4 of 65
4
Physics & Skyscrapers
Posted: 27 September 2011 06:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15740
Joined  2006-02-14
LanceThruster - 27 September 2011 05:23 PM

Give ME a break.

The *experts* tasked to investigate the attacks concluded they were lied to repeatedly and called for further investigation.

<snip>

He called 9/11 truthers a pack of liars but it’s easy to cherry pick the least credible theories whie ignoring truthers that just want a proper investigation. Penn & Tell did the same thing with their Bullshit! episode (couldn’t even make the whole show on 9/11) and had their 9/11 guy saying aliens did it. Nice disinfo there. Alien guy and AE for truth no different. How totally dishonest.

It’s equally dishonest to imply that these experts concluded that they were lied to about the relevant causes of the attacks. Any investigation—especially one as enormous as the 9/11 investigation—involves an enormous amount of data, some of which may be incorrect, or may even have been fabricated for any of an unbounded number of reasons having nothing whatever to do with the point of the investigation. E.g., John Farmer found fault with a great deal of government testimony but felt that officials lied to cover up their own incompetence. He does not accept any ‘conspiracy’ in the relevant sense of the term here.

The rest is just BS. I think we’re waiting for a credible theory that would have it that people could smuggle large amounts of explosives into guarded buildings and kill thousands of very wealthy and influential people without their families or co-workers being nearly as concerned about it as a handful of conspiracy obsessives. It’s a mass murder theory without motive or method. It’s a complete waste of time and effort, as hurtful as the obsessives who claim that astronauts are lying about traveling to the Moon, except that in this case they’re doing it to people who’ve lost loved ones.

... and yeah, I’ll try to take my own advice.  zipper

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

Give me a break. The experts have gone over this a million times, and the reason nobody takes this nonsense seriously is that it’s bloody obvious what happened. Of course, any careful scientist will couch their conclusions in strong hypotheticals. But there is no question as to the general sequence of events.

Weasel words. Plus, when you use the terms “always” and “never” (or their variants), you’re almost always wrong.

So the statement “NOBODY takes this nonsense seriously” is itself nonsense, correct?

YOU’LL AT LEAST CONCEDE A FALSE STATEMENT THERE, NO?

You imply that only schizophrenic homeless soaked in their own urine mumbling to themselves would dare reject the official narrative (whatever the hell that official narrative is).

“It’s bloody obvious what happened” - yeah, it is *IF* you mean we were lied to and that there are far too many contradictions to what was purported to have transpired.

“Of course, any careful scientist will couch their conclusions in strong hypotheticals.” - Correct, but I referenced the segment intro declaring we *know* what happened followed by endless qualifications

“There is no question as to the general sequence of events.” - Utter and complete horsesh!t.

You should burn in a nonexistent hell for having the gumption to spew such bollocks.

Your million times experts are guilty of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.

YOU do the math. Or get one of your “expert” buddies to do it. To dematerialize (it didn’t just crumple, it didn’t topple, it didn’t just fall *through* the path of greatest resistence from gravity alone) such massive structures requires a certain amount of energy to alter its composition so radically.

Put up or shut up. Show your work. Do the math. Show that there is sufficient energy from the causes cited in the official report for the destruction viewed by millions. What is your source of energy for the multi-ton outside panels ejected and accelerated *laterally*? Puffs of air from the compression effect? Explosive forces (initially denied in your bullshit “general sequence of events”?) from molten aluminum and water?

Yeah, it’s bloody obvious. Key questions aren’t being asked.

Cui bono?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 10:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

It’s equally dishonest to imply that these experts concluded that they were lied to about the relevant causes of the attacks.

F#ck if it is.

No one can say what is *relevant* if they’ve closed their eyes to what they might find.

You are NOT debating facts, you’re f#cking qualifying if you think the lies told were all that bad!!

How bloody ridiculous is that!?!?!


Take whatever expletive you would be most offended by and consider this my statement of such to you. Seriously.

(“P3ck3rh3ad” comes to mind).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 11:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
LanceThruster - 28 September 2011 10:20 AM

It’s equally dishonest to imply that these experts concluded that they were lied to about the relevant causes of the attacks.

F#ck if it is.

No one can say what is *relevant* if they’ve closed their eyes to what they might find.

You are NOT debating facts, you’re f#cking qualifying if you think the lies told were all that bad!!

How bloody ridiculous is that!?!?!


Take whatever expletive you would be most offended by and consider this my statement of such to you. Seriously.

(“P3ck3rh3ad” comes to mind).

 

Once again we see horrible, horrible language used in this forum.  I’m offended by it.
Is there a place for un-balanced potty mouthed people here?  I hope not!

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 11:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

Once again we see horrible, horrible language used in this forum.  I’m offended by it.
Is there a place for un-balanced potty mouthed people here?  I hope not!

“Potty” is worse than any term I’ve written (or do you feel ^#%#$*$ is an actual vulgarity).

What is foul and obscene is that thousands of innocent people died horrible deaths on 9/11 (and *after* as a result) and so many care so little about that that they’d rather cling to their deeply held beliefs, regardless of their validity.

“Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes”—9/11: A Conspiracy Theory—James Corbett, Sep 11 2011

http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-911-conspiracy-theory-in-under-5-minutes/#comment-23068

And someone here had the nerve to pretend to speak for the families of victims, yet these family members were also not impressed with the quality of investigation.

http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/fsc_review.pdf

Who should I give more credence…them, or you?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 11:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

I’m sorry that a passion for not letting lies rest is seen as “un-balanced”.

And the attack of the vapors you’re having over my supposed potty mouth (though admittedly I did not clean up a particular BS reference - my apologies) sounds more like something the Moral Majority would get their knickers in a twist over.

Do the math.

Show where the energy comes from to turn that much mass into dust (hot dust no less).

You can’t, can you?

PLEASE NOTE:
If you hold to the opinion that “... the airplane ... the jet fuel ... the tremendous heat ... the loss of strength ... the tube in a tube construction ... the pancake effect ... etc”., and you hold to this position because somebody told you so, and if you are not in a profession that provides you the tools to work out this physics problem, then it may be that all you offer is your (someone’s) opinion.

~ Josef Princiotta - http://www.csi911.info/CSI911.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
LanceThruster - 28 September 2011 11:54 AM

I’m sorry that a passion for not letting lies rest is seen as “un-balanced”.

And the attack of the vapors you’re having over my supposed potty mouth (though admittedly I did not clean up a particular BS reference - my apologies) sounds more like something the Moral Majority would get their knickers in a twist over.

Do the math.

Show where the energy comes from to turn that much mass into dust (hot dust no less).

You can’t, can you?

PLEASE NOTE:
If you hold to the opinion that “... the airplane ... the jet fuel ... the tremendous heat ... the loss of strength ... the tube in a tube construction ... the pancake effect ... etc”., and you hold to this position because somebody told you so, and if you are not in a profession that provides you the tools to work out this physics problem, then it may be that all you offer is your (someone’s) opinion.

~ Josef Princiotta - http://www.csi911.info/CSI911.html

I don’t care about your models or theories… I just like heckling!

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 11:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07

An event so tragic as 9/11 is bound to incite emotion. That brings out the expletives (which I easily gloss over while perusing any content).

Back to the topic… I don’t know that there was no conspiracy behind 9/11. I don’t know that we went to the moon. I don’t know that Bush stole the elections. I simply have my beliefs and they are based on what I was admittedly fed by various media. I’m an average guy who reads and listens.

What makes something look like a conspiracy theory is often the presentation made by the theorists. I’ve seen a simplistic model. I’ve heard emotional appeals. I’ve seen videos of people claiming they worked for the CIA or who found nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

While interesting, they don’t overpower my observation that two airliners crashed into the buildings. Psik and LanceThruster (really???) might be right, but they really need to gather more convincing evidence - most of the ‘evidence’ is in the form of questions. Can you construct a model that blah blah blah. Why won’t someone tell us how much steel there was? Why??? That’s not evidence. The nano-thermite evidence is interesting, but I don’t know how the scientist extrapolates the small amount observed under the microscope to perhaps 100s of tons. The questions are supposed to come from the audience side. It is up to the presenters of various theories to answer questions, not ask them.

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 12:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

I don’t care about your models or theories… I just like heckling!

Always room for a good heckling.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 12:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15
traveler - 28 September 2011 11:58 AM

An event so tragic as 9/11 is bound to incite emotion. That brings out the expletives (which I easily gloss over while perusing any content).

Back to the topic… I don’t know that there was no conspiracy behind 9/11. I don’t know that we went to the moon. I don’t know that Bush stole the elections. I simply have my beliefs and they are based on what I was admittedly fed by various media. I’m an average guy who reads and listens.

What makes something look like a conspiracy theory is often the presentation made by the theorists. I’ve seen a simplistic model. I’ve heard emotional appeals. I’ve seen videos of people claiming they worked for the CIA or who found nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

While interesting, they don’t overpower my observation that two airliners crashed into the buildings. Psik and LanceThruster (really???) might be right, but they really need to gather more convincing evidence - most of the ‘evidence’ is in the form of questions. Can you construct a model that blah blah blah. Why won’t someone tell us how much steel there was? Why??? That’s not evidence. The nano-thermite evidence is interesting, but I don’t know how the scientist extrapolates the small amount observed under the microscope to perhaps 100s of tons. The questions are supposed to come from the audience side. It is up to the presenters of various theories to answer questions, not ask them.

“So Mrs. Lincoln, other than that…how did you like the play?”

[groan]

“Too soon?”

If you evaluated your own arguments fairly, you’d come to the conclusion that to take my position makes more sense.

The people tasked with gathering convincing evidence either didn’t, or were specifically blocked from doing so. Not CONJECTURE but fact. In fact evidence from a crime scence was illegally destroyed.

Years after the fact, scientists extrapolated that maybe the extra energy came from the explosive nature of molten aluminum and water. It is indeed up to the presenters (and their supporters) to answer the questions that these theories pose.

You could build a tower model from bread sticks and potato chips, and I defy you to try to replicate the pattern of destruction, even if you smacked it with a hatchet, doused it in kerosene, and lit it on fire.

But I’ll bet someone building a model that added additional energy, might be able to approximate more closely what we saw.

Planetary geologists use comparisons to known earthly models all the time to theorize what processes are present on other worlds. Is modeling the collapse so freakin’ scary to those with blinders firmly in place?

What on earth is the harm?

Where is the down side?

Why is trying to get MORE knowledge and MORE data somehow a bad thing?

So, just a regular guy…YOU explain lateral acceleration.

It didn’t “fall” _down_…it shot——> OUT

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 01:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
LanceThruster - 28 September 2011 12:53 PM

If you evaluated your own arguments fairly, you’d come to the conclusion that to take my position makes more sense.

Yet my argument is that you need to be more convincing. Telling me it is smart to come to your conclusion doesn’t help.

The people tasked with gathering convincing evidence either didn’t, or were specifically blocked from doing so. Not CONJECTURE but fact. In fact evidence from a crime scence was illegally destroyed.

OK, that’s a good first step. What reliable source can I use to confirm this is true?

Years after the fact, scientists extrapolated that maybe the extra energy came from the explosive nature of molten aluminum and water. It is indeed up to the presenters (and their supporters) to answer the questions that these theories pose.

What extra energy were they looking for?

You could build a tower model from bread sticks and potato chips, and I defy you to try to replicate the pattern of destruction, even if you smacked it with a hatchet, doused it in kerosene, and lit it on fire.

See? Now, that doesn’t help.

But I’ll bet someone building a model that added additional energy, might be able to approximate more closely what we saw.

I don’t want to bet. I want facts. Not helping…

Planetary geologists use comparisons to known earthly models all the time to theorize what processes are present on other worlds. Is modeling the collapse so freakin’ scary to those with blinders firmly in place?

Models can be good. Nothing scary about ‘em. But a bad model is misleading.

What on earth is the harm?
Where is the down side?

No harm. No down side. Do you know anyone with the expertise and resources to build such a model?

Why is trying to get MORE knowledge and MORE data somehow a bad thing?

Who said it’s a bad thing?

So, just a regular guy…YOU explain lateral acceleration.

The term? Actually, it’s really not complicated.

It didn’t “fall” _down_…it shot——> OUT

I saw it fall down. And I thought the fact that it fell straight down was an issue for 9/11 truthers. In fact, Haupt and Reynolds believe no planes were used - rather, missiles with holograms of planes were used. There is no limit, it seems, to people’s claims.

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

re: material shooting out the sides. Couldn’t that just be explained by air rushing out of the floors as they collapse?

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 02:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

traveler - http://www.csi911.info/CSI911.html

This site uses official data. That good enough for you? FEMA, NIST, the Commission report…

See points #8 & #9, and exhibits “B” and “K”.

Misdirection about what some truthers claim is irrelevant.

I do not wish to debate opinion.

“Debating opinion is ‘Chewing Gum’ for the mind.
Its taste may be irresistible. It keeps your jaw moving -
Yet it offers no real nutrition.”

Josef Princiotta

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 02:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15
domokato - 28 September 2011 02:02 PM

re: material shooting out the sides. Couldn’t that just be explained by air rushing out of the floors as they collapse?

See point #6 & #7

http://www.csi911.info/CSI911.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2011 02:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

Points 6 and 7 do not refute my theory, at least not as far as I can tell.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 65
4