revisiting 911 truth in the Obama days...

[philh 0]

Here is an example of what we are looking for:
they conclude there is no evidence for controlled demolition, ouch:


http://ascelibrary.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=JENMDT&smode=strresults&sort=rel&maxdisp=25&threshold=0&pjournals=ASCECP%2CIJGNAI%2CIJGNXX%2CJAEEEZ%2CJAEEXX%2CJAEIED%2CJAEIXX%2CJBENF2%2CJBENXX%2CJCCEE5%2CJCCEXX%2CJCCOF2%2CJCCOXX%2CJCEMD4%2CJCEMXX%2CJCRGEI%2CJCRGXX%2CJENMDT%2CJENMXX%2CJGGEFK%2CJGGEXX%2CJHEND8%2CJHENXX%2CJHYEFF%2CJHYEXX%2CJIDEDH%2CJIDEXX%2CJITSE4%2CJITSXX%2CJLADAH%2CJLADXX%2CJLEED9%2CJLEEXX%2CJMCEE7%2CJMCEXX%2CJMENEA%2CJMENXX%2CJOEEDU%2CJOEEXX%2CJPCFEV%2CJPCFXX%2CJPEPE3%2CJPEPXX%2CJSENDH%2CJSENXX%2CJSUED2%2CJSUEXX%2CJTPEDI%2CJTPEXX%2CJUPDDM%2CJUPDXX%2CJWPED5%2CJWPEXX%2CJWRMD5%2CJWRMXX%2CLMEEA2%2CLMEEXX%2CNHREFO%2CNHREXX%2CPPHMF8%2CPPHMXX%2CPPSCFX%2CPPSCXX%2CJPSEA2%2CJPSEXX&possible1=world+trade+centre&possible1zone=article&OUTLOG=NO&viewabs=JENMDT&key=DISPLAY&docID=8&page=0&chapter=0

[rhys 0]

Quote

That, Sir, reveals like no other statement the lack of knowledge you have in the subject. Not only do you believe what you wrote, you have not a clue as to why it is wrong.

Oh your, you're wrong and I'm right, without substanciating yourself again trick.


I'll go further and say that a symetrical collapse including freefall acceleration would require all support columns to fail simultainously.

You will rebutt with, you're wrong and I am right, without showing us your explanation.
you are so predictable.

How about you put you money where your mouth is and try explaining something once and for all?

or do you simply wish to ride on the 'debunker boat' and float down the river of lies without substanciating you standpoint?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. However, it remains to be determined whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range (0.01–0.1 mm) of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to produce this dust (whereas, more than 150 t of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 miles per hour (or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust, and solid fragments, neglected in previous studies, are indeed found to be negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down. The calculated crush-down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration grossly disagrees with this record.

What a joke, now you are saying that the booms that were herad were quite simply 'sonic booms'?

for fucks sake!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Are there any serious peer reviewed journals that draw the same conclusion or are you lie a creationist who avoids those or sets up their own review of creation research?

ever played jenga?

Some things should not need explaining, yet you guys seem to prove otherwise.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[philh 0]

So what you are saying is that the answer to my question is no you don't have any serious engineering journals that conclude as you do. I am not an engineer so I dont presume to assume that the WTC acts n the same way to a Jenga game. You clearly do. What i can say is that serious scientific claims are put through the fire of peer review. ITs a not a sufficient claim to truth but its a necessary one. The fact that that doens't bother puts you right in the same camp as the creationists, sorry mate.

[billvon 3,111]

>Freefall of building 7 is impossibile without explosives!

Other structures have fallen at freefall speeds without explosives. But since that contradicts your beliefs, you ignore that.

[philh 0]

Quote

Quote

Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. However, it remains to be determined whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range (0.01–0.1 mm) of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to produce this dust (whereas, more than 150 t of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 miles per hour (or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust, and solid fragments, neglected in previous studies, are indeed found to be negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down. The calculated crush-down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration grossly disagrees with this record.

What a joke, now you are saying that the booms that were herad were quite simply 'sonic booms'?

for fucks sake!

Perhaps you might submit your excellent critique of "for fucks sake" to a higher ranked academic journal, maybe Nature, Science or PNAS would consider it. Again we see all the signs of a psuedo science here.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

That, Sir, reveals like no other statement the lack of knowledge you have in the subject. Not only do you believe what you wrote, you have not a clue as to why it is wrong.

Oh your, you're wrong and I'm right, without substanciating yourself again trick.


I'll go further and say that a symetrical collapse including freefall acceleration would require all support columns to fail simultainously.

You will rebutt with, you're wrong and I am right, without showing us your explanation.
you are so predictable.

How about you put you money where your mouth is and try explaining something once and for all?

or do you simply wish to ride on the 'debunker boat' and float down the river of lies without substanciating you standpoint?

The path of least resistence wasn't to topple over, but to collapse relatively straight down. That is the way gravity works...not sideways.
Why don't you answer one simple question. Do you know what radius of gyration is, how it is calculated, and why it is important?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 3,111]

>Some things should not need explaining . . .

Like "tandems at night are dangerous." But since you can profit off that you pretend it's not true.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

What a joke, now you are saying that the booms that were herad were quite simply 'sonic booms'?

for fucks sake!

Once again you fail to understand the concept behind the explanation and therefore decide it cannot be true.
There is something that virtually all engineers and scientists have in common: When we don't understand something, we ask for an explanation from someone who does understand. A successful engineer knows the limits of his/her knowledge and accepts those limits while always trying to expand them.
Truthers...you included...do not know the limits of their knowledge and so, when they don't understand something, they deny it's substance and rely on any theory that fits their conclusion, no matter how absurd the theory or the conclusion.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[philh 0]

Hey rhys remember in MArch 2009 when you said this:
The possibility of explosives being used was not even explored by them let alone acknowledged. Even though independent investigations have found otherwise, everyone says it is certain that there were no explosives?

How does anyone know that if no one officially looked for them?

The investigation to date is a farce that will unravel itself in the next year or two, GUARANTEED!


The videos in the links are not what you have seen before, they are actual recent footage of NIST spokesmen making absolute fools of themselves, blatantly lying and ruining their professional reputations.

will you eat your hat if I am right?



Really I don't give a shit what you or anyone thinks, I was also right about the Iraq war (being a lie and a waste of time, money and life) and everyone here ridiculed me for that as well. (no they didnt)

I just want to bring this up again in September when Obama talks about it, it will happen!
----------------------
Did it happen? No it didn't. Perhaps you need to look at your own thoughts here with a bit more skepticism.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

I did speculate heavily at first, I remeber clearly thinking that is could be the doing of the united states in order to gain access to the minerals of the middle east.

We spent an untold amount of time debating various hypothesises, and it got us nowhere.

And yet you're still talking about it, still mentioning it in every other post, still talking with certainty about treason (in this very post, even)... If you're going to keep asserting that you know who's behind the conspiracy (Bush, PNAC etc.) then answer some questions about it. If you won't answer any questions abut the conspiracy, then at least shut the fuck up about it.

Now, why was Building 7 rigged for demolition? Shouldn't be a hard question for you Rhys, you say you know why the Twin Towers were, so why Building 7?


Point 2, you've yet again completely ignored any mention of your disappearing plane theory. C'mon Rhys! You're always talking about how you critically evaluate the information you get from both sides, so prove it. You posted that theory more than once, are you going to run away like a little baby when I point out the problems with it, or are you going to actually investigate it and admit that you were duped?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

If it can be proven that Bin Ladin was responsable then so be it, but until a bonafide investigation happens (there has never been one) then we will not know for sure.

I recommend that you read "The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" by Lawrence Wright.

Yes, this would mean you having to read a whole book, but trust me, it's worth it (and a much higher quality of writing to your truther websites - you owe it to your brain).

Quote

My question for you is;

If you are aware thet 'they' lied about WMD's and destroyed a country and killed it many of its civiliians, why would you not believe they are lying to you about this?

For the same reason I don't believe that they are lying to me about the moon landing, or alien encounters at Area 51. There is no evidence that they are lying.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

ever played jenga?

Some things should not need explaining, yet you guys seem to prove otherwise.

Wow. Dude, remember a few days ago I told you that you don't even know what you don't know? You just proved it again.

Not only do you think the mechanics of a collapsing skyscraper are so simple as to require no expert knowledge, or even explanation(!), you think that the materials, structure, forces and energies involved bear comparison with a game of Jenga. Wow.

Here's another question for ya, straight out of your own play book: Has there ever in the history of construction been a case of a 600ft high, 300ft wide building that fell over?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

My daddy always said that there would be times that my patience and tolerance would be severely tested.
I had no idea my daddy would be proved right by a bunch of idiots (truthers).

Isn't there a quote somewhere along the lines of "The internet has done more to further the cause of human idiocy than any other invention"? There certainly should be!

(Tenacious little buggers as well, aren't they)

For certain the internet has been a huge boon to hoaxers, spreading of CT's, ripoffs, etc.

The CT's especially had very little traction in the mainstream until electronic media became essentially free. It was relegated to occasional fun pokes from comedians, ads in the back of fringe publications, and the like. Now anybody can make official looking and official sounding noise slick enough to appeal to . . .

Best stop there.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

If someone is still on the "Where's the plane that hit the Pentagon" level; any credibility they had just hit zero.

Some of Rhys' mates have, apparently, interviewed many of these eyewitnesses and decided that while a plane was indeed in the area, and while it was indeed flying very low towards the Pentagon, it was on a flightpath such that it could not possibly have struck the Pentagon at the right angle to cause the damage observed.

Unfortunately, they don't seem to have been able to find any witnesses who saw the plane flying away from the Pentagon again after it was hit by whatever else it was actually hit with that wasn't the plane.

Rhys does not appear to think that this is a problem.

Ya know, when you hear some of the explanations from truthers, you just gotta laugh. Which sets them up for the "Yeah, you just discount us as fools but can't seem to prove anything; you turn your back and laugh instead of looking at what's in plain sight." arguement.

But how can you not laugh at the convoluted stuff that some of the questions elicit. I mean that one is so bad it almost isn't funny.

A plane, in the area, not seen leaving the area by anybody, but seen hitting the building by quite a few, and which did leave debis identifiable as coming from a plane; did not hit the building.

Instead, it was some other thing, which nobody saw enter the area, which nobody saw hit the building, which left no debris; that hit the building.

That's fucking funny.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

How fast should it have fallen? Until you have some basis for an estimate based upon analysis or experiment, you cannot support your assertion that it was unusual. Perhaps it should have been slowed by 1%, maybe 10%. It makes a HUGE difference in that if it should have been slowed by something on the order of 1%,...

Bullshit, There are a huge amount of 'probable' times that building 7 'could' take to fall form various levels of damage.

Freefall is impossible without completely removing the structural integrety from below the initiation point.

The words 'completely' and 'freefall' are the key words.

Quote

Yes, they are the key words. How completely toward exactly 1G was the acceleration as measured, how precisely do you think it can be
measured? When something is so important to you as this assertion of complete freefall, truthers such as yourself should realize that stating
the precision is very important. What precision do truthers claim? I suspect they and you don't care to even acknowledge the issue
(you avoided it completely). It is impossible for you to claim a high degree of accuracy in the measurement from the video available.

You also avoid the issue of at what acceleration it should have been expected to fall. Without knowing the accuracy of your measurement,
and the expected results, YOU GOT NOTHING. Should it have fallen 1% or 10% or 25% slower than freefall? What is the truther position
on this? All you say is that it should have been slower, but how much? Such a claim, if you actually made one, must be
compared to the accuracy of the measurement possible. You don't have either, except to repeat that complete freefall is impossible
without intentional demolition - you got nothing

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

• Quote

[pirana 0]

Quote

I'l remind you all again, the lives of many thousands of people were lost on 9/11, . . .

You country had the potential to be great nfor a long time, but now it is silly putty in the hands of corrupt treasonous criminals.

Wait for it, wait for it, . . . AHA! There it is, the appeal to emotion.

Served with a dollop of politicalization. Touche!

You've convinced me.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

ever played jenga?

See, now that is really fucking funny.

It's been a long day, kinda tired, slipping into off-to-bed mode; and then I get treatred to a nice chuckle.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

ever played jenga?

See, now that is really fucking funny.

It's been a long day, kinda tired, slipping into off-to-bed mode; and then I get treatred to a nice chuckle.

WTF? You think Jenga is "fucking funny"? That game is some serious shit, man. People have received slightly scuffed fingernails playing that game and you think it's fucking funny.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Other structures have fallen at freefall speeds without explosives. But since that contradicts your beliefs, you ignore that.

bridges and walkways are not reasnoably compared to a 47 story steel framed skyscraper.

Maybe in your world bill, but when you are hunting for excuses to avoid simple physics, you can conjure up anything can't you!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

See, now that is really fucking funny.

It's been a long day, kinda tired, slipping into off-to-bed mode; and then I get treatred to a nice chuckle.

Nice one!
Next time you play, try taking all your blocks from one side, leaving the other side complete, see what happens!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[billvon 3,111]

>bridges and walkways are not reasnoably compared to a 47 story steel
>framed skyscraper.

How you wiggle when you're cornered! I didn't say they were comparable - merely that a massive steel framed structure can collapse at near-freefall speeds even through other structures. Thus, your theory that that cannot happen is disproved.

BTW you still haven't answered a previous question - why are you supporting clearly dangerous night tandems? Anyone with any common sense knows they are deadly. Is it because you stand to profit from deceiving students?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

bridges and walkways are not reasnoably compared to a 47 story steel framed skyscraper.

Hey Rhys, quick question, what is more closely comparable to a steel and concrete skyscraper...

a) A steel and concrete bridge;

b) A steel and concrete walkway or;

c) A small wooden game of Jenga?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

See, now that is really fucking funny.

It's been a long day, kinda tired, slipping into off-to-bed mode; and then I get treatred to a nice chuckle.

Nice one!
Next time you play, try taking all your blocks from one side, leaving the other side complete, see what happens!

I like coupling this with "Maybe in your world bill, but when you are hunting for excuses to avoid simple physics, you can conjure up anything can't you! "

You want to talk about the fact that in jenga, the parts aren't attached by anything other than gravity and friction? Do you know any buildings or bridges with similar construction?