST did not do it..

They didn't have to.
It wasn't part of their goal, nor of their objective..


Anonymous internet posters can handwave all they want, but they fail to recognize that their observations based on youtube videos posted by anonymous youtube posters are of poor evidentiary value.

Mirrortalk again.
You repeatedly pointed to a youtube of 911 experts speak out, brian....


I understand what Marc is saying just fine.

Nope: he pointed out how a small group can poison the message of the larger group that they are part of.
You failed to see that.

 
At 11 August, 2014 17:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, how do you check what the speed of collapse is? How do you know that the video you watch on youtube has not been slowed down? NIST said it was "essentially in freefall". NIST admitted that WTC7 fell at pure freefall for 2.25 seconds.

That's a mystery. You haven't explained why NIST would say it was freefall if it wasn't true.

I never said it was exact freefall (except WTC7) . I said the speed of collapse was a mystery.

Where do you get the idea that I don't understand the consequences of the laws of thermodynamics? Please state exactly what I am misunderstanding.

What is your source for your collapse times of 21 seconds and 15 seconds? Dr. Shyam Sunder said 11 seconds and 9 seconds. Was Dr. Sunder wrong? How do you know?

Your fall-off-the-cliff analogy shows your misunderstanding of the physical laws. When I'm standing on the cliff, I have a potential gravitational energy of mgh. M is my mass, h is the height of the cliff, and g is the acceleration of gravity.

Before I fall, the cliff and my muscles and bones are resisting the acceleration of gravity. When I fall, there is no longer any resistance and gravity accelerates me at 32 feet per second per second. That's freefall. My potential energy is converted to kinetic energy that is 1/2 m v^2. When I hit the ground the force I exert on the ground is proportional to my mass, and to the square of the velocity. Obviously the higher the cliff was, the more acceleration there was and the more velocity there is.

Now suppose there was resistance to my fall. Suppose I was breaking springy pine branches as I fell. All of the energy my falling body put into those springs and put into breaking the branches comes out of my acceleration, it comes out of my velocity--it slows me down, it breaks my fall, and if I'm lucky those springy pine branches drop me on the ground unharmed.

That's physics. Your attitude is based on ignorance.






 
At 11 August, 2014 17:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 August, 2014 01:38, Blogger truth hurts said...

Ah, so you are afraid to admit what would happen if you fell down a cliff at free fall speed.
I'm not talking about branches, brian
I'm not talking about slowing down.
The question is simple : if you fall down a cliff at free fall speed, what will happen to your body once you hit the ground

 
At 12 August, 2014 01:50, Blogger truth hurts said...

You also apear to have a reading problem.

I have stated how you can time the collapses and what my source is for the 21 and 15 seconds.

I don't care what you believe someone said. It is about facts, not about what people say
You also implied that NIST was incompetent, corrupt, dishonest, etc.
So why do you cling so much to your out of context quote of the lead writer of the NIST report?

The only reason I can think of is that you need the collapses to be a mystery.

About slowing down videos: the same goes for your beloved ae 911 truth. They could have speed up the videos of the collapse.

NIST admitted 2.25 seconds of free fall speed.
So the other 15.8 seconds were at less than free fall speed, as we can read in the report and as is stated by Chandler.

Wtc 7 collapsed internally, so a free fall acceleration of the facade falling isn't a mystery.

But you want it to be.
And that is a whole different issue

 
At 12 August, 2014 01:53, Blogger truth hurts said...

...You haven't explained why NIST would say it was freefall if it wasn't true....

No, but you have.
And that is the whole point

 
At 12 August, 2014 10:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I already explained what happens to your body when it hits the ground at freefall. It exerts a force on the ground that is proportional to the square of the velocity, and the velocity is a function of the height. The ground exerts an equal and opposite force on the body.

Your freefall example shows the big difference with a collapsing building, because all of the structural resistance of the building must be overcome in the collapse, and al;l that slows down or even arrests the collapse.

No, I haven't explained why NIST would say it was freefall if it wasn't true. And neither have you. You are very confused.

Sometimes I think the anti-truthers tend to be people with a very poor grasp of reality, and they decide to practice their reality skills by arguing in favor of things they believe everybody knows to be true against people they regard as the dumbest, most deluded people in earth.

It must be very frustrating to them when even when they give themselves license to make up their facts they do such a piss-poor job of defending their illusions.







 
At 12 August, 2014 10:49, Blogger truth hurts said...

11 I already explained what happens to your body when it hits the ground at freefall. It exerts a force on the ground that is proportional to the square of the velocity, and the velocity is a function of the height. The ground exerts an equal and opposite force on the body.

So in short, it will get damaged.



Your freefall example shows the big difference with a collapsing building, because all of the structural resistance of the building must be overcome in the collapse, and al;l that slows down or even arrests the collapse.

And the collapse did slow down, 31 seconds for total collapse, including the core.
Free fall of wtc1 would have been 9,2 seconds,


No, I haven't explained why NIST would say it was freefall if it wasn't true.

Yes you have: you said they were incompetent, dishonest, etc. etc...


And neither have you.

I never said that they did. So don't need to explain anything...



Sometimes I think the anti-truthers tend to be people with a very poor grasp of reality

Funny, i think the opposite.
And i'm not alone.
Look at ae911truth: only 2000+ architects and engineers could be found after a world tour of gage.
And of those 2000+, only a handfull have the right expertise.

Look at the building initiative: they cannot even get enough people to sign their plea for more skyscraper savety, despite all the money and effort they put into it...



It must be very frustrating to them when even when they give themselves license to make up their facts they do such a piss-poor job of defending their illusions.

Mirrortalk brian

And a good one too...
It must be very frustrating for you that after 13 years, you still haven't achieved anything except for getting proven wrong over and over again...

 
At 12 August, 2014 13:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, nobody said a body falling at freefall from a substantial height would not get damaged. You can do an empirical test yourself. Drop an egg from shoulder height on a concrete sidewalk.

I didn't say NIST was incompetent. You repeat that lying claim even after you're corrected. It seems you lack the ability to learn--so it's not surprising that you have a poor grasp of reality.

When I am proven wrong (which rarely happens since I have learned to stick to irrefutable truths) I admit it, I change my position, and then I am right.

NIST said it was freefall. YOu lie like a GutterBall, you lie like an Ian, you lie like a Willie Rodriguez, you lie like a Kevin Barrett.

 
At 12 August, 2014 15:56, Blogger truth hurts said...

th, nobody said a body falling at freefall from a substantial height would not get damaged.

You said that there wouldn't be any energy left to cause the damage.
Glad to see that you now see the error.

I didn't say NIST was incompetent.

Here we go again:
The observation that the official 9/11 reports are incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest is presumably a conspiracy theory that supposes that government reports are deliberately engaged in deception. I suppose one could posit that they are incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest because their authors are incompetent--but then you'd have to wonder if the incompetent authors were selected by higher-ups precisely for their incompetence.


Your words, Brian, not mine.
They are the first lines of your first reply on the article...

You stated that:
the official 9/11 reports are incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest

And that:
I suppose one could posit that they are incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest because their authors are incompetent--but then you'd have to wonder if the incompetent authors were selected by higher-ups precisely for their incompetence.

You cannot have it both ways, Brian..
Either NIST was incompetent and therefore we need a new investigation, or NIST was competent and the investigations of NIST were sufficient.



You repeat that lying claim even after you're corrected.

It is not my claim, it is yours.
You want a new investigation because you are convinced that NIST did a lousy job investigating the tower collapses.
They didn't even meet their own first objective, you stated.


It seems you lack the ability to learn--so it's not surprising that you have a poor grasp of reality.

Again, mirrortalk, Brian.
You are the one who backs of from the facts and replace them by what someone might have said and use that as a foundation for your pleas....


When I am proven wrong (which rarely happens since I have learned to stick to irrefutable truths) I admit it, I change my position, and then I am right.

Well, they don't call you a truther for nothing.
Truthers always believe that they are the one and only beholders of the real truth. Therefor, anyone who disagrees with them must be a liar.
And we see that happen in this discussion: everytime you disagree with me, you call me a liar.


NIST said it was freefall.

Nope, earlier you admitted that NIST said it was essential a free fall.

But again: it doesn't matter what NIST said.
You should stick to the facts, not to some statement made by someone.
And the only way you can make the free fall a fact is by timing the collapses using several sources and checking the seismic data.

But of course, you don't do that.
You start with a conclusion (collapses were freefall) and then you look for evidence to support that. In this case, all you can find is someone who said it was free fall. Then you say it is a fact that someone said it was a free fall and later on you say that the free fall was a fact (because it is a fact someone stated that and why would he lie?)
That is how you mendle the truth, Brian...

YOu lie like a GutterBall, you lie like an Ian, you lie like a Willie Rodriguez, you lie like a Kevin Barrett.

yup, you are the truther, so everyone else on this world must be the liar...

And while even a 5 year old can see on video that debris falls faster than the building collapses; thus no free fall;, you simply shut your eyes and cling onto someone who said it was a free fall. While at the same time you dismiss the final report of that same person because it was incomplete, dishonest and unscientific....

 
At 12 August, 2014 17:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, you didn't expose any error. When an egg falls in freefall on the sidewalk its kinetic energy is converted to a force of impact.

The fact that all of the kinetic energy is converted on impact does not change the fact that the work of pulverizing concrete and dismembering a building's structure takes energy that must be subtracted from the kinetic energy of the collapse, slowing it down to longer than freefall.

I didn't say NIST was incompetent. Learn to read.

You can play "Mary, Mary, quite contrary" all you want, but you're only making a fool of yourself.

 
At 12 August, 2014 18:21, Blogger truth hurts said...

th, you didn't expose any error. When an egg falls in freefall on the sidewalk its kinetic energy is converted to a force of impact.

Indeed.
So the force of impact will crush it.
Glad you now admit that.


The fact that all of the kinetic energy is converted on impact does not change the fact that the work of pulverizing concrete and dismembering a building's structure takes energy that must be subtracted from the kinetic energy of the collapse, slowing it down to longer than freefall.

Correct, and that is why you so desperately insist that it was at free fall speed, while even a 5 year old can see on video and pictures that it wasn't.

You need the collapse to be impossible. You need those ten mysteries to be kept alive at all costs. Even while the whole world can see that you are wrong about them.


I didn't say NIST was incompetent.

So, there is no point in re-investigating the tower collapses.



You can play "Mary, Mary, quite contrary" all you want, but you're only making a fool of yourself.


Mirrortalk, Brian.
Seems to be a hobby of you: talking to the mirror....

 
At 13 August, 2014 11:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I never denied that the force of impact would crush the egg. Your argument is based on nothing but your own incomprehension of basic physics.

I didn't say the towers fell at freefall. NIST did.

The point of new investigations is that NIST's report were dishonest, unscientific, and incomplete--and thus unacceptable. "Incompetence" is a red herring.

You seem to think that "talking to the mirror" is a clever response, and you don't recognize that it's simply a restatement of the old "I know you are but what am I" that most 7-year-olds outgrow as they learn to reason.

 
At 13 August, 2014 13:36, Blogger truth hurts said...

I never denied that the force of impact would crush the egg.

So you agree that even at free fall speed, things will crush upon impact.


Your argument is based on nothing but your own incomprehension of basic physics.

A fun statement, as i never stated anything about it.
You were the one stating whatever about physics, i merely asked you questions about it.


I didn't say the towers fell at freefall. NIST did.

So?
Why is that of any significance?


The point of new investigations is that NIST's report were dishonest, unscientific, and incomplete--and thus unacceptable.

Then why emphasize over and over again that nist said it was free fall speed?
You call them dishonest, so why should you pay any attention to what they might have said?


"Incompetence" is a red herring.

Your red herring:

I suppose one could posit that they are incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest because their authors are incompetent--but then you'd have to wonder if the incompetent authors were selected by higher-ups precisely for their incompetence

So on one hand, one has to wonder if they weren't selected for their incompetence, on the other hand, something they have said is groud for a new investigation..




Nope, it is just a simple observation. You say things as if you are talking to your own mirror reflection.

 
At 13 August, 2014 14:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

You made a claim, liar. You claimed that I said that "there wouldn't be any energy left to cause the damage." I never said anything of the sort. It's only your ignorance of basic physics that allowed you to say such a stupid thing.

I've explained to you half a dozen times the significance of the freefall collapse. It means there is no energy available to do the work of taking apart the building and pulverizing 180,000 tons of concrete floors.

If you don't get this, just acknowledge your ignorance, and laziness and lack of relevant education.

I called NIST dishonest. Like all successful politicians, they know how to be dishonest without lying.

You have a bad habit of quote-mining from hypotheticals as if they were statements of fact. That's very lazy and dishonest of you.

 
At 13 August, 2014 15:43, Blogger truth hurts said...

You made a claim

That is your version...

liar.

Childish behavior, calling everyone a liar all the time...

You claimed that I said that "there wouldn't be any energy left to cause the damage." I never said anything of the sort.

Yes you did:

Free fall leaves no energy left over for dismembering the structure, pulverizing the concrete, heating the dust cloud, and twisting and crushing the steel components.

no energy left...
Well, that is not true as you admit now.


It's only your ignorance of basic physics that allowed you to say such a stupid thing.

Ah, first i was a liar, now i'm just stupid...


I've explained to you half a dozen times the significance of the freefall collapse.

Yes i know.
That is why you want it to be a free fall so desperatly, while even a 5 year old can see with his own eyes that it wasn't a free fall.

Admit it, Brian: you want it to be a free fall.


It means there is no energy available to do the work of taking apart the building and pulverizing 180,000 tons of concrete floors.

Totally beside the point, as the collapse wasn't at free fall speed.
Even the numbers you gave that supposedly came from Dr Sunders aren't free fall speed.


If you don't get this, just acknowledge your ignorance, and laziness and lack of relevant education.

nope, i'm just pointing out how silly you are in your reasoning...


I called NIST dishonest.

So you finally admit that...

Like all successful politicians, they know how to be dishonest without lying.

Like stating it was essential a free fall, while any 5 year old can see that it wasn't actually a free fall...

Well, if you acknowledge that such statements of NIST should be considered dishonest, why do you cling onto them so much?

I know the answer: because you need the collapses to be impossible. There is no other way for you.
And once you admit that they weren't at free fall speed, your whole argument goes down the drain.
So you reside to stating that you don't know how fast the collapses were, but that someone else said that it was at free fall speed.


You have a bad habit of quote-mining from hypotheticals as if they were statements of fact.

Ah, so finally you admit that you don't stick to the facts.
Earlier you said that you have learned to stick to irrefutable truth

Well, now you admit that you also come with hypotheticals...

I'm glad to hear that you find quote mining dishonest.
So why did you do it?

 
At 13 August, 2014 16:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't call everyone a liar all the time. I call you a liar when you lie.

You can be a liar AND stupid. Your belief that they are mutually exclusive confirms that you are stupid.

I don't want the collapse to be freefall. I wish it wasn't. Then I wouldn't have to argue with numbskulls like you about it.

NIST says the collapse was essentially at freefall. If you want to amend NIST's report with the "Truth Hurts Report" you'll have to assemble a team of experts and write a peer-reviewed paper. You can't just claim "I saw it on CacaGerbil's youtube channel so it must be true!"

 
At 13 August, 2014 16:47, Blogger truth hurts said...

I don't want the collapse to be freefall. I wish it wasn't.

And it wasn't.
So what exactly is your problem?


Then I wouldn't have to argue with numbskulls like you about it.



NIST says the collapse was essentially at freefall.

Yup, but totally besides the point.



If you want to amend NIST's report with the "Truth Hurts Report" you'll have to assemble a team of experts and write a peer-reviewed paper. You can't just claim "I saw it on CacaGerbil's youtube channel so it must be true!"

A fun statement, considering that the NIST report clearly states that the time between the first visible sign of the collapse and the first debris hitting the ground was 8.2 seconds for wtc2 and 9.5 seconds for wtc1.

Anyone looking at the pictures can see that debris falls faster than the building collapses.
You want it peer reviewed?
Easy, ask anyone what they see on the picture.

You want experts?
Well, you went totally mad when you learned that i did consult an expert about the collapses.
So i don't believe that you actually want to get an expert opinion about the collapse time of the towers.

You just want it to be fall.
And the only way you can have that is by not looking at the facts but come with your explanation of an out of context quote made by NIST.

 
At 13 August, 2014 16:54, Blogger truth hurts said...

The fact of the matter is Brian,

If you were really conserned about the collapse time and the impossibility of it, you would have taken the time and effort to consult an expert of your choosing and shown him what you have about the collapse time of the towers and asked his expert opinion.
And if you like, take that opinion to another expert of your choosing and let him peer review that opinion.


But you don't.
13 years after the fact, and you didn't take any effort in finding out for yourself how fast the buildings collapsed.

In stead, you keep on babbling about it on internet fora and keep on insisting that because NIST said something about it, which you don't even know if it is true or not, you want a complete new investigation..

And you know you won't get one.
I even believe that you don't really want a new investigation. Because deep in you heart, you know that there won't be another outcome.
You just want to babble about it.
Like you do now for years on this blog, over and over again repeating the same stuff...

 
At 13 August, 2014 17:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

The problem, as I have explained half a dozen times at least, is that NIST says the collapses were essentially in freefall and no credible person says they were not.

The COLLAPSES, not the first debris.

There is no reason for me to get "totally mad" about the claims of an anonymous internet liar that he consulted an anonymous expert. I just get contemptuous.

 
At 14 August, 2014 00:45, Blogger truth hurts said...

No, the problem is that you refuse to time the collapses to see for a fact if they were at free fall or not and in stead quote mine other into saying they were.

Also fun to see that you call NIST credible, while you find their report dishonest.

Which proves again how desperately you need the collapses to be at free fall

The fact that while you say that only credible people say it is, but still admit not knowing if they actually were also proves that.

And you may find that you don't have to get mad over what I write, but still you do

You are just in denial over it...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home