Common Sense

[CHF]

Dear Worthless Aging Hippie,

Is it possible to have a belief that differs from what the government says is true and not be a crazy person?

That depends.

Are you a person who believes something without a shred of solid proof?

If so, then yes - you're a crazy person.

[Mancman]

If you so much as call me a teuchter, then yer cruisin fur a wheen of grief!

North Uist, but work down south. Mainly Manchester, but also the Glasgow office.

Glasgow eh. Half my family live there. Apparently they mainly have criminal records and make the roughest estates rougher. Don't see them much, ever.

GIES THAT FOCKIN JAIKET!!!

[Spindrift]

Dear Worthless Aging Hippie,

Is it possible to have a belief that differs from what the government says is true and not be a crazy person?
.
Yes. However if that belief is in spite of all evidence to the contrary then said person may not be crazy just stupid.


In your world... is there any such thing as a credible (non-crazy) whistleblower? And, if so... what are the credentials one must possess in order to qualify as a sane and reliable whistleblower?

Thank you.
Absolutely there are credible whistleblowers. The qualification is simple: The whistleblower must have clear, verifiable evidence to back up what they say.

BTW: I'm still waiting for evidence of that thermite device that cuts vertical steel columns. Thought you might have found it on your sabbatical from the forum. Guess not.

[carlvs]

natureboy, please use the quote function, when quoting another person's post. Thanks.[/quote]

Not using the quote fucntion... doesn't this sound like how a recently banned "member" operated???:mad:

[Horatius]

Why does everyone always address my questions with questions, and then accuse me of avoiding their questions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Because every time we do answer your questions, you either ignore the answers, or dismiss them with a sniff and a handwave. So why should we keep trying? Taking the piss out of you is more entertaining, and exactly as productive.

Now, ignore this answer, or dismiss it.

Good boy!

"scunnered" is right......

[ConspiRaider]

Why does everyone always address my questions with questions, and then accuse me of avoiding their questions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
What do you mean, address your questions with questions?

[Horatius]

Dear Worthless Aging Hippie,

Is it possible to have a belief that differs from what the government says is true and not be a crazy person?

In your world... is there any such thing as a credible (non-crazy) whistleblower? And, if so... what are the credentials one must possess in order to qualify as a sane and reliable whistleblower?

Thank you.

Dear Useless Immature Nutbag,

Yes, it is possible to have a belief that differs from what the government says is true and not be a crazy person. It's just that your particular belief is not one of them.

The credentials one must possess in order to qualify as a sane and reliable whistleblower are 1) Verifiable evidence, which you're actually willing to provide; 2) Some sort of coherent narative to explain how said evidence proves whatever it is; 3) A willingness to actually put themselves on the line; anonymous internet tough guys need not apply.

You're welcome.

[slingblade]

Dear Worthless Aging Hippie,

Is it possible to have a belief that differs from what the government says is true and not be a crazy person?

In your world... is there any such thing as a credible (non-crazy) whistleblower? And, if so... what are the credentials one must possess in order to qualify as a sane and reliable whistleblower?

Thank you.

Wel, blow, boy, blow! Get to blowing! What's stopping you? What are you doing to help us, to save your country, your neighbors, your own family?

Come on, sonny boy, get crackin!


(Oh, and yesterday I was a computer programmer. What are you going to do--keep trying to push buttons until you land on an insult I'll bite into? So you can then say, "AH-HA! I knew you were __________!" Who were you accusing of using ad homs a while ago?)

[switchtech]

The reason none of you left-brain radicals have any common sense, is because you lack imagination, which is at the heart of functioning common sense. (sadly, for you guys/gals - this creative component of imaginary lives in the right-side of the brain)


Common sense has nothing to do with imagination!

common sense

n.

Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.

(from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/common+sense)

What you defined is creativity - the ability to create something from nothing, to make things up, to invent, to fabricate, to fantasize.

You missed that there were three components to the definition you posted (items 2a, b and 3) 2b takes the imagination definition of conceive, which is to create and conflated it with 3, which means to understand. 2a is to be able to accept, such as accepting the NIST report :D

Real common sense would include the ability to recognize the difference between pure fantasy and reality.

[switchtech]

"The Dork Side of the Farce"

Yea... real right-brained... you 3747474. So what do you do for a living? Computer programming?


You say that like it is an insult. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[switchtech]

Isn't psychology fascinating? I made a very keen observation some time back... about how I didn't think all of you were acting like real skeptics because you weren't skeptical of the official story when it has a million holes in it.

I love when I have an original idea or notion that is beautifully echoed with other research and analysis. Pseudoskeptics - yes, what a perfect nomenclature for this bunch of habitual debunkers.

So far I haven't found a million holes in the official explanation. There are faults with it, and pretty much everyone acknowledges there are things we don't know about the collapse, but the details as provided by the NIST do fit the observations and reality of what happened to a sufficient degree and the alternative explanations don't come close to providing a better or even reasonable explanation.

Do the math - it works.

[switchtech]

Here's what you don't understand. There is no evidence that will convince you 9/11 is an inside job... because in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture. You all like to take things (evidence) one by one in a linear fashion, proceed to "debunk" them, which in your pseudo world really just means "deny" them (burden of proof - who needs that) and then move along to the next thing.

See, nothing ever adds up with you guys, because you are constantly working from ground zero i.e. square one, the beginning


Here's what you don't understand ... real evidence that 9/11 was an inside job would convince us, none has been presented. We have pieced together the evidence to view the big picture, evidence that has been gathering since before the Crusades, and the big picture is there are some people (hmm, that's an understatement!) in the world that think the US is a pawn of Satan and any damage done to the nation and its citizens and allies is the work of God. To that end they are willing to sacrifice their own lives and those of otherwise innocent people.

We take each piece of information presented as evidence and weigh it - if it proves to be false evidence we debunk it, sure. I have often noted that much of what passes for evidence presented and debunked is more akin to hypothesis and conjecture. As such we don't need to treat it as a fact. And you are completely mistaken if you believe nothing ever adds up for us. We do the math - when it adds up, we fit the piece into the puzzle. That's how we build a big picture.

[switchtech]

i counted right watching this:-

SGgnCU7YGk8

but the outcome is still a big surprise and defies common sense....
gender differences........HAH!

:-]

BV

My brain is wired wrong. I counted correctly and evaded being surprised.

[switchtech]

The point about common sense here perfectly demonstrated. 28th uses "common sense" to tell us that his hand can't pass through a steel door. I've actually seen a truther video which used someone walking through a door as some kind of illustration of how it's "impossible" to be on the other side of the door without opening it. Somehow both the movie makers and 28th have forgotten that with sufficient force, his hand could easily pass through the door. There wouldn't be anything left of his hand, but there doesn't need to be.


I was think that I could show 28thKingdom how to pass his hand through the door - but would be pretty sure he wouldn't like the result. Of course I had in mind heating a section with a plasma torch first then hitting the heated area as hard as he could just before the metal was molten enough to fall off. The timing would be tricky.... But I'm sure a sufficiently imaginative person could do it. ;)

[switchtech]

What commonly known information are you applying to this situation - that would lead you to believe this?

What pertinent common knowledge about the world are you applying to this event? i.e. If a is like b...than a must be like c.

Common Sense is not about believing what your eyes tell you. Common Sense is a sense beyond your five senses... although it uses certain information from those (5) senses in order to form a higher intuitive-like sense.

What are you applying to this scenario? The common belief that humans need oxygen to live, thus everything must need oxygen to live? But, fish aren't human...and neither are deep-sea creatures. Humans, can't breathe underwater, but we know fish can... You are so far from reality.

Do huh? Dude, get yer head out of Uranus.

Oh boy...

Common sense ideas tend to relate to events within human experience, and thus commensurate with human scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_scale). Thus there is no commonsense intuition of, for example, the behavior of the universe at subatomic distances or speeds approaching that of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/commonsense

You must have misunderstood the original post you quote - you missed, perhaps on purpose, the obvious. These "common sense" thoughts were in fact once considered common sense, they are historical and are examples of when common sense was wrong - we know better today and have generally incorporated the new datum into our modern version of common sense.

And since when is the collapse of a pair of 100 story buildings actually a "human scale" event. We typically run about 1.5 meters tall - these buildings were a few hundred times (and two orders of magnitude) out of scale. We had no trial and error expectations of what happens when you dumped tens of thousands of gallons of Jet-A into a flammable mess of material and heat steel support structures for a while after puncturing and destroying several vertical support pieces and defeating the fire resistant protections of all the above. Common Sense, in this case, could be considered neither common nor sensible. And the math proves it. You just need some basic, OK, advanced understanding of mathematics.

[switchtech]

Has a false flag operation ever happened in the world? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Has a country ever killed it's own people as a pretext to fight an external enemy? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_incident
Has Israel ever engaged in any false-flag operations? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing
Any of those against the US? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
Has the US ever been involved in any false-flag operations? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio
Has the US ever considered engaging in false-flag operations against its own people? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Now, does everyone (CTist and/or Gov Shills) believe that planted explosives could have brought down the towers? Yes. Had explosives ever brought down a steel structured high-rise pre 9/11? Yes. Had a plane impact ever brought down a steel structured high-rise pre 9/11? No. Had a fire ever brought down a steel-structured high-rise pre 9/11? No. Had hurricane-like (debris) exterior damage ever made a steel-structured high-rise totally collapse in a symmetrical fashion at quasi-free fall speeds? No.

How about this: Has any government ever come to the aid of its people? Has any government ever told the truth about something? Has any government ever done exactly what it said it was doing? Has any building ever collapsed with out the aid of controlled demolition? Has any building ever collapsed due to fire? Has any of this made sense?

What are the odds that 19 amateur pilots with box cutters and plastic knives could have hijacked four commercial airliners with a 100% success rate, and then proceeded to maneuver these aircraft (past the world's most elite and advanced military defense system) to three exact destinations while hitting 100% of their targets? 1 in an inconceivable number

Apparently you shouldn't worry so much about odds... How likely is it for anyone to actually win a lotto? You underrate the hijackers. Calling them amateur pilots is missing the point that they were highly trained professional terrorists. Your imagination concerning the ability of a box cutter to inflict grievous injury and scare the wits out of innocent civilians is sorely lacking. Either that or you haven't seen some of my box cutters.

What are the odds that Israel, backed with the fourth largest funded military in the world, could have had some agents plant explosives in a privately owned building complex, that is owned by a Zionist? 1 in 1

What are the odds that Osama and crew would attack the World Trade Center? Oh, that's right, 1:1 - they already did it once before.

What are the odds that elements (the highest ranking officials) within the USG government could hand down orders that effectively disarm NORAD? 1 in 1

Straw man. NORAD was designed to defend against external threats, not civilian airliners taking off from US airports. NORAD was effectively disarmed from day 1 against such internal flights.

What are the odds that a commercial size airliner can be hijacked via remote control and flown to exact locations. 1 in 1

Irrelevant since we have plenty of evidence supporting the 19 hijackers. Chances are there were a dozen or so more that failed to pass security or missed their opportunity or chickened out (OK, that last may actually be unlikely).

Another technology devised by the U.S. military for remote control of huge airplanes is named Global Hawk. On April 24, 2001, four months before "'9/11,'" Britain's International Television News reported: "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

Global Hawk isn't a technology for flying huge aircraft. Global Hawk is a remote controlled drone - it has no provisions for flight by an on-board pilot. And since we have the evidence that 19 men hijacked the planes we don't need the robots of dawn to come along and do the deed.

The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'

http://www.911review.com/means/remotecontrol.html

Now... start piecing everything together... and then tell me which theory is more far fetched.

Your reference article is wrong concerning the inclusion of remote control in production 757 aircraft. Even a google of remote control 757 only turns up CT based web pages (and a couple pages of R/C hobby aircraft). And these all reference the same contestable source.

Now piecing everything together - the NIST report is reasonable and the most likely of the given options.

[ktesibios]

Dear Worthless Aging Hippie,

Is it possible to have a belief that differs from what the government says is true and not be a crazy person?

In your world... is there any such thing as a credible (non-crazy) whistleblower? And, if so... what are the credentials one must possess in order to qualify as a sane and reliable whistleblower?

Thank you.

No, dear. The reason that the thought of devotees of conspiracist "reasoning" such as yourself serving on a jury horrifies me is the thought that you would use the same thought processes to evaluate the evidence. Such thought processes as:

Black/white thinking, e.g. "either you accept this unsupported assertion about a massive government conspiracy or you uncritically accept the government version". Life isn't an endless series of false dilemmas.

The inability or unwillingness to distinguish between "could have been" and "actually was".

The inability or unwillingness to grasp the concept of burden of proof and where it lies.

The belief that once you've convinced yourself that a target, e.g. the gummint, the Israelis, the Zionists or whoever the enemy-of-the-people-of-the-month is are bad people, they must be guilty of whatever you choose to accuse them of. That's also coupled with the massive fallacies of composition and non sequitur you have to indulge in to get from specific incidents like the Liberty to generalizing about "the Israelis" and then to concluding that these incidents are somehow relevant evidence about 9/11.

The thought of anyone having to face a jury composed of devotees of the conspiracist method of starting with an ideologically predetermined conclusion and then trying to hammer and file the evidence to fit it is genuinely horrifying.

OTOH, I have derived some amusement by considering what would happen if I approached my job with the conspiracist method of thinking. I suspect I'd get to satisfy my curiousity about just what a million dollars worth of bluish-white smoke looks like.

[slingblade]

Who will you be calling first, 28th? The New York Times? Bill O'? Rush? Somebody? Anybody?

Come on, man, you can't just sit on this. You know something, and you gotta tell.

[R.Mackey]

What are the odds that Israel, backed with the fourth largest funded military in the world, could have had some agents plant explosives in a privately owned building complex, that is owned by a Zionist? 1 in 1

What are the odds that elements (the highest ranking officials) within the USG government could hand down orders that effectively disarm NORAD? 1 in 1

What are the odds that a commercial size airliner can be hijacked via remote control and flown to exact locations. 1 in 1


Umm.. "What are the odds that X could have happened??"

Excuse me?

Probability is all about "what are the odds that X will happen" or "what were the odds that X would happen," not "what are the odds that X is possible." What you've said here is just double stupid all over.

[beachnut]

Here's what you don't understand. There is no evidence that will convince you 9/11 is an inside job... because in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture. You all like to take things (evidence) one by one in a linear fashion, proceed to "debunk" them, which in your pseudo world really just means "deny" them (burden of proof - who needs that) and then move along to the next thing.

See, nothing ever adds up with you guys, because you are constantly working from ground zero i.e. square one, the beginning

Facts would help your case.

You will never have them.

See. That is a fact. You do not have facts.

Common Sense is also lacking in your ability to see 9/11 clearly!

Knowledge, judgement, and other critical things you lack. The short list.

Common Sense? Not in your case.

[switchtech]

So what makes the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief - such an unbelievable one? Tell me... logistically - why it was impossible for Israel and the US to pull off 9/11.


It isn't that it is impossible - it's that there isn't any evidence they did.


We're not talking about the specifics of the execution of operation 9/11 i.e. star wars beams and holographic wings.

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...


Absolutely no one saw them do this - a job that would take a few months of daily (er, nightly) effort and leave a great deal of evidence it was happening (wiring being strung, protective cladding removed, entire walls missing, the building on the verge of collapse (well, no one might notice this last one).


What makes it impossible for explosives to bring down high-rise buildings...


Nothing makes the general principle impossible - except in this specific example we see no evidence (think bright flashes - on every floor - not just a couple random "squibs" - but every floor at every support position).


What makes it impossible for corrupt entities to pull off false-flag attacks...


The part where they actually pull it off - it appears that they're likely to get caught - and the bigger the operation the more likely.


What makes it impossible for the US to fly commercial size airliners... either by remote or with (hired) suicide pilots....


Answered elsewhere, but - a 757 is a hydraulic and cable system with redundant fault tolerance. Odd "take over control" systems would be inherently obvious to maintenance and flight crews.


Please, shed yer ego and remove that red, white and blue war paint from yer face - and tell me specifically why it was impossible for 9/11 to be an inside job.

Because it would leave evidence that would prove it - and the evidence doesn't exist. There were no real symptoms of a controlled demolition other than a building fell (watch a real demolition - witness literally hundreds of explosions, a dozen or more for every floor with bright flashes - not one or two odd compression events). Because we need to account for four flight crews and passengers. Because Al Queda did conspire to destroy US symbols and trained for years, practiced and actually attacked many times, before finally succeeding beyond their expectations on 9/11 and the evidence they did is manifest, their own documentation, in the security video tapes of the airports and on ATC radio recordings and the flight data recorders. The NIST report makes more sense and require less credulity.

[maccy]

What somebody may choose to describe as their common sense may lead them to assume that plastic knives can only look like this (http://nblongshine.en.alibaba.com/product/50216677/51180904/plastic_tableware/Plastic_Knife/showimg.html).

In fact, they can also look like this (http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/nfk.htm).

[switchtech]

UK dave said,
funny, when I do the math I keep coming up with a whole lot more than twelve seconds....a whole lot more!!!

you must have a really good imagination to have no questions about the world trade center collapses.


One, when I do the math, it's closer and under 10 seconds. Two, watching the CNN video - I count about 17 seconds per collapse (which initiate several floors below top which I based my calculations on).

That doesn't really seem like free fall speeds.

[natureboy]

JimBenArm said,

"So, how did you time the collapse? Seriously, what did you use as the start point, and end point? How long did it take?Let's see your calculations."

gravy said,

"Let's see your calculations. And wash your socks, please. They're stinky"

Ok here goes, and lets keep it simple and I will tilt it strongly in your favor.

What we got is a 100 story building.....
lets eliminate thousands of welded steel brackets that support the floor trusses and instead.....

.....every floor is suspended by glass brackets or wires..something that will break or snap if slightly overloaded....in your favor...fragile as you want it to be!

Now for the floors,hmmm..... lets use something that wont break up into little dust particles everytime it contacts the floor below,it will simplify our calculations by eliminating the quite considerable loss of momentum tranfer that is involved in turning the concrete to dust. plus not having any dust will add to the falling mass which is again in your favor....

and we can put contact cement on the floors so they will stick together when they come into contact.(less calculating)

One thing I will not give you though..... is the top twelve floors lumped together into one solid mass...no way man, the NIST may be attempting to do that but....no way!

I certainly observed that a large block of 12 floors on tower #2 (more on #1) somehow just separated from 98 storys below but,....

The lowest floor of the upper 12 storys (#99)is Not gonna be any "stronger"than highest floor (#98)of the lower 98 storys. in other words,..when floor 99 comes into contact with 98, they will BOTH break loose from the core and perimeter columns.....remember our glass brackets? problem wit dat? I didnt think so...

Ok so, its up to the top (imagine a dunking machine, naked chick throwing..)I will sit on my rubber floor,you on yours.

I have 98 rubber floors (each 12 feet apart) between me and the ground

you have 1 rubber floor and a (lot of hot) air between you and the ground

she throws!.. BAM!!! we begin falling....and thusly through observation we finally begin our calculations.

we both proceed down at the same rate,as we both knew we would... for twelve feet its a dead heat!(even though you are probably fatter than me), then BAM!! I'll be dipped in ****!!! it seems I have hit something!... another floor! #97 of course!....my downward acceleration has slowed! while you have continued on... and although I now have TWO floors falling with me, my velocity downward has been cut in half!(you are traveling 32 feet per second and I am going only 16 feet per second) and that is because mass at rest has resistance! even only held in place by fragile clips! get the picture yet? are you doing the math? No?

well lets go another twelve feet....Bam!!!! Damn its floor 96!!....damn those things get in the way! (as you continue on your merry unimpeded way) because I have two floors with me and we are slamming down onto one, my downward velocity is reduced by?.....you guessed it! one third or 33.333333333...% do you see where we are going yet? now do you get the picture? no?

OK, lets review. floor by floor

I'm on floor 98

I fall 12 feet and reach a speed of 32 ft per/sec

I hit floor 97 and slow down by 1/2 to 16 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 16fps.=48fps

I hit floor 96 and slow down by 1/3 to 32 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 32fps.=64fps

I hit floor 95 and slow down by 1/4 to 48 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 48fps.=80fps

I hit floor 94 and slow down by 1/5 to 64 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 64fps.=96fps

I hit floor 93 and slow down by 1/6 to 80 fps and continue...

I fall and just before I hit floor 92 I am going at 112 feet per sec...

You on the other hand...gain 32 fps every 12 feet!

your on floor 98

you fall 12 feet=32fps @ floor 97

you fall 12 feet=64fps @ floor 96

you fall 12 feet=96fps @ floor 95

you fall 12 feet=128fps@ floor 94

you fall 12 feet=160fps@ floor 93

you fall 12 feet=192fps@ floor 92

results @ floor 92= me! 112 feet per sec!!!
you! 192 feet per sec!!!

need I go on?

Keep in mind I gave this to you on a silver platter with fragile truss clips and solid floors that dont break up...all in your favor...and we still cant get anything near a 12-13 second collapse....JREFFERS are stupid...

[beachnut]

I want you one on one in our own thread... and if you choose to decline my challenge, than you concede defeat by virtue of cowardice.

I need not qualify to debate you by answering any one particular question. If you want something addressed, than bring it into the thread.

My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.

I agree! Your 688 posts do speak for themselves; they say:

We are devoid of facts, logic, knowledge, judgement, on anything doing with 9/11!

That is a fact Jack! How do CTers debunk themselves so well?

[R.Mackey]

I deeply pity the teacher that has to grade your papers, nature boy.

[Architect]

Deeply suspicious that he doesn't use the quote function.

Natureboy, if you don't by your next post then I'm going to call "Remove Bush Sock Puppet" and - realistically - so will everyone else, leading to a ban.

Fix it or prepare to depart.

[natureboy]

Please forgive me the "Quote message in reply" chekbox is not working for me. maybe cuz i'm a new member?

[Architect]

Nope.

The alternative is to type as normal then hit the wee box next to the smiley, just above where you're typing.

[maccy]

we both proceed down at the same rate,as we both knew we would... for twelve feet its a dead heat!(even though you are probably fatter than me), then BAM!! I'll be dipped in ****!!! it seems I have hit something!... another floor! #97 of course!....my downward acceleration has slowed! while you have continued on... and although I now have TWO floors falling with me, my velocity downward has been cut in half!(you are traveling 32 feet per second and I am going only 16 feet per second) and that is because mass at rest has resistance! even only held in place by fragile clips! get the picture yet? are you doing the math? No?


Please explain why the velocity would be halved and show your calculations.

Also, please use the quote function of the forum, it makes things much clearer.

Finally, if it obviously runs counter to laws of physics for the building to have fallen the way it did why is the world scientific community so silent on the matter? Surely they can't all have been bought off? Why don't you send your hypothesis, as outlined above, to engineering and physics professors across the world? Send it to some architects as well, while you're at it. Maybe you can persuade one of them to co-author a peer-reviewed paper with you. Failing that, why not try the vast number of science correspondents who work for the worlds newspapers, radio and television stations?

Or are all of these people just stupid because they don't see things the way you do?

[beachnut]

JimBenArm said,

"So, how did you time the collapse? Seriously, what did you use as the start point, and end point? How long did it take?Let's see your calculations."

gravy said,

"Let's see your calculations. And wash your socks, please. They're stinky"

Ok here goes, and lets keep it simple and I will tilt it strongly in your favor.

What we got is a 100 story building.....
lets eliminate thousands of welded steel brackets that support the floor trusses and instead.....

.....every floor is suspended by glass brackets or wires..something that will break or snap if slightly overloaded....in your favor...fragile as you want it to be!

Now for the floors,hmmm..... lets use something that wont break up into little dust particles everytime it contacts the floor below,it will simplify our calculations by eliminating the quite considerable loss of momentum tranfer that is involved in turning the concrete to dust. plus not having any dust will add to the falling mass which is again in your favor....

and we can put contact cement on the floors so they will stick together when they come into contact.(less calculating)

One thing I will not give you though..... is the top twelve floors lumped together into one solid mass...no way man, the NIST may be attempting to do that but....no way!

I certainly observed that a large block of 12 floors on tower #2 (more on #1) somehow just separated from 98 storys below but,....

The lowest floor of the upper 12 storys (#99)is Not gonna be any "stronger"than highest floor (#98)of the lower 98 storys. in other words,..when floor 99 comes into contact with 98, they will BOTH break loose from the core and perimeter columns.....remember our glass brackets? problem wit dat? I didnt think so...

Ok so, its up to the top (imagine a dunking machine, naked chick throwing..)I will sit on my rubber floor,you on yours.

I have 98 rubber floors (each 12 feet apart) between me and the ground

you have 1 rubber floor and a (lot of hot) air between you and the ground

she throws!.. BAM!!! we begin falling....and thusly through observation we finally begin our calculations.

we both proceed down at the same rate,as we both knew we would... for twelve feet its a dead heat!(even though you are probably fatter than me), then BAM!! I'll be dipped in ****!!! it seems I have hit something!... another floor! #97 of course!....my downward acceleration has slowed! while you have continued on... and although I now have TWO floors falling with me, my velocity downward has been cut in half!(you are traveling 32 feet per second and I am going only 16 feet per second) and that is because mass at rest has resistance! even only held in place by fragile clips! get the picture yet? are you doing the math? No?

well lets go another twelve feet....Bam!!!! Damn its floor 96!!....damn those things get in the way! (as you continue on your merry unimpeded way) because I have two floors with me and we are slamming down onto one, my downward velocity is reduced by?.....you guessed it! one third or 33.333333333...% do you see where we are going yet? now do you get the picture? no?

OK, lets review. floor by floor

I'm on floor 98

I fall 12 feet and reach a speed of 32 ft per/sec

I hit floor 97 and slow down by 1/2 to 16 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 16fps.=48fps

I hit floor 96 and slow down by 1/3 to 32 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 32fps.=64fps

I hit floor 95 and slow down by 1/4 to 48 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 48fps.=80fps

I hit floor 94 and slow down by 1/5 to 64 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 64fps.=96fps

I hit floor 93 and slow down by 1/6 to 80 fps and continue...

I fall and just before I hit floor 92 I am going at 112 feet per sec...

You on the other hand...gain 32 fps every 12 feet!

your on floor 98

you fall 12 feet=32fps @ floor 97

you fall 12 feet=64fps @ floor 96

you fall 12 feet=96fps @ floor 95

you fall 12 feet=128fps@ floor 94

you fall 12 feet=160fps@ floor 93

you fall 12 feet=192fps@ floor 92

results @ floor 92= me! 112 feet per sec!!!
you! 192 feet per sec!!!

need I go on?

Keep in mind I gave this to you on a silver platter with fragile truss clips and solid floors that dont break up...all in your favor...and we still cant get anything near a 12-13 second collapse....JREFFERS are stupid...

I used better numbers and only had a 10 percent decrease in time vs dropping a massive ball from the point of failure.

What time did you get!

But now time it yourself; the WTC took over 30 seconds to fall completely. You must of missed the core sections. Plus you missed the mass of WTC destroying the rest and not falling at speeds of debris out side the foot print of the WTC.

So what is your time to fall?

Recap! I found about a 10 percent increase in time! What did you find. But I used the energy lost due to tearing up the WTC. What are you using.

Funny you never really timed the collapse did you! What time did you get?

Go get some help from your physics teacher.

[beachnut]

One thing I will not give you though..... is the top twelve floors lumped together into one solid mass...no way man, the NIST may be attempting to do that but....no way!


But that is what happened; I saw something like that happen! Darn, who would say this? A CTer!

[Skibum]

My math...


Natureboy = Ric Flair = WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


Adds up

:D

[beachnut]

One thing I will not give you though..... is the top twelve floors lumped together into one solid mass...no way man, the NIST may be attempting to do that but....no way!


Actually if you use that mass you get the correct time of failure, but you need to add the other complex failure; IE a big section of core fell after, or by 30 or so seconds. Darn, how do you model that extra time.

Facts are needed to prove wrong what really happen. Most saw what really happened. There were no explosives in the building because some people lived through the entire collapse around the fifth floor! Explosives would have ruined their survival area.

There were no explosives found. No one rigged the WTC with explosives. Unless you have some facts you are lost in the CT world of lies.

You have to at least model what everyone saw. If you do not you have zero common sense in applying your physics. You twist your math to meet your conclusion. So you fail to model the WTC as it happened.

60 to 80 floors of partial core standing at the end of failure pretty much proves explosives were not used to me. What do you think natureboy? .

[Architect]

The collapse is entirely consistent with structural engineering expectations.

[uk_dave]

The collapse is entirely consistent with structural engineering expectations.

"But, but....common sense......"

[Architect]

I should have tried that in my finals, instead of all that damned work and studying..........could have just stayed in the Students Union drinking!

[clarsct]

Now I know why I don;t normally participate here...


8 pages?


Apparently they can manufacture nonsense quicker than I can assimilate it.

[uk_dave]

Apparently they can manufacture nonsense quicker than I can assimilate it.

Well, common sense would tell you that.... :D

[PerryLogan]

Common sense also tells us the evil perps would have neutralized the Truthers by now, instead of letting them spill the beans for all these years. But that's probably the wrong kind of common sense.

[JimBenArm]

You on the other hand...gain 32 fps every 12 feet!

your on floor 98

you fall 12 feet=32fps @ floor 97

you fall 12 feet=64fps @ floor 96

you fall 12 feet=96fps @ floor 95

you fall 12 feet=128fps@ floor 94

you fall 12 feet=160fps@ floor 93

you fall 12 feet=192fps@ floor 92

results @ floor 92= me! 112 feet per sec!!!
you! 192 feet per sec!!!



Is this for real? I fall 12 feet and gain 32fps? Boy, things have sure changed since I went to school! Dude, you obviously have no clue how gravitational acceleration works. This shows it, in all its naked glory! I have never seen such a poor grasp of math in my life! Come back when you are ready to play with the big boys. You're not ready to get out of the shallow end of the pool, yet.

Believe me, if I can spot your errors, you have serious problems!

[Tirdun]

Another technology devised by the U.S. military for remote control of huge airplanes is named Global Hawk.
Wrong, the Q-4 Global Hawk is 1/4th the length of a 767 (44ft vs 160ft) and you can fit exactly zero people and zero pounds of equipment inside. It's barely 11 feet tall, 15 at the tail. It's also the biggest UAV in service. Or maybe they used a retrofit drone, taking an old fighter and putting in a drone package, a process that takes a few weeks and generally results in a on shot, single function flight: as a target for missiles.

On April 24, 2001, four months before "'9/11,'" Britain's International Television News reported: "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."
And? Are you shocked by the existence of drone aircraft? They've kind of been in the news lately and the US has been using them for testing missiles for decades. Most drones have flight times >30 hours.

The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'
A prototype or theoretical system, no doubt, and not something that Boeing includes on their aircraft as standard equipment or American Airlines puts in later. Maybe the pilots just missed all that mechanical equipment in the cockpit when the got aboard.

[Belz...]

What commonly known information are you applying to this situation - that would lead you to believe this?

The the sun revolves around the earth ? Easy. We see it rise and set every day. There is no visual information outside of science to tell us otherwise.

Common Sense is not about believing what your eyes tell you. Common Sense is a sense beyond your five senses...

A sense beyond your five senses ? Isn't it fun to redefine terms when you're cornered ?

although it uses certain information from those (5) senses in order to form a higher intuitive-like sense.

Ah. Intuition. The mother of religion.

What are you applying to this scenario? The common belief that humans need oxygen to live, thus everything must need oxygen to live? But, fish aren't human...and neither are deep-sea creatures.

They still breathe oxygen, mate.

Has a false flag operation ever happened in the world? Yes.

Relevance ?

Now, does everyone (CTist and/or Gov Shills) believe that planted explosives could have brought down the towers? Yes.

Of course. The question is: is the evidence consistent with such a demolition ? And : how would those explosives have been placed ?

I want you one on one in our own thread... and if you choose to decline my challenge, than you concede defeat by virtue of cowardice.

That's concede victory, not defeat.

Excellent. I also challenge you to a 1-on-1 DOOM duel at my place, today at 6 pm. If you're not there at 6, then you concede VICTORY, not defeat, by virtue of cowardice.

Mes amis americanes

That's: Mes amis Américains.

So what makes the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief - such an unbelievable one?

Lack of evidence, lack of feasibility, lack of internal coherency, etc.

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...

Time.

Please, shed yer ego and remove that red, white and blue war paint from yer face

I'm a Canadian, you dolt. Why should I care about your government, especially Mr. Bush ?

[Architect]

That's: Mes amis Américains.

Ouai, tu as raison. Je suis trop fatigue......especialement avec tous les drugs en ce moment.

[Belz...]

Everyone thinks the WTC collapses look like explosives are being used...

I don't.

including the major news anchors who covered the events i.e. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.

Well, if Jennings says it... :rolleyes:

How does the supreme authority of a land "get caught?" How does Saddam Hussein "get caught" gassing his own people? How does the Chinese government "get caught" abusing its own people? Who are the ones responsible for catching them?

Ah, so you're a hero of the people, now ?

Okay, documented history... the founders of America slaughtered innocent indians and stole their land. Americans have a history of terrorist activity... History shows us that great powers are invariably corrupt and evil. The US is the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world... 1 + 1 =

THAT's your evidence ? 9/11 was an inside job because the US is a powerful country that was founded by conquest ?

Is it possible to have a belief that differs from what the government says is true and not be a crazy person?

I see you're not going to answer any of those questions, are you ?

Still waiting on your answer, also: are you a psychologist ? Do you have any training in the field ?

Your sig says it all:

When I die.. I shall soar with angels. And, when I die to the angels.. what I shall become - you cannot imagine.

[Belz...]

Ouai, tu as raison. Je suis trop fatigue......especialement avec tous les drugs en ce moment.

Alors au lit, architecte!!

[xerox]

Common sense also tells us the evil perps would have neutralized the Truthers by now, instead of letting them spill the beans for all these years. But that's probably the wrong kind of common sense.

Agree, and I think that is a fact that should be stated more often. If the US governement really murdered 3000 of their own citizens they sure would't think twice about killing a few more to cover it up. Yet the troof movement seems quite healthy (well, maybe not always in the mental departement)

Imagine the hysteria if Dylan or any other major troofer would manage to get himself killed or injured in at traffic accident.

[Horatius]

Please forgive me the "Quote message in reply" chekbox is not working for me. maybe cuz i'm a new member?

And is "new member" your excuse for not noticing the big button labelled "Quote" in the lower right corner?

[Big Les]

It's just a plot to make people think I'm Welsh and search for our Sooper Sekrit base inside a dormant Volcano in the Rhonda.



That's why we've set Torchwood in Wales, too.........

Is that also why they're the least competent sooper sekrit agency in the history of television? I put their civilian bodycount to save ratio at around 20:0, not including the many poor saps killed by that unconvincing CGI goat (that THEY released!) in the last episode...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

JimBenArm said,

"So, how did you time the collapse? Seriously, what did you use as the start point, and end point? How long did it take?Let's see your calculations."

gravy said,

"Let's see your calculations. And wash your socks, please. They're stinky"

Ok here goes, and lets keep it simple and I will tilt it strongly in your favor.

What we got is a 100 story building.....
lets eliminate thousands of welded steel brackets that support the floor trusses and instead.....

.....every floor is suspended by glass brackets or wires..something that will break or snap if slightly overloaded....in your favor...fragile as you want it to be!

Now for the floors,hmmm..... lets use something that wont break up into little dust particles everytime it contacts the floor below,it will simplify our calculations by eliminating the quite considerable loss of momentum tranfer that is involved in turning the concrete to dust. plus not having any dust will add to the falling mass which is again in your favor....

and we can put contact cement on the floors so they will stick together when they come into contact.(less calculating)

One thing I will not give you though..... is the top twelve floors lumped together into one solid mass...no way man, the NIST may be attempting to do that but....no way!

I certainly observed that a large block of 12 floors on tower #2 (more on #1) somehow just separated from 98 storys below but,....

The lowest floor of the upper 12 storys (#99)is Not gonna be any "stronger"than highest floor (#98)of the lower 98 storys. in other words,..when floor 99 comes into contact with 98, they will BOTH break loose from the core and perimeter columns.....remember our glass brackets? problem wit dat? I didnt think so...

Ok so, its up to the top (imagine a dunking machine, naked chick throwing..)I will sit on my rubber floor,you on yours.

I have 98 rubber floors (each 12 feet apart) between me and the ground

you have 1 rubber floor and a (lot of hot) air between you and the ground

she throws!.. BAM!!! we begin falling....and thusly through observation we finally begin our calculations.

we both proceed down at the same rate,as we both knew we would... for twelve feet its a dead heat!(even though you are probably fatter than me), then BAM!! I'll be dipped in ****!!! it seems I have hit something!... another floor! #97 of course!....my downward acceleration has slowed! while you have continued on... and although I now have TWO floors falling with me, my velocity downward has been cut in half!(you are traveling 32 feet per second and I am going only 16 feet per second) and that is because mass at rest has resistance! even only held in place by fragile clips! get the picture yet? are you doing the math? No?

well lets go another twelve feet....Bam!!!! Damn its floor 96!!....damn those things get in the way! (as you continue on your merry unimpeded way) because I have two floors with me and we are slamming down onto one, my downward velocity is reduced by?.....you guessed it! one third or 33.333333333...% do you see where we are going yet? now do you get the picture? no?

OK, lets review. floor by floor

I'm on floor 98

I fall 12 feet and reach a speed of 32 ft per/sec

I hit floor 97 and slow down by 1/2 to 16 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 16fps.=48fps

I hit floor 96 and slow down by 1/3 to 32 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 32fps.=64fps

I hit floor 95 and slow down by 1/4 to 48 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 48fps.=80fps

I hit floor 94 and slow down by 1/5 to 64 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 64fps.=96fps

I hit floor 93 and slow down by 1/6 to 80 fps and continue...

I fall and just before I hit floor 92 I am going at 112 feet per sec...

You on the other hand...gain 32 fps every 12 feet!

your on floor 98

you fall 12 feet=32fps @ floor 97

you fall 12 feet=64fps @ floor 96

you fall 12 feet=96fps @ floor 95

you fall 12 feet=128fps@ floor 94

you fall 12 feet=160fps@ floor 93

you fall 12 feet=192fps@ floor 92

results @ floor 92= me! 112 feet per sec!!!
you! 192 feet per sec!!!

need I go on?

Keep in mind I gave this to you on a silver platter with fragile truss clips and solid floors that dont break up...all in your favor...and we still cant get anything near a 12-13 second collapse....JREFFERS are stupid...

The height of the top floor of the towers was 1,348 ft (411.0 m).
The height of the root of the towers was 1,368 ft (417.0 m).
The height of the antenna/spire of the towers was 1,731.9 ft (527.9 m)
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wtc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wtc)
Given the approximate acceleration at the towers would be 9.8 m/s^2 we can calculate both the time it would take to fall, and the velocity at any given point.
Using the formulas available on this page: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mofall.html (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mofall.html) we generate the following (bolded lines are of greatest interest):
Time|Accel - m/sec^2|Dist - meters
0.0|9.8|0.0
1.0|9.8|4.9
2.0|19.6|19.6
3.0|29.4|44.1
4.0|39.2|78.4
5.0|49.0|122.5
6.0|58.8|176.4
7.0|68.6|240.1
8.0|78.4|313.6
9.0|88.2|396.9
9.1|89.2|405.8
9.2|90.2|414.7
9.3|91.1|423.8
9.4|92.1|433.0
9.5|93.1|442.2
9.6|94.1|451.6
9.7|95.1|461.0
9.8|96.0|470.6
9.9|97.0|480.2
10.0|98.0|490.0
10.1|99.0|499.8
10.2|100.0|509.8
10.3|100.9|519.8
10.4|101.9|530.0
10.5|102.9|540.2
10.6|103.9|550.6
10.7|104.9|561.0
10.8|105.8|571.5
10.9|106.8|582.2
11.0|107.8|592.9| || |
From this we can see that from the top floor it would take 9.1-9.2 seconds to reach the ground and the final velocity would be 89.2-90.2 m/sec.
From the root it would take 9.2-9.3 seconds to reach the ground and the final velocity would be 90.2-91.1 m/sec.
From the top of the spire/antenna it would take 10.3-10.4 seconds to reach the ground and the final velocity would be 100.9-101.9 m/sec.

Estimates on this vary do to visibility problems and which points are being used. I will use the values you provided in this post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2206211#post2206211 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2206211#post2206211) and go with 12-16 seconds.
Reported Time|Calculated Time|%
12.0|9.1|131.9
12.0|9.2|130.4
12.0|9.3|129.0
12.0|10.3|116.5
12.0|10.4|115.4
13.0|9.1|142.9
13.0|9.2|141.3
13.0|9.3|139.8
13.0|10.3|126.2
13.0|10.4|125.0
14.0|9.1|153.8
14.0|9.2|152.2
14.0|9.3|150.5
14.0|10.3|135.9
14.0|10.4|134.6
15.0|9.1|164.8
15.0|9.2|163.0
15.0|9.3|161.3
15.0|10.3|145.6
15.0|10.4|144.2
16.0|9.1|175.8
16.0|9.2|173.9
16.0|9.3|172.0
16.0|10.3|155.3
16.0|10.4|153.8| || |
We can see that the towers took somewhere between 115.4% to 175.8% free-fall time to complete collapsing. Personally, I do not consider 15.4%-75.8% margin of difference to qualify as being labeled "near".

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf) Section
2.2.1.1
American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north face of WTC 1 approximately between the 94th and
98th floors
2.2.1.5
Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4x10^11 joules of potential energy over the
1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8x10^9 joules of potential energy were stored in the
upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact.
2.2.2.1
United Airlines Flight 175 struck the south face of WTC 2 approximately between the 78th and 84th
floors.
For WTC 1, the top 12 floors of the tower translates into 8x10^9 joules of the total 4x10^11 joules. So, the top ~10.9% of WTC 1 contained ~2% of the entire PE of WTC 1. Extrapolating this on to WTC 2 (since the above mentioned report does not specify the amount PE contained above the WTC 2 impact point) we get the following:
WTC 2 => top 26 floors => ~23.6% of WTC 2.
If ~10.9% of WTC 1 translates into 8x10^9 joules PE
Then ~23.6% of WTC 2 translates into N joules PE
Therefore 10.9/8*10^9 = 23.6/N
=> 10.9*N/8*10^9 = 23.6
=> 10.9*N = 23.6*(8*10^9)
=> N = 23.6*(8*10^9)/10.9
=> N = 17321100917.431192660550458715596
=> N = 17.3*10^9 joules PE
=> ~34.7% of the entire PE of WTC 2
What does this mean? It means for WTC 1, that ~2% (8x10^9 joules) of PE was converted to KE almost instantaneously upon structural failure at floors 94-98. It means for WTC 2, that ~34.7% (17.3*10^9 joules) of PE was converted to KE almost instantaneously upon structural failure at floors 78-84.
If you feel this is insufficient to explain the damage seen, please provide your maths showing why.
<snip>
Original post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2207994#post2207994

[aggle-rithm]

So what makes the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief - such an unbelievable one? Tell me... logistically - why it was impossible for Israel and the US to pull off 9/11.

We're not talking about the specifics of the execution of operation 9/11 i.e. star wars beams and holographic wings.

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...

What makes it impossible for explosives to bring down high-rise buildings...

What makes it impossible for corrupt entities to pull off false-flag attacks...

What makes it impossible for the US to fly commercial size airliners... either by remote or with (hired) suicide pilots....

Please, shed yer ego and remove that red, white and blue war paint from yer face - and tell me specifically why it was impossible for 9/11 to be an inside job.

Not impossible, just:

1. Highly improbable
2. No evidence that would be accepted by anyone with higher than a 3rd grade education

[Architect]

Not impossible, just:
2. No evidence that would be accepted by anyone with higher than a 3rd grade education

Okay, just so I know.....what kinda age are 3rd graders?

[aggle-rithm]

Why does everyone always address my questions with questions, and then accuse me of avoiding their questions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Who wants to know?

[aggle-rithm]

Okay, just so I know.....what kinda age are 3rd graders?

Depends on the third grader. Nine, most of the time. The stupid ones have nine-year-old offspring.

[Architect]

Is that also why they're the least competent sooper sekrit agency in the history of television? I put their civilian bodycount to save ratio at around 20:0, not including the many poor saps killed by that unconvincing CGI goat (that THEY released!) in the last episode...

Exactly! So no one will ever believe Wales is the real base for a secret group.Maybe not the Rhonda, though. Too close to Cardiff. Maybe Mirthyr or no, wait for it....Tredegar!


The CGI finale was absolutely lamentable, wasn't it!

[JimBenArm]

Okay, just so I know.....what kinda age are 3rd graders?

Around 9 years old.

[JonnyFive]

I do this all the time for major corporations, and I'd be happy to give you the requirements, logistically. You just need to give me a couple of details; details which I'm sure you have in the vast LCS (Library of Common Sense).

How many tons of what kind of explosive.
How packed.
Factory Location.
Will the packages be palletized or hand-loaded?
Please provide MSDS - need permits to move explosives over the road.

I can tell you how many truckloads, of what size, number of helpers, size of forklifts, and give you an estimation that is going to range in days(not hours) to get all of the explosives merely delivered to site.

Never mind, I'm on ignore, and besides, you don't have those figures, do you. You're just blowing smoke out your butt.

Here's a simple, common sense question for you. If the Israelis and Americans were going to fly remote controlled aircraft into the towers and pentagon, why would they need all those explosives in addition? Do you have any idea of the payload of a 757 or 767 converted for cargo? How about 175,000 lbs of C4? You think that plus the jet fuel might make a pretty big explosion?

And why bother flying it into a top floor. Approaching with military-like precision(it was the military, right? not the FDA?), they could've flown them into a much lower floor and taken the buildings down in the initial explosion!

28th Kingdom, could you please address these questions? Please prove your theory is at least possible, it is not our job to falsify every crazy thing you say.

[Architect]

Depends on the third grader. Nine, most of the time. The stupid ones have nine-year-old offspring.


Hokey dokey......what we would call Primary 4 or 5 in the UK, then.

[aggle-rithm]

Okay, documented history... the founders of America slaughtered innocent indians and stole their land. Americans have a history of terrorist activity... History shows us that great powers are invariably corrupt and evil. The US is the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the world... 1 + 1 =

So.....the US slauightered natives in the 1800s.....so therefor 9/11 was an inside job. :confused:

Interesting "logic" you have there.

Still waiting on that narrative.....

He's getting to it. Apparently, he's starting from the beginning.

[aggle-rithm]

Hokey dokey......what we would call Primary 4 or 5 in the UK, then.

Oh, think your nine-year-olds are so smart?!?

OURS can play vidya games! ;)

[aggle-rithm]

Speaking of horrible crimes and slaughters....

The Spanish, Germans, French, Arabs, Russians and Aztecs have all done it at some point. In fact I think just about every group of people has.


You know who slaughtered Native Americans before the Europeans got here?

Other Native Americans.

The Europeans just had better weapons, that's all.


So, using 28th logic, I guess everyone teamed up on 9/11 then.

Wow this thing is even bigger than I though....

Don't even ask about the Thetan's involvement...

[Architect]

You know who slaughtered Native Americans before the Europeans got here?

Other Native Americans.

The Europeans just had better weapons, that's all.





Actually, you'll find that we managed to kill of the majority of them with imported diseases, exactly the same as in South and Central America.....

[Hellbound]

You know who slaughtered Native Americans before the Europeans got here?

Other Native Americans.

The Europeans just had better weapons, that's all.

[Luke Skywalker Cloud City Scene Voice]
Noooooo!!!!!

It can't be!!!!

They all picked flowers and got together to have meditation sessions with the fuzzy bears and mountain lions that never ate anyone![/Cheesy Acting]

Yeah, you want to talk about cruelty and war, look at some of the practices that occurred between tribes. But there is the point that to my knowledge every nation is formed, at some point in it's past, on the basis of force. It's a fact of life. Nations, much like Native American tribes, animals, and plants, compete. Nature, red in tooth and claw...

[aggle-rithm]

Dear Worthless Aging Hippie,

Is it possible to have a belief that differs from what the government says is true and not be a crazy person?

In your world... is there any such thing as a credible (non-crazy) whistleblower? And, if so... what are the credentials one must possess in order to qualify as a sane and reliable whistleblower?

Thank you.

His claims need to have some basis in reality. Thanks for asking.

[Mashuna]

Exactly! So no one will ever believe Wales is the real base for a secret group.Maybe not the Rhonda, though. Too close to Cardiff. Maybe Mirthyr or no, wait for it....Tredegar!



Look, stop trying to send them my way.

Well, as long as you keep them in the south, I guess that's ok :D

Or is this a Wales / Virginia link with the place and the corporation?

The CGI finale was absolutely lamentable, wasn't it!

Yes. Yes it was.

[Architect]

Oh, think your nine-year-olds are so smart?!?

OURS can play vidya games! ;)


1. No, we just start school at the age of 4.5 or 5.

2. Ours aren't as fat as yours....yet! (it's kinda going that way).

Just as a snide aside, a couple of months ago were were staying at a posh(ish) hotel in the Highlands when a coachload of late middle aged American tourists arrived. Every single one of them cut up their food at the beginning, like wee kids, then just ate it all with a fork (and the other elbow on the table).

My favourite moment was when an English tourist (I suspect deliberately) very loudly told his 5 or 6 year old son not to do exactly the same thing and to "learn to eat properly". :)

[ArmillarySphere]

I'm still curious where they hire those suicide pilots.

Probably the same place they get those hundred-odd demolitions-trained military guys who are willing to kill a few thousand americans for ... um ... what was the reason again?

[Architect]

Look, stop trying to send them my way.

.


Bora Da from the Sooper Sektrit 28th Legion's Sooper Secret Bedwellty Base!!!

I'm trying to imagine Ilya or James trying to track us down, up the valleys.......

[JonnyFive]

Just as a snide aside, a couple of months ago were were staying at a posh(ish) hotel in the Highlands when a coachland of American tourists arrived. Every single one of them cut up their food at the beginning, like wee kids, then just ate it all with a fork (and the other elbow on the table).

Who the hell does that in the States?

I don't really "get" the whole thing with switching hands with the knife and fork, like it makes a difference. I prefer to just keep the knife in one hand and the fork in the other. Cut and eat, nice and efficient.

Oh wait, I'm going to derail this into another "differences between US and UK" thing, like we did with ChristopherA.

28th Kingdom, could you please provide some evidence that your theory is possible, plausible, or correct without appealing to "magic" or "it just happened" or "the government can do these things somehow"?

[Architect]

Oh wait, I'm going to derail this into another "differences between US and UK" thing, like we did with ChristopherA.



1. You mean "US and Europe"

2. You're right. Lets get back on message.


YOO HOOO, 28th, READY TO RESPOND YET? STILL RUNNING?

[JimBenArm]

1. You mean "US and Europe"

2. You're right. Lets get back on message.


YOO HOOO, 28th, READY TO RESPOND YET? STILL RUNNING?

I'm sorry, but we are but shadows to 28th, and he has no awareness of us. Not that he has much awareness of anything else, for that matter!

[JonnyFive]

1. You mean "US and Europe"

True enough.

YOO HOOO, 28th, READY TO RESPOND YET? STILL RUNNING?

Quoted for 28th Kingdom, because he's got Architect and 90% of everyone else on ignore.

[chipmunk stew]

Is it possible to have a belief that differs from what the government says is true and not be a crazy person?
I should hope so. If this were not possible, we'd all be crazy--the government usually doesn't agree with itself on what is true.
In your world... is there any such thing as a credible (non-crazy) whistleblower? And, if so... what are the credentials one must possess in order to qualify as a sane and reliable whistleblower?
To qualify as a whistleblower at all, this person has to have special inside knowledge of some kind of wrongdoing within an organization. That is, they have to be a first-hand witness to the wrongdoing, not a peripheral player making speculations based on rumors or interpretations of events.

To qualify as sane, the charges must be based in reality and not be the product of unwarranted paranoia.

To qualify as reliable, the charges must be corroborated in some way--by other people willing to talk, by physical/documentary evidence, or preferably by both.

[Mashuna]

Bora Da from the Sooper Sektrit 28th Legion's Sooper Secret Bedwellty Base!!!

I'm trying to imagine Ilya or James trying to track us down, up the valleys.......

Prynhawn da to you :)

Next month I'm due to be doing some work in Snowdonia National Park. If you can get me a shovel, I'll start hollowing out an underground lair.

Or if you've got any spare thermite, I'll use that.

[aggle-rithm]

1. No, we just start school at the age of 4.5 or 5.

2. Ours aren't as fat as yours....yet! (it's kinda going that way).

Just as a snide aside, a couple of months ago were were staying at a posh(ish) hotel in the Highlands when a coachload of late middle aged American tourists arrived. Every single one of them cut up their food at the beginning, like wee kids, then just ate it all with a fork (and the other elbow on the table).

My favourite moment was when an English tourist (I suspect deliberately) very loudly told his 5 or 6 year old son not to do exactly the same thing and to "learn to eat properly". :)

Hey, unfair stereotyping! We don't ALL use forks.

[Hellbound]

Prynhawn da to you :)

Next month I'm due to be doing some work in Snowdonia National Park. If you can get me a shovel, I'll start hollowing out an underground lair.

Or if you've got any spare thermite, I'll use that.

All I've got left is some sideways-cutting thermite, no good for diggin underground.

Once you get the hole, though, maybe you could use it for tunnels?

[JonnyFive]

Speaking of thermite, 28th Kingdom never bothered to provide evidence of a device capable of cutting a large support column with thermite, did he?

[Hellbound]

Speaking of thermite, 28th Kingdom never bothered to provide evidence of a device capable of cutting a large support column with thermite, did he?

Here it is:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/687459e6309b0d9c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3484)

Just fill with thermite, aim, hold lighter into stream, and you're set!

[JonnyFive]

Here it is:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/687459e6309b0d9c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3484)

Just fill with thermite, aim, hold lighter into stream, and you're set!

:D

Ah, the trigger! That's what Silverstein meant by "pull it"!

[Pardalis]

JREFFERS are stupid...

Sounds trollish...

[JonnyFive]

Sounds trollish...

Very. I'm also highly suspicious of the no-quote-feature thing. RemoveBush wasn't really all that fun, just annoying.

[Horatius]

Very. I'm also highly suspicious of the no-quote-feature thing. RemoveBush wasn't really all that fun, just annoying.

Ah, but don't you see, now he's claiming he can't find the quote feature. RB just refused to use it. Completely different!

There's simply no way we could ever see through such subtle subterfuge! TeeHee!

[JimBenArm]

I thought we were supposed to get some new trolls to play with. I was promised trolls. And a pony. And ice cream.

Instead, all I get are some drooling idiots, who constantly soil themselves at the sight of an equation.

Somebody better explain this to me!

[JonnyFive]

Ah, but don't you see, now he's claiming he can't find the quote feature. RB just refused to use it. Completely different!

I thought that natureboy claimed it didn't work. Whatever.

Somebody better explain this to me!

They were arming themselves for a mass invasion, but it was going to take a few days to get their massive evidence ready. I believe some of them were preparing for a January 8th date, but that may have been put off for something more important like worshipping the ground the Loose Change creators walk on or something.

[JimBenArm]

They were arming themselves for a mass invasion, but it was going to take a few days to get their massive evidence ready. I believe some of them were preparing for a January 8th date, but that may have been put off for something more important like worshipping the ground the Loose Change creators walk on or something.

Will they really be able to free their heads from their fundimental orifice in time to get here by then?

Oh, and I can't wait to see their evidence. I'm sure it's so massive! And steaming, too!

[Architect]

Prynhawn da to you :)

Next month I'm due to be doing some work in Snowdonia National Park. If you can get me a shovel, I'll start hollowing out an underground lair.

Or if you've got any spare thermite, I'll use that.


See that's the cunning bit, if we use the Valleys - and I really like the phrase "the Bedwellty Base" - then we can use the old coal mines and get a head start!

Plus the Valleys are so depressed that we'll get a grant for eomploying people!!!

[Pardalis]

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...

Since when the military's field of expertise include controlled demolitions?

[uk_dave]

Since when the military's field of expertise include controlled demolitions?

Bridge over the river kwai comes to mind as a common sense answer.

[Hellbound]

Bridge over the river kwai comes to mind as a common sense answer.

Taking down a bridge is significantly different than CDing a building.

Just wanted to make that point.

ETA: Although that may have been the point you wqere making, on second thought :)

[HeyLeroy]

What somebody may choose to describe as their common sense may lead them to assume that plastic knives can only look like this (http://nblongshine.en.alibaba.com/product/50216677/51180904/plastic_tableware/Plastic_Knife/showimg.html).

In fact, they can also look like this (http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/nfk.htm).

Where does this fit? (http://www.jadeland.com.hk/pic/spork.jpg)

Speaking of thermite, 28th Kingdom never bothered to provide evidence of a device capable of cutting a large support column with thermite, did he?
Sure he did! He posted this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/619745883d59e05a7.jpg

[uk_dave]

Taking down a bridge is significantly different than CDing a building.

Just wanted to make that point.

lol I know I know...... I been hanging around with the woowoos too long, I can imagine the sort of answers they would give....after all, it's just common sense, innit?

[JonnyFive]

Sure he did! He posted this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/619745883d59e05a7.jpg

Of course, how silly of me.

[Mashuna]

See that's the cunning bit, if we use the Valleys - and I really like the phrase "the Bedwellty Base" - then we can use the old coal mines and get a head start!

Plus the Valleys are so depressed that we'll get a grant for eomploying people!!!

That's true - I bet the Valleys are in the European Redevelopment Zone 1 area - it'll be self-funding. Wait, we could make. . .trillions!

All I've got left is some sideways-cutting thermite, no good for diggin underground.

Once you get the hole, though, maybe you could use it for tunnels?

Thanks for the offer, although it seems like we'll be ok now, using the coal mines.

I'll deploy the thermite as an anti-intruder security measure. I'll put it in buckets then balance them on slightly open doors throughout the base. I'll label the doors "Top Sooper Sekrit NWO World Dominations Plans II". But keep it classified.

[Big Les]

Exactly! So no one will ever believe Wales is the real base for a secret group.Maybe not the Rhonda, though. Too close to Cardiff. Maybe Mirthyr or no, wait for it....Tredegar!


The CGI finale was absolutely lamentable, wasn't it!

To be honest the whole programme is a dead loss. The characters are incompetent, selfish, and dysfunctional, the organisation several orders of magnitude less credible than CTU, and the supposed "adult" aspects of the show are behind-the-bike-shed nob gags and faux-edginess. Everything about it is inconsistent and annoying, especially the writing and characterisations, and the production values constantly veer from OK to sub-Blakes 7. The Goat-'O-Doom is the least of its problems.

Apart from that it's quite good. :D I certainly can't stop watching the damn thing. But then I have a serious morbid fascination with utter bollocks. You could probably guess that based on my being here in the first place...

[Architect]

That's true - I bet the Valleys are in the European Redevelopment Zone 1 area - it'll be self-funding. Wait, we could make. . .trillions!


Thanks for the offer, although it seems like we'll be ok now, using the coal mines.

I'll deploy the thermite as an anti-intruder security measure. I'll put it in buckets then balance them on slightly open doors throughout the base. I'll label the doors "Top Sooper Sekrit NWO World Dominations Plans II". But keep it classified.


Should we call our red shirted minions "The Bevan Boys" or something like that? ;)

[Architect]

To be honest the whole programme is a dead loss. The characters are incompetent, selfish, and dysfunctional, the organisation several orders of magnitude less credible than CTU, and the supposed "adult" aspects of the show are behind-the-bike-shed nob gags and faux-edginess. Everything about it is inconsistent and annoying, especially the writing and characterisations, and the production values constantly veer from OK to sub-Blakes 7. The Goat-'O-Doom is the least of its problems.


Say what you think, don't sit on the fence, eh?


The Herald (Scotland's largest selling broadsheet) tv section ran a good analysis pointing out that one of the problems was that, even allowing for normal sci-fi suspension of disbelief, the underlying principles and assumptions just didn't make sense.

For example, if they don't belong or answer to any one government then (a) who set them up, (b) why do the Police and everyone co-operate, and (c) what happens to all the gear they find? There are also too many "neat" solutions; magic amnesia pills being a case in point.

You're also bang on about the "adult" themes, which are clearly just titivation in an attempt to look grown up.

And thon Japanese lassie is about as Japanese as Haggis or Pimms......

[Kage]

When common sense can design and build scyscrapers as big as the WTC, then and only then will I see it as applicable to the failure modes of such buildings.

[uk_dave]

When common sense can design and build scyscrapers as big as the WTC, then and only then will I see it as applicable to the failure modes of such buildings.


Nice one!

just imagine a common sense skyscraper..... 100' x 100' with 6 sq.ft of office space per floor :D

[switchtech]

Hey, unfair stereotyping! We don't ALL use forks.


What's a fork? The only thing required for Ramen noodles is a pair of sticks...

(Note, apparently we're all computer programmers here, based on my read of 28th Kingdom's earlier attempt at an insult - and everyone knows the official and only food for programmers is Ramen noodles).


;)

[switchtech]

Will they really be able to free their heads from their fundimental orifice in time to get here by then?

Oh, and I can't wait to see their evidence. I'm sure it's so massive! And steaming, too!



Oops, sorry, I didn't realize what that was and flushed it. I guess they need to start over.

[28th Kingdom]

28th Kingdom, could you please provide some evidence that your theory is possible, plausible, or correct without appealing to "magic" or "it just happened" or "the government can do these things somehow"?

What magic are you talking about? I just showed you that there doesn't have to be any magic or faith leaping involved in the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief.

I just proved that everything necessary for 9/11 to be an inside job has already happened at some point throughout history. Nothing is crazy or magical or far fetched or off the wall, about a country using a false flag operation as a pretext to invade another country. Nothing is crazy or magical about demolishing a building with explosives. Nothing is crazy or magical about a commercial-size airliner being flown by remote control. Nothing is crazy or magical about the highest ranking officials in the government having the ability to hand down orders and disarm NORAD.

So, the question remains... what is so crazy or magical about 9/11 being an inside job?

See, the problem is that you left-brain radicals like to dig down past the surface of all these essential points... to a place where facts and evidence are but pawns under the ruling of speculation and assumption. We know the big facts... we know that all of these things are possible... but you (skeptics) insist on dragging the debate down into the muck (in an attempt at debunking) of minor details for which the answers can only be derived from speculation.

See, it's the same thing as NIST using something like computer simulations (beyond the physical world) to prove all of their (physical) real-world theories... since they control all of the inputs (facts/variables/evidence) they can get these simulations to generate only the answers that will confirm their original hypothesis.

The same goes when you bring the focus of a debate down into a "virtual" world of convictions (which can be completely formulated/manipulated without the aid of real-world facts/variables/evidence) where you then proceed to "debunk" anything and everything with nothing more than manufactured opinions (based upon your beliefs - which are simply more thoughts and not real-world elements) that support whatever theory you are trying to prove.

You "debunk," the planted explosive theory not with any real physical evidence, but by using warped speculation about how it's, "impossible" to plant explosives without anyone noticing. You fool yourselves into believing that your theories are based out of some kind of fact or scientific laws, when in reality, they are composed purely of thoughts upon thoughts... virtual components (at your complete discretion) stacked upon virtual components (at your complete discretion) used to confirm real-world phenomena and events... just like the NIST computer simulations.

[Brainache]

What magic are you talking about? I just showed you that there doesn't have to be any magic or faith leaping involved in the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief.

I just proved that everything necessary for 9/11 to be an inside job has already happened at some point throughout history. Nothing is crazy or magical or far fetched or off the wall, about a country using a false flag operation as a pretext to invade another country. Nothing is crazy or magical about demolishing a building with explosives. Nothing is crazy or magical about a commercial-size airliner being flown by remote control. Nothing is crazy or magical about the highest ranking officials in the government having the ability to hand down orders and disarm NORAD.

So, the question remains... what is so crazy or magical about 9/11 being an inside job?

See, the problem is that you left-brain radicals like to dig down past the surface of all these essential points... to a place where facts and evidence are but pawns under the ruling of speculation and assumption. We know the big facts... we know that all of these things are possible... but you (skeptics) insist on dragging the debate down into the muck (in an attempt at debunking) of minor details for which the answers can only be derived from speculation.

See, it's the same thing as NIST using something like computer simulations (beyond the physical world) to prove all of their (physical) real-world theories... since they control all of the inputs (facts/variables/evidence) they can get these simulations to generate only the answers that will confirm their original hypothesis.

The same goes when you bring the focus of a debate down into a "virtual" world of convictions (which can be completely formulated/manipulated without the aid of real-world facts/variables/evidence) where you then proceed to "debunk" anything and everything with nothing more than manufactured opinions (based upon your beliefs - which are simply more thoughts and not real-world elements) that support whatever theory you are trying to prove.

You "debunk," the planted explosive theory not with any real physical evidence, but by using warped speculation about how it's, "impossible" to plant explosives without anyone noticing. You fool yourselves into believing that your theories are based out of some kind of fact or scientific laws, when in reality, they are composed purely of thoughts upon thoughts... virtual components (at your complete discretion) stacked upon virtual components (at your complete discretion) used to confirm real-world phenomena and events... just like the NIST computer simulations.

Since Regnad Kcin doesn't seem to be around. I hope he won't mind if I use a phrase of his: Dear CTer, you are 100% wrong.

Just to take up your last paragraph: We debunk the planted explosives theory because there is no evidence for it.

Just how you manage to describe your own thought process so precisely and then ascribe them to others is astounding. You really are a textbook example of projection.

So tell me again how you have proven anything at all. Tell me again about all the facts you have regarding the inside job on 9/11. Tell me again how it is your opponents who are using speculation to deduce nonsense.

[Bell]

What magic are you talking about? I just showed you that there doesn't have to be any magic or faith leaping involved in the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief.

Bolding mine. Believing something doesn't mean it is true. A lot of children believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Ferry.

I just proved that everything necessary for 9/11 to be an inside job has already happened at some point throughout history. Nothing is crazy or magical or far fetched or off the wall, about a country using a false flag operation as a pretext to invade another country. Nothing is crazy or magical about demolishing a building with explosives. Nothing is crazy or magical about a commercial-size airliner being flown by remote control. Nothing is crazy or magical about the highest ranking officials in the government having the ability to hand down orders and disarm NORAD.

How does something that happened in the past, prove an inside job of 9/11? You pooped in your diapers when you where a baby, so you still poop in your pants today.

So, the question remains... what is so crazy or magical about 9/11 being an inside job?

Everything. I want to say, pay attention, but since you have everyone and his cat on ignore, that comment is waisted.

See, the problem is that you left-brain radicals like to dig down past the surface of all these essential points... to a place where facts and evidence are but pawns under the ruling of speculation and assumption. We know the big facts... we know that all of these things are possible... but you (skeptics) insist on dragging the debate down into the muck (in an attempt at debunking) of minor details for which the answers can only be derived from speculation.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

See, it's the same thing as NIST using something like computer simulations (beyond the physical world) to prove all of their (physical) real-world theories... since they control all of the inputs (facts/variables/evidence) they can get these simulations to generate only the answers that will confirm their original hypothesis.

Nobody is stopping you from creating your own computer model.

The same goes when you bring the focus of a debate down into a "virtual" world of convictions (which can be completely formulated/manipulated without the aid of real-world facts/variables/evidence) where you then proceed to "debunk" anything and everything with nothing more than manufactured opinions (based upon your beliefs - which are simply more thoughts and not real-world elements) that support whatever theory you are trying to prove.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

(Didn't I say that allreadfy?)

You "debunk," the planted explosive theory not with any real physical evidence, but by using warped speculation about how it's, "impossible" to plant explosives without anyone noticing. You fool yourselves into believing that your theories are based out of some kind of fact or scientific laws, when in reality, they are composed purely of thoughts upon thoughts... virtual components (at your complete discretion) stacked upon virtual components (at your complete discretion) used to confirm real-world phenomena and events... just like the NIST computer simulations.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Oh hell... 28IQ, give me something I can reply to in another way.

[28th Kingdom]

Brainache... you are now on my ignore list. I am tired of reading posts that add absolutely no value and/or substance to the debate.

90% of the replies I receive are imbued with nothing more than vacuous drivel... that has been regurgitated a thousand times over.

If you wish to engage me in debate... than please write a mindful retort that is relevant to my words.


P.S. Bell you have just been added to my ignore list for your latest display of unoriginality.

[Bell]

Brainache... you are now on my ignore list. I am tired of reading posts that add absolutely no value and/or substance to the debate.

90% of the replies I receive are imbued with nothing more than vacuous drivel... that has been regurgitated a thousand times over.

If you wish to engage me in debate... than please write a mindful retort that is relevant to my words.


P.S. Bell you have just been added to my ignore list for your latest display of unoriginality.

Wow!! Thank you. Ignored for unoriginalty. If I took your standard, I wouldn't have to bother with the deniers anymore.

For someone who wishes to engage in debate, you sure take the coward's way out.

[babazaroni]

See, it's the same thing as NIST using something like computer simulations (beyond the physical world) to prove all of their (physical) real-world theories... since they control all of the inputs (facts/variables/evidence) they can get these simulations to generate only the answers that will confirm their original hypothesis.


The NIST was not the only people doing simulations. Two competing UK universities also did simulations, one with slightly different result showing that just fire alone could have collapsed the buildings.

Any grad student who could have identified any flaws in these studies would have the perfect doctoral thesis. Have there been any? None. Nada.


You "debunk," the planted explosive theory not with any real physical evidence, but by using warped speculation about how it's, "impossible" to plant explosives without anyone noticing. You fool yourselves into believing that your theories are based out of some kind of fact or scientific laws, when in reality, they are composed purely of thoughts upon thoughts... virtual components (at your complete discretion) stacked upon virtual components (at your complete discretion) used to confirm real-world phenomena and events... just like the NIST computer simulations.So how do you debunk the planted explosive theory?

Do you have to assemble an elite team and see if you get caught on a similar building in NYC?

And if you get caught, CT'ers will just say the team was not elite enough because the real team did not get caught.

[28th Kingdom]

So how do you debunk the planted explosive theory?

Do you have to assemble an elite team and see if you get caught on a similar building in NYC?

And if you get caught, CT'ers will just say the team was not elite enough because the real team did not get caught.

Well, when you have classic signs of planted explosives i.e. "squibs" shooting out of the building some 20-30 floors below the collapse point... I'd say that real-world data (you know...stuff that can be observed and measured) like this, makes your job a lot harder.

You know with common sense... we might say - okay, maybe stuff (smoke/dust/debris) shooting out on the floor that is being crushed might be possible... since the air on that floor could be affected by the immediate impact from above... but when you're talking about floors that have not collapsed... floors that have not been touched or affected by the falling upper mass - magically spouting out debris like a steel-boned whale doing a handstand* - well, now we're experiencing the rainbow-colored thaumaturgy that is so ubiquitous in the land of debunkerville.

*Copyright © 2007, 28IQ Productions. All rights reserved. No reprints in signature without expressed written consent from yours truly.

[Brainache]

Brainache... you are now on my ignore list. I am tired of reading posts that add absolutely no value and/or substance to the debate.
Made it at last!
I thought pointing out one or two of your obvious errors might actually be a contribution to the debate, but sadly I was mistaken.


90% of the replies I receive are imbued with nothing more than vacuous drivel... that has been regurgitated a thousand times over.

Umm I think you are projecting again. Projectile Drivelling. Not pretty.


If you wish to engage me in debate... than please write a mindful retort that is relevant to my words.

And when you do you will be ignored for spamming or something.


P.S. Bell you have just been added to my ignore list for your latest display of unoriginality.

Is there anyone left NOT on 28K's ignore list?
And Happy Birthday Bell.

[beachnut]

Well, when you have classic signs of planted explosives i.e. "squibs" shooting out of the building some 20-30 floors below the collapse point... I'd say that real-world data (you know...stuff that can be observed and measured) like this, makes your job a lot harder.

You know with common sense... we might say - okay, maybe stuff (smoke/dust/debris) shooting out on the floor that is being crushed (from above) might be possible... since the air on that floor might be affected by the immediate impact from above... but when you're talking about floors that have not collapsed... floors that have not been touched or affected by the falling upper mass - magically spouting out debris like a steel-boned whale doing a handstand* - well, now we're experiencing the rainbow-colored thaumaturgy that is so ubiquitous in the land of debunkerville.

*Copyright © 2007, 28IQ Productions. All rights reserved. No reprints in signature without expressed written consent from yours truly.

Common sense is the ability to see that the debris coming out the window is accelerating, not an explosive shooting out debris, a pressure increase pushing more and more out the window.

Squib - common sense tells us the squibs are used to splatter blood on actors, not fool idiots and dolts into CT.

[Horatius]

Well, when you have classic signs of planted explosives i.e. "squibs" shooting out of the building some 20-30 floors below the collapse point... I'd say that real-world data (you know...stuff that can be observed and measured) like this, makes your job a lot harder.


And how is a "squib" 20-30 floors below the collapse point proof of CD? In CD, the collapse starts where the explosives go off. Or did you not know that?


You know with common sense... we might say - okay, maybe stuff (smoke/dust/debris) shooting out on the floor that is being crushed (from above) might be possible... since the air on that floor might be affected by the immediate impact from above... but when you're talking about floors that have not collapsed... floors that have not been touched or affected by the falling upper mass - magically spouting out debris like a steel-boned whale doing a handstand* - well, now we're experiencing the rainbow-colored thaumaturgy that is so ubiquitous in the land of debunkerville.


Yes, because common sense doesn't tell us that fluids in a contained volume have the same uniform pressure, regardless of location. Oh wait, yes it does.

Well, then, I guess it's lucky for you there were no elevator shafts connecting the floors together. Oh, wait, there were.

Oh, well, I guess you're wrong again. Not like that's unprecedented.


*Copyright © 2007, 28IQ Productions. All rights reserved. No reprints in signature without expressed written consent from yours truly.

Fair use, as part of a scholarly work. Sue me if you think otherwise.

Not to mention implied consent when you signed onto the forum.

That's assuming you even see this, since I'm on "ignore".

[Horatius]

Made it at last!
I thought pointing out one or two of your obvious errors might actually be a contribution to the debate, but sadly I was mistaken.



No no no, don't you understand? His style of debate only works if you don't point out the obvious errors. Sheesh!

[babazaroni]

Well, when you have classic signs of planted explosives i.e. "squibs" shooting out of the building some 20-30 floors below the collapse point... I'd say that real-world data (you know...stuff that can be observed and measured) like this, makes your job a lot harder.


When you look at real building CD's you see nothing like what was being ejected on the towers.

You only see little wisps as only a very minimum of explosives is used or needed.

The building started to collapse before any material was ejected.

You seem to value your own common sense over demolition experts.

[gumboot]

Well, when you have classic signs of planted explosives i.e. "squibs" shooting out of the building some 20-30 floors below the collapse point... I'd say that real-world data (you know...stuff that can be observed and measured) like this, makes your job a lot harder.


Except for a couple of tiny details:

1) your so-called "squibs" are not "classic signs of planted explosives"
2) while the collapse front for the exterior of the building can be determined from videos we have no way of determining what is happening INSIDE the building, and it is what is happening inside that is influencing the "squibs".

-Gumboot

[Skibum]

Miles of ductwork that all lead back to mechanical floors, being crushed in rapid succession would IMO be what caused the "squibs".

[LashL]

Fair use, as part of a scholarly work. Sue me if you think otherwise.


Heck, never mind scholarly work (I'm doubtful that anything 28th writes could legitimately be part of a scholarly work anyway) but "research" is another exemption, easily utilized. My exemption of choice in this case, though, is satire, which in my view is the best exemption ever, ever.

And there is no question that quoting 28th in a sig line, or anywhere else for that matter, definitely qualifies as satire*.

*see my sig line :D

[firecoins]

wow this thread grew quickly.

[Myriad]

Well, when you have classic signs of planted explosives i.e. "squibs" shooting out of the building some 20-30 floors below the collapse point... I'd say that real-world data (you know...stuff that can be observed and measured) like this, makes your job a lot harder.

You know with common sense... we might say - okay, maybe stuff (smoke/dust/debris) shooting out on the floor that is being crushed might be possible... since the air on that floor could be affected by the immediate impact from above... but when you're talking about floors that have not collapsed... floors that have not been touched or affected by the falling upper mass - magically spouting out debris like a steel-boned whale doing a handstand* - well, now we're experiencing the rainbow-colored thaumaturgy that is so ubiquitous in the land of debunkerville.

28th Kingdom, you're wrong about the explosives. Thats why you can't convince anyone. Explosives don't fit the facts. As long as you overlook the evidence that the towers were brought down by implosives, you'll never see the real truth. Explosives push. Implosives pull. Do you see what I'm getting at?

At last report, implosives were being developed by the Soviets at a facility in Minsk around the mid 1980s. According to documents recovered from the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, the project was supposed to have been abandoned by 1988. But perhaps it was instead merely handed off to others?

The most powerful type of implosive is the G/S or Gas-to-Solid type, but those have proven tricky to manufacture in more than minute qualities, so most field demonstrations so far have been of the less powerful but more stable G/L or Gas-to-Liquid types. The action of a G/L implosive can be seen as analogous to the detonation of a liquid explosive, in reverse. The implosive is deployed in gaseous form contained within a balloon-like plastic envelope ranging from one to several thousand cubic meters in volume, depending on the application. To facilitate the reaction, the inner surface of the plastic envelope has an invisibly thin coating of the necessary catalyst, whose composition (like that of the gas) is of course top secret. When the implosive is triggered, the catalyst causes the gas in the bag to turn into a liquid, reducing its volume by several thousandfold. This causes the bag to shrink to a tiny fraction of its former volume. This change in volume is extremely rapid. In fact, for so-called "high implosives" the collapse is faster than the speed of sound, a true "tonation" (the opposite of a detonation).

Obviously, the effect of an implosive is the reverse of that of an explosive. Instead of a pressure wave blasting outward, the implosive creates a vacuum or, more precisely, a rarefaction wave which causes all nearby materials to rush inward toward the center of the volume formerly occupied by the implosive gas. In a test in 1988, the tonation of a G/L implosive inside the fuselage of a decomissioned Antonov An-124 Ruslan (on the ground) caused the fuselage to crush lengthwise in a series of accordian-like folds. The collapse was complete in 0.23 seconds and left the enormous aircraft shortened to less than 12 meters from nose to tail.

There's a lot more information about implosives at my Web site here: http://www.darknology.com/implosives/index.htm. Recently I've uncovered evidence that a more advanced G/L implosive that requires no gas bags was used for 9-11. How were the massive amounts of implosive installed in the towers without anyone noticing? Simple -- a coat of "paint" inside the elevator shafts and in other locations that could lie in wait unnoticed for up to several weeks, the elevator shafts themselves flooded with the implosive gas maybe a few minutes before the demolitions, and apparently, evacuated lower floors similarly flooded literally at the last minute. Possibly even at the last second -- those "squibs" you talk about are probably a side effect of rapid implosive release, forcing the air out of those floors. "Why weren't there flashes and sharp explosions as we usually see in CD?" Answer: because it was implosive tonations, not explosive detonations. There is no flash (implosives actually absorb light as they tonate, causing momentary "flashes of darkness" which might show up on some of the videos if you look carefully for them) and the loud "MOOB!" sound they make is one that few people had ever heard before.

The main problem with large implosive tonations is the timing, which is what went wrong at the towers. That's right, it went wrong. "If it was CD then how did the detonators and fuses survive the impacts and fires?" Answer: they didn't, not all of them, and that's why the towers collapsed in such a messy way instead of being "pulled" by the implosive vacuum into neat twin cubes as they were supposed to be. However, the implosives were effective enough to cause a collapse faster than freefall, which only implosives could do. Most likely they delayed "pulling" WTC7 because the tower implosives had misfired so badly, but in the end they had no choice because otherwise it would have left too much evidence behind.

I have to warn you, though. As long as you keep chasing mistaken ideas about thermite and explosives, just as they want you to do, you're safe. You're no threat to anyone, because you won't ever find evidence of explosives or thermite, because they weren't used! But if you start recognizing the real truth, then you'll need to start being more careful. First of all, don't act as if you believe me! Unless you're willing to take on considerable risk, your wisest course is to reply in this thread as if you think this post is a joke or a satire, while spreading the word as best you can in locations that are more private or more secure.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Gravy]

In honor of Bell's birthday, I'm listening to a playlist of songs with "bell" or "bells" in the title (I didn't include belle, because that would make the list very long)

Carol of The Bells.....Empire Brass Quintet
Jingle Bells.....Woody Phillips
Jingle Bell Rock.....The Ventures
Silver Bells.....Johnny Mathis
Bells of St. Mary's.....John Fahey
I Hear Jingle Bells.....Freddy King
The Bells.....The Originals
One Less Bell To Answer.....The 5th Dimension
Answering Bell.....Ryan Adams
Deep Red Bells.....Neko Case
Wedding Bell Blues.....Laura Nyro
Bell Bottom Blues.....Derek & The Dominos
The Bells Of Rhymney.....The Byrds
Ring Them Bells.....Bob Dylan
Hell's Bells.....AC/DC
Monk with Bell.....Michael Stearns
Liberty Bell March (1902).....Sousa's Band
When Do The Bells Ring For Me?.....Tony Bennett
If I Were a Bell.....Dinah Washington
Bell Boy Blues.....Buck Clayton/Trummy Young/Willie Smith/Flip Phillips
Bells.....Albert Ayler
Bell Bird Serenade.....Pixie Williams w/Jimmy Carter's Hawaiians
Hawaiian Bells.....Marty Robbins
Ring My Bell.....Anita Ward
Where They Ring That Bell.....Starline Rhythm Boys
Wedding Bells.....John Prine with Lucinda Williams
Acony Bell.....Gillian Welch
The Three Bells.....The Browns
Church Bells Blues.....Luke Jordan
Serenade Of The Bells.....Sammy Kaye
Tubular Bells.....Mike Oldfield
Mission Bell.....Donnie Brooks
The Church Bells May Ring.....Diamonds
Whispering Bells.....Dell-Vikings
The Bell Boys (1920).....Golden & Hughes
I'll Be There with Bells On (1909).....Frank Stanley & Elise Stevenson
When the Bell in the Lighthouse Rings (1905).....Frank C. Stanley
The Tale the Church Bell Tolled (1907).....Frank C. Stanley
No Wedding Bells For Me (1907).....Bob Roberts

Happy birthday, Bell!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And I'll add a site for a very good friend of mine who plays bells
http://www.thegoldendance.com/ and the group she also participates in http://www.sonos.org/

[Pardalis]

I just proved that everything necessary for 9/11 to be an inside job has already happened at some point throughout history.

Really?

Have three simultaneous covert controlled demolition on working office buildings (two of which are the biggest in the world) ever been performed in history?

Nothing is crazy or magical about demolishing a building with explosives.

How did they plant these explosives in three working office buildings without anyone noticing it?

Nothing is crazy or magical about a commercial-size airliner being flown by remote control.

How about four, simultaneously?

Nothing is crazy or magical about the highest ranking officials in the government having the ability to hand down orders and disarm NORAD.

no proof.

So, the question remains... what is so crazy or magical about 9/11 being an inside job?

Everything you've said about it so far.

See, the problem is that you left-brain radicals like to dig down past the surface of all these essential points...

Will you stop it with that left-brain nonsense?

to a place where facts and evidence are but pawns under the ruling of speculation and assumption.

What the F* are you babbling about?

FACTS and EVIDENCE are the only things that we can base any assumption upon.

We know the big facts...

Oh, the Big facts? Excuse me...

we know that all of these things are possible... but you (skeptics) insist on dragging the debate down into the muck (in an attempt at debunking) of minor details for which the answers can only be derived from speculation.

BS

See, it's the same thing as NIST using something like computer simulations (beyond the physical world) to prove all of their (physical) real-world theories... since they control all of the inputs (facts/variables/evidence) they can get these simulations to generate only the answers that will confirm their original hypothesis.

Incoherent drivel.

You "debunk," the planted explosive theory not with any real physical evidence, but by using warped speculation about how it's, "impossible" to plant explosives without anyone noticing.

Then show me how it could be possible, in the real world.

[Kage]

When you hear hoofbeats, does common sense make you think horses or zeebras?

When you see jets of low temp gas and dust, does common sense say pressure change or cutter charges (which you call squibs -- why a conspiracy would use special effect charges is beyond me, unless John Wo did the choreography).

Common sense cannot design a spacecraft, and it cannot guide that spaceship while in orbit.

Common sense cannot design an airplane, why can it be used to determine its capacity to deal damage to soil or concrete?

Common sense cannot build a skyscrapper, how can it be used to model its collapse?

Stop using common sense in these cases where it doesn't apply.

[Dog Town]

When you hear hoofbeats, does common sense make you think horses or zeebras?



Having rounded horses, as a lad that is easy! To be honest... having worked on enough soundstages, I always think of coconuts!

[Mashuna]

The Herald (Scotland's largest selling broadsheet) tv section ran a good analysis pointing out that one of the problems was that, even allowing for normal sci-fi suspension of disbelief, the underlying principles and assumptions just didn't make sense.



This is absolutely true (although I did watch the whole series). I don't believe the people who wrote the script for Torchwood realise this. It wasn't Russell T Davies after all, it was all ghostwritten. I think I've found the writer responsible. . .


I just proved that everything necessary for 9/11 to be an inside job has already happened at some point throughout history. Nothing is crazy or magical or far fetched or off the wall, about a country using a false flag operation as a pretext to invade another country. Nothing is crazy or magical about demolishing a building with explosives. Nothing is crazy or magical about a commercial-size airliner being flown by remote control. Nothing is crazy or magical about the highest ranking officials in the government having the ability to hand down orders and disarm NORAD.

[uk_dave]

You mean, 28K came out of the rift?

Now that makes sense

[gumboot]

I just proved that everything necessary for 9/11 to be an inside job has already happened at some point throughout history. Nothing is crazy or magical or far fetched or off the wall, about a country using a false flag operation as a pretext to invade another country. Nothing is crazy or magical about demolishing a building with explosives. Nothing is crazy or magical about a commercial-size airliner being flown by remote control. Nothing is crazy or magical about the highest ranking officials in the government having the ability to hand down orders and disarm NORAD.

So, the question remains... what is so crazy or magical about 9/11 being an inside job?


The thing you don't seem to understand is that something being "possible" or even "plausible" does not mean it DID happen in a given specific incident.

If we just take the NORAD example...

Sure, it's possible that government officials can order a stand-down of some kind of military forces to prevent their intervention in events. I don't think anyone would claim that would require magic or any kind.

But there's something you are utterly failing to understand.

THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN ON 9/11. We KNOW it didn't happen. We have the EVIDENCE to demonstrate it did not happen. So whether it COULD happen is actually irrelevant.

We're not interested in "could have" or "did once" or "might do". We're interested in "Did do on 9/11". And on that count you have absolutely nothing whatsoever.

-Gumboot

[Mashuna]

You mean, 28K came out of the rift?

Now that makes sense

He ain't evil, just came through like a weevil.

[Bell]

And Happy Birthday Bell.

Thanks Brainache.

See, 28IQ couldn't even give me that courtesy before he put me on ignore :(

[Bell]

In honor of Bell's birthday, I'm listening to a playlist of songs with "bell" or "bells" in the title (I didn't include belle, because that would make the list very long)

Carol of The Bells.....Empire Brass Quintet
Jingle Bells.....Woody Phillips
Jingle Bell Rock.....The Ventures
Silver Bells.....Johnny Mathis
Bells of St. Mary's.....John Fahey
I Hear Jingle Bells.....Freddy King
The Bells.....The Originals
One Less Bell To Answer.....The 5th Dimension
Answering Bell.....Ryan Adams
Deep Red Bells.....Neko Case
Wedding Bell Blues.....Laura Nyro
Bell Bottom Blues.....Derek & The Dominos
The Bells Of Rhymney.....The Byrds
Ring Them Bells.....Bob Dylan
Hell's Bells.....AC/DC
Monk with Bell.....Michael Stearns
Liberty Bell March (1902).....Sousa's Band
When Do The Bells Ring For Me?.....Tony Bennett
If I Were a Bell.....Dinah Washington
Bell Boy Blues.....Buck Clayton/Trummy Young/Willie Smith/Flip Phillips
Bells.....Albert Ayler
Bell Bird Serenade.....Pixie Williams w/Jimmy Carter's Hawaiians
Hawaiian Bells.....Marty Robbins
Ring My Bell.....Anita Ward
Where They Ring That Bell.....Starline Rhythm Boys
Wedding Bells.....John Prine with Lucinda Williams
Acony Bell.....Gillian Welch
The Three Bells.....The Browns
Church Bells Blues.....Luke Jordan
Serenade Of The Bells.....Sammy Kaye
Tubular Bells.....Mike Oldfield
Mission Bell.....Donnie Brooks
The Church Bells May Ring.....Diamonds
Whispering Bells.....Dell-Vikings
The Bell Boys (1920).....Golden & Hughes
I'll Be There with Bells On (1909).....Frank Stanley & Elise Stevenson
When the Bell in the Lighthouse Rings (1905).....Frank C. Stanley
The Tale the Church Bell Tolled (1907).....Frank C. Stanley
No Wedding Bells For Me (1907).....Bob Roberts

Happy birthday, Bell!

:blush:

Thanks Gravy, that's quite a list to listen too.
I guess 28IQ has you on ignore now too, for posting that list ;)

[MG1962]

Can I ask a CD question here - sorry if the answer is obvious. But the outer facade carried quite a bit of load on the buildling - in fact it was a design feature.

Now traditional cutting charges would have had to be placed on the outside of the building to break the facade.........yes?

If so - the lack of a ring of external explosions would be an indicator of no controlled demolition?

[Regnad Kcin]

What magic are you talking about? I just showed you that there doesn't have to be any magic or faith leaping involved in the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief.

I just proved that everything necessary for 9/11 to be an inside job has already happened at some point throughout history. Nothing is crazy or magical or far fetched or off the wall, about a country using a false flag operation as a pretext to invade another country. Nothing is crazy or magical about demolishing a building with explosives. Nothing is crazy or magical about a commercial-size airliner being flown by remote control. Nothing is crazy or magical about the highest ranking officials in the government having the ability to hand down orders and disarm NORAD.

So, the question remains... what is so crazy or magical about 9/11 being an inside job?

See, the problem is that you left-brain radicals like to dig down past the surface of all these essential points... to a place where facts and evidence are but pawns under the ruling of speculation and assumption. We know the big facts... we know that all of these things are possible... but you (skeptics) insist on dragging the debate down into the muck (in an attempt at debunking) of minor details for which the answers can only be derived from speculation.

See, it's the same thing as NIST using something like computer simulations (beyond the physical world) to prove all of their (physical) real-world theories... since they control all of the inputs (facts/variables/evidence) they can get these simulations to generate only the answers that will confirm their original hypothesis.

The same goes when you bring the focus of a debate down into a "virtual" world of convictions (which can be completely formulated/manipulated without the aid of real-world facts/variables/evidence) where you then proceed to "debunk" anything and everything with nothing more than manufactured opinions (based upon your beliefs - which are simply more thoughts and not real-world elements) that support whatever theory you are trying to prove.

You "debunk," the planted explosive theory not with any real physical evidence, but by using warped speculation about how it's, "impossible" to plant explosives without anyone noticing. You fool yourselves into believing that your theories are based out of some kind of fact or scientific laws, when in reality, they are composed purely of thoughts upon thoughts... virtual components (at your complete discretion) stacked upon virtual components (at your complete discretion) used to confirm real-world phenomena and events... just like the NIST computer simulations.Wowsers.

Does it hurt to hold dear to such fallacious reasoning? Do you use linament?

[stateofgrace]

Happy birthday Bell and very well done for making the list.

Double celebration.

[Horatius]

And there is no question that quoting 28th in a sig line, or anywhere else for that matter, definitely qualifies as satire*.

*see my sig line :D

Excellent! I didn't want to have to give up my other quote. Nice to see this one not go to waste!

[Regnad Kcin]

Wow!! Thank you. Ignored for unoriginalty. If I took your standard, I wouldn't have to bother with the deniers anymore.

For someone who wishes to engage in debate, you sure take the coward's way out.Is 28 trying to be a clown? Doesn't he know that no one likes clowns?

Happy birthday to you.

[Architect]

Gelukkige verjaardag!

or alternatively

Joyeux Anniversaire !


(hell, in one wee corner of your country I suppose it's even Glücklicher Geburtstag!)

I speak absolutely no Frisian, so forget it if you're from the islands....

[Horatius]

Can I ask a CD question here - sorry if the answer is obvious. But the outer facade carried quite a bit of load on the buildling - in fact it was a design feature.

Now traditional cutting charges would have had to be placed on the outside of the building to break the facade.........yes?

If so - the lack of a ring of external explosions would be an indicator of no controlled demolition?

Yes, that's prbably right. Take a look at CD videos of buildings, and even ones significantly smaller than the WTC towers show a lot more, more obvious, and louder, explosions than anything seen on 9/11. Even if these "squibs" were explosives, they still wouldn't be enough to produce a collapse.

6yK9XLRb1u8

[Bell]

Thank you, guys :) And indeed, SoG, I couldn't have asked for a better birthday present.

[MG1962]

Yes, that's prbably right. Take a look at CD videos of buildings, and even ones significantly smaller than the WTC towers show a lot more, more obvious, and louder, explosions than anything seen on 9/11. Even if these "squibs" were explosives, they still wouldn't be enough to produce a collapse.


Thanks I am looking for the clincher against CD - see most buildings. You cut the external frame from the inside, so you avoid having to spend time removing facade work. With the towers though. The facade 'is' the support system. So it has to be exploded. Only this time (By my thinking) You can't access the facade from the inside

[Big Les]

Couldn't you still CD the towers by taking out the core and/or some floor trusses though? Damn, I hate playing devil's advocate.

[Kage]

Couldn't you still CD the towers by taking out the core and/or some floor trusses though? Damn, I hate playing devil's advocate.

I'm not an expert at CD, but I would think that you would have to demolish the structure much lower than the actual collapse started, unless you figure out how to make explosives that don't burn up in a huge jet fuel fire.

[Architect]

Couldn't you still CD the towers by taking out the core and/or some floor trusses though? Damn, I hate playing devil's advocate.


It's an interesting proposition. Remember my girder analogy; the loss of intermediate structural elements could have what would appear (to a layperson) to have a dispropportionately adverse impact on the integrity of the whole.

Given that the floor transfers the loads from the outer structural envelope to the inner core, there's probably an argument that if you took out the floor connections then you could destabilise the structure.

The problems with this are fairly obvious, however; the facade might deflect externally, instead of internally, which would be a bit of a giveaway. Also looking at the floor build-up, with the 100mm in-situ concrete deck, it would be extremely difficult to reach the connections in order to place explosives.

Also we wouldn't see the "squibs" claimed by the CTers, because the force would be directed inwards.

The nail in the coffin for me would be ensuring that such a subtle CD system would produce the grand, catastrophic (and above all secret) failure that would be intended.

The problem with the core columns is sheer size; you'd be talking major explosions to take them out, together with all the cross-bracing and the like.

[MG1962]

The problem with the core columns is sheer size; you'd be talking major explosions to take them out, together with all the cross-bracing and the like.

Look one more outbust of practicality like that and I am sure the mods will warn, perhaps even ban you:cool:

[EvilBiker]

Gelukkige verjaardag!

or alternatively

Joyeux Anniversaire !


(hell, in one wee corner of your country I suppose it's even Glücklicher Geburtstag!)

I speak absolutely no Frisian, so forget it if you're from the islands....

What freaks me out is that I understand all three (besides Fresian), but cannot decipher CTspeak. Maybe it's just that you cannot put into words the
picture of somebody talking earnestly past you while looking intently at your left ear. (With apologies to Terry).

[LashL]

Am I the only person left who is not on 28th's ignore list?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1110345a013a123335.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3506)

[Firestone]

Am I the only person left who is not on 28th's ignore list?No, you are not the only one. :(

[ConspiRaider]

Am I the only person left who is not on 28th's ignore list?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1110345a013a123335.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3506)
Nein, es ist nicht so.

Mein Herr 28IQ refusen zu putten mein butten in die Ignoren Listeinen Auf Alle Zuhr.

Mein Gott, Mann! Bitte, Herr 28IQ, PUTTEN MICH IN!

[Architect]

We could do what we did to RemoveBush and start posting on foreign languages............Welsh weather forecasts last time, but I'm sure we could think up something new if we wanted!

[LashL]

Ah, nice to see I have some company. You are all welcome to use the badge that Oliver made for me :D

[Architect]

But Lash, why ain't you using it as well?

[ConspiRaider]

We could do what we did to RemoveBush and start posting on foreign languages............Welsh weather forecasts last time, but I'm sure we could think up something new if we wanted!
JA! Das is zehr gut! (I don't know German worth a damn since I only had two years of it in high school 30 years ago - but how would 28IQ know?).

Sciencen hast discoveren dinosauren - will Essen volks mit kleinen IQ!!! Bitte, 28IQ!!! Gehen sie aus, schnell! Dinosauren kommen fur du!

[Architect]

Codi'n brafiach ar ôl i'r glaw glirio.

Dechrau'n gymylog ac yn lawog. Y glaw yn clirio i'r dwyrain. Ambell gawod yn parhau yn yr ardaloedd gorllewinol.

Codi'n weddol braf dros ran fwyaf o'r wlad ar gyfer y prynhawn. Ambell gawod yn yr ardaloedd gorllewinol.

Yn ystod y nos heno bydd mwy o law yn cyrraedd o'r gorllewin. Y gwynt o'r de-orllewin yn cryfhau.



I think it means its gonna rain, but I'm just guessing on account of that's what it always does in Wales.....

[ConspiRaider]

Codi'n brafiach ar ôl i'r glaw glirio.

Dechrau'n gymylog ac yn lawog. Y glaw yn clirio i'r dwyrain. Ambell gawod yn parhau yn yr ardaloedd gorllewinol.

Codi'n weddol braf dros ran fwyaf o'r wlad ar gyfer y prynhawn. Ambell gawod yn yr ardaloedd gorllewinol.

Yn ystod y nos heno bydd mwy o law yn cyrraedd o'r gorllewin. Y gwynt o'r de-orllewin yn cryfhau.



I think it means its gonna rain, but I'm just guessing on account of that's what it always does in Wales.....
Wasser auf Skyen!!! Ach! Das ist schlect!

Meanweilen eine Grosse dinosauren stalken eine kleine noggen 28IQ!!! Gehen Sie aus!!! Schnell! Oder, wir will laughen iffen dinosauren Essen 28IQ!!!

[Firestone]

Wasser auf Skyen!!! Ach! Das ist schlect!

Meanweilen eine Grosse dinosauren stalken eine kleine noggen 28IQ!!! Gehen Sie aus!!! Schnell! Oder, wir will laughen iffen dinosauren Essen 28IQ!!!Jouw Duits is echt ondermaats ! ;)

En het zal toch niet helpen tegen 28ste Koninkrijk. Telkens hij in een draad op zijn bek gaat (en dat gebeurt in elke draad waar hij verschijnt) vlucht hij naar een andere draad en post dezelfde zever. Een hopeloos geval!

[Architect]

Yn it begin fan 'e jierren, da't de wereld nach so helendal nee wie, en de dieren nach maar krekt begoon wiene om feur de Minsk to werkjen, wie d'r in Kemeel; en dy leve mids yn in Wiinigen Woestijn - om't er net werkje wúe.





(Frisian)

[Brainache]

Och Its a braw bricht moonlicht nicht tonicht.

[Architect]

Och Its a braw bricht moonlicht nicht tonicht.


Away havers, ye cheeky sassenach tumshie....dinnae ye mak' fun o' Scots when ahm aroon, or there'll be a wheen o' trouble. :mad:

[ConspiRaider]

Yn it begin fan 'e jierren, da't de wereld nach so helendal nee wie, en de dieren nach maar krekt begoon wiene om feur de Minsk to werkjen, wie d'r in Kemeel; en dy leve mids yn in Wiinigen Woestijn - om't er net werkje wúe.
(Frisian)
Ja! Ich will talken mit hausfraus in Minsk in jahre 2007. Zehr schon! Minsk hausfrau liken Amerikaner manns, nein?

28IQ!!! Behinden Sie!!! Dinosauren!!! Essen zu!!! Gehen Sie!!!

[Architect]

Nein, vas nicht der dinosauren. Der problem vas der grosses yeti im der garden und Nessie!! Das Drube!

[ConspiRaider]

Nein, vas nicht der dinosauren. Der problem vas der grosses yeti im der garden und Nessie!! Das Drube!
Nein?!? Ich, liken, YEIKSEN!!!

Iffen eine Grosse dinosauren teamen mit Das zehr Grosse Yeti und die hugen Nessie auf Wasser Lochen: WIR HABEN NICHT CHANCEN!!!

[defaultdotxbe]

Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.

[Architect]

Nein?!? Ich, liken, YEIKSEN!!!

Iffen eine Grosse dinosauren teamen mit Das zehr Grosse Yeti und die hugen Nessie auf Wasser Lochen: WIR HABEN NICHT CHANCEN!!!


Ja, ja....aber is nicht ein panicky problem. Ich vill eine kicking give!


Schnell, Schnell! Kartoffen, Kartoffen!

[Mince]

So flying a two seater and flying a commercial airliner...hey, pretty much the same thing right? I mean if a kid can drive a go-cart than surely they can drive an 18-wheeler.

Surely the Pentagon i.e. the headquarters for the world's most elite military defense is a sitting duck and incapable of defending itself without, what - about a three hour heads up? Surely, they knew that a plane was heading straight for them... surely at this point they knew that other planes had already been hijacked....surely they were just poor sitting ducks...surely, I would get banned if I really told you how low my opinion is of you, and so I will just add you to my ignore list.

Surely... you are one hopeless individual.



Hey, you just provided the definitive illustrative example to what the OP was describing. Thanks.



**emphasis added


I think the most notorious example of the OP's thesis would be that, of course, the Sun and other planets revolve around the Earth. I mean, just look at the night sky (with appropriate magnification, of course). See how those celestial bodies are revolving around us? It's common sense. To suggest that we revolve around the Sun defies the laws of physics. Just ask Copernicus.

[A W Smith]

shirley you jest

[maccy]

Como a ufologia, a idéia de que o mundo contemporâneo é controlado por organizações conspiratórias vastas e secretas, é uma que é primariamente difundida por grupos e indivíduos obscuros através de jornais caseiros duplicados ou impressos de forma barata. A um outsider as idéias avançadas como conspiração parecem realmente estranhas. Para considerar alguns exemplos:

Gary Allen, o comentarista chefe da sociedade John Birch, acredita que a URSS é secretamente controlada pela família Rockefeller [1];
Carl Oglesby, ex-presidente do novo grupo de esquerda americano Estudantes para uma Sociedade Democrática, afirma que os assassinatos políticos dos anos sessenta e a crise de Watergate fizeram parte de uma luta gigantesca pelo controle do E.U.A. entre os banqueiros de Nova Iorque e os petroleiros do Texas [2];
Nesta H. Webster, a escritora dos anos 20 que originou muito das teorias de conspiração modernas, alegou que movimentos revolucionários modernos são manipulados por uma conspiração oculta de séculos de idade que se origina com os medievais Cavaleiros Templários e a Ordem dos Assassinos [3];
Walter Bowart, um jornalista americano, acredita que a CIA controla os E.U.A. por meio de um exército secreto de agentes zumbi que foram submetidos operações de controle da mente [4];
O autor anônimo de The Gemstone File, uma alegada história secreta da América moderna distribuída por livrarias underground aqui e nos E.U.A., alega que a guerra de Vietnã foi lutada para preservar o monopólio do mercado mundial de heroína por Aristóteles Onassis [5].
Claramente, as idéias dos teoristas de conspiração mantêm pouca relação com as idéias geralmente aceitas de eventos mundiais. Algumas delas parecem tão absurdas a ponto de lançar dúvida sobre a sanidade de seus defensores. Porém, a tradição conspiracionista não é simplesmente o produto de paranóides isolados, mas tem uma longa história política.

[Pardalis]

Quossé?

[ConspiRaider]

Ja, ja....aber is nicht ein panicky problem. Ich vill eine kicking give!

Schnell, Schnell! Kartoffen, Kartoffen!
Gut gut gut! Ich verstehe. Frightenen nichts.

Und Ich plannen zu utilizen 28IQ auf cannen fodderen fur Der Monsterlichs...

[Architect]

Und Ich plannen zu utilizen 28IQ auf cannen fodderen fur Der Monsterlichs...


Ja, dast ist eine pure magic ideazehen. Ist nicht possible fur das ignoren!

[Architect]

Como a ufologia, a idéia de que o mundo contemporâneo é controlado por organizações conspiratórias vastas e secretas, é uma que é primariamente difundida por grupos e indivíduos obscuros através de jornais caseiros duplicados ou impressos de forma barata. A um outsider as idéias avançadas como conspiração parecem realmente estranhas. Para considerar alguns exemplos

Jah! Jah!

Derom iet er stykels en doorns en tamarisken en mulke-krieuwd en cactussen - feschrikkelik leu. En atter ien wat tjin him sei, dan seid er "Boh!" en eeuwrs niks.

Dà koom it Hynjer by him op in mondei-mône, mooi in sadel op 'e rech en de byting yn 'e bek en sei:"Kemeel tach, Kemeel kom mooi, en draaf so as wy ôlegerre dogge!"

"Boh" sei de Kemeel. En it Hynjer ging fut en fetôlde it oon de Minsk.


Dà ging de Hieuwn nooi him to mooi in stook yn 'e bek, en sei: "Kemeel tach, Kemeel, hilp tach mooi om wat to dragen en wat op to heljen, krekt so as al de eeuwre dogge!"

"Boh" sei de Kemeel. En de hieuwn ging fut en fetôlde it oon de Minsk.

Dà ging de Okse nooi him to mooi in jok op syn nôke, en sei: "Kemeel tach, Kemeel, kom mooi en hilp ús by it plúegjen, krekt so as al de eeuwre dogge!"

"Boh!" sei de Kemeel. En de Okse ging fut en fetôlde it oon de Minsk.

Oon it ieuwn fan de dei rupte de Minsk it Hynjer en de Hieuwn en de Okse byineeuwr en sei:

"Jimme Trooi, o Jimme Trooi - it meut my om jimme, maar dat "Boh"-Ding yn 'e Woestijn kin gin werk dwaan; derom sil ik him maar gewezze liete. En jimme motte dúbbeld so hes werkje om de schai yn to heljen".

Dà wezzen da Trooi slim kwaid en ja heeuwden in fegadering oon 'e saim fan 'e Woestijn.

28th - En de Kemeel koom aik en keeuwe heel leu op wat mulke-krieuwd en lake har út.

[Brainache]

Away havers, ye cheeky sassenach tumshie....dinnae ye mak' fun o' Scots when ahm aroon, or there'll be a wheen o' trouble. :mad:

Weel me mam bein a Gifford and me havin a kilt makes it OK I rekon.(The kilt used to belong to a Major in the Gordon Highlanders name of Bruce. He was a Laird or something)

[Architect]

Weel me mam bein a Gifford and me havin a kilt makes it OK I rekon.(The kilt used to belong to a Major in the Gordon Highlanders name of Bruce. He was a Laird or something)



I think you mean:

Weel, me maw bein' a Gifford and whit wi me hae'in a kilt it mak's it ok I reckon (ra kilt used tae belong tae a sodger in the Gordon Highlanders ca'd Bruce....he wiz a laird or somesuch).



;)

[Brainache]

I think you mean:

Weel, me maw bein' a Gifford and whit we me hae'in a kilt it mak's it ok I reckon (ra kilt used tae belong tae a sodger in the Gordon Highlanders ca'd Bruce....he wiz a laird or somesuch).



;)

OK, sorry(Righto, ya galah). The Giffords got here('Straya) about 150 years(yonks) ago so maybe my Scottish is a bit rusty(All I know is every Xmas we have to listen to Andy Stewart singing about some dead soldier).

[Bell]

Jouw Duits is echt ondermaats ! ;)

En het zal toch niet helpen tegen 28ste Koninkrijk. Telkens hij in een draad op zijn bek gaat (en dat gebeurt in elke draad waar hij verschijnt) vlucht hij naar een andere draad en post dezelfde zever. Een hopeloos geval!

Tjongejonge. Het is duidelijk dat je jouw rechter hersenhelft gebruikt. Of was het linker? In ieder geval, de verkeerde. Het Achtentwintigste Koninkrijk gebruikt de juiste helft... met nadruk op helft. Hij is een soort Lambik, maar dan zonder het intellect.

[Regnad Kcin]

...The problem with the core columns is sheer size; you'd be talking major explosions to take them out, together with all the cross-bracing and the like.It's been mentioned before, and bears repeating every now and then: each of the Twin Towers was astoundingly large (from a human perspective, of course). Those advocating some sort of short term "power down" in order for a few evil henchmen to go about their work installing explosives are delusional.

Of course one could get around this by suggesting the buildings were erected with explosive componentry already in place, so that the towers could be destroyed at some future date. But no one is that crazy.

[Bell]

It's been mentioned before, and bears repeating every now and then: each of the Twin Towers was astoundingly large (from a human perspective, of course). Those advocating some sort of short term "power down" in order for a few evil henchmen to go about their work installing explosives are delusional.

It's very hard to grasp to size of the towers. I think most of us have played with HO trains when we were little, right?

The Twin Towers, in HO (1:87) scale would be about 15' 8" (4.8 meters) heigh and 2' 5" (0.73 meters) wide. Still very huge...

[fuelair]

Why does everyone always address my questions with questions, and then accuse me of avoiding their questions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Because, you opened. Trying to game opening by asking questions instead of making statements is cheating (because, if your "question" is put out of its' misery as they all have been, oh so many times, you can fall back on "Oh, I wasn't meaning anything, it was just a question!!"- cheating.) Make statements you can be shown/proved wrong on and you are playing the game fairly and correctly. I do not think you have the guts, brain power, information, sources or ability to do that, but feel free to surprise me.

[mist]

All of you are failing to see one major point.

Namely, that there is no actual proof that the "World Trade Center" actually existed in the first place.

Actually, I can however proof, and so many more people, that there is a 100% chance of it being possible that the whole thing was a set up.

Why? It has mostly to do with very human nature, which is to cheat and try getting money.

I mean, come on. Why would the US government want to do such a bad thing? Do they want to kill their own friends and family? Of course not! Many jobs would go away too, so people only would get more poor from it.

And those "terrorists"? They don't even exist. Even if they did, there would have been a lot of muslims (read: maybe future members of their organization) in the world trade center when they would have destroyed it. And noone wants to kill their own people. That's just wrong. I think anyone who thinks people can do that should see a mental health doctor.

Instead, I will give you the real reason.

Firstly, don't believe the images you see on tv. They look real, but so do cinema movies don't they? Actually, there isn't any proof there were actually towers that collapsed. The only thing they did was spread some dust into the air the day it supposedly happened, they even spread the dust too late! After when the towers officially fell down...

The problem with the whole thing was that when the towers needed to be build, they realized those towers would be actually way too huge to be made. So what they actually did was write on some papers that they were building it, while actually they weren't building anything. Then a few years before "9/11" they put a huge insurance on those (fake) buildings against terrorist attacks. Then 2 years later it got "accidently" hit by an AIRPLANE of all things? YEA RIGHT.

It's so obvious I can't believe people think "world trade center" actually existed in the first place!

Obviously, if so many people were killed that day wouldnt it have gotten more attention? Wouldnt we still be hearing about it daily? And even if you do hear people about their supposed "loved-ones" they dont even give checkable facts, just some emotional mumbojumble.

If thousands and thousands of people were killed, wouldn't you be seeing empty supermarkets? Unfilled homes? Yes you would, and no you don't because it never happened.

Maybe you think it's ok because only the insurance company is victim, and noone else is hurt. But I think it is bad. People are just too ignorant to see such a huge lie. All they need to see is a few fake news reports with bad actors and they think it happened. If they believe this what will they believe next??

I hope I convinced you and if I didn't I am really really sorry for you, because you just can't see the truth even if I present it to you very simply.

And please stop sending all the "world trade center was true" type of messages, now I proved it wrong.

By the way: I think 28th Kingdom has been making the most logic to this thread, so please dont personal insult him.

Have a nice and logic day.

- Mist

[babazaroni]

Please use smilies. There are some who might think you really believe this.

[ConspiRaider]

Please use smilies. There are some who might think you really believe this.
Darn, ruined it for me, BBZ. I thought Mist was like really Onto Something. I-I-I was j-j-just about t-t-to send away for m-m-my model B-B-Beam Weepun from Judy-Judy-Judy WooWooWood...

[A W Smith]

It's very hard to grasp to size of the towers. I think most of us have played with HO trains when we were little, right?

The Twin Towers, in HO (1:87) scale would be about 15' 8" (4.8 meters) heigh and 2' 5" (0.73 meters) wide. Still very huge...


I was trying to make the same point a couple of weeks ago. The troofers see these towers on youboob and googlevideo and cannot grasp how absolutely HUGE they were. I am convinced many of them had not ever seen the towers in person. I had been to the top (windows on the world) and been below them looking up from their base. they were incredibly tall. when I came home that Tuesday evening and saw the images of people leaping from them I immediately felt Ill. Just the other night i saw a rebroadcast of "the center of the world" about the WTC on the American experience (http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/product-description/B0002JP4TG/ref=dp_proddesc_0/702-3404645-9196001?ie=UTF8&n=917972&s=dvd)series. When I saw Philippie Petit (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/peopleevents/p_petit.html)perform his high wire act I began to feel ill again. No I do not have a fear of heights. if you had ever stood by the fountain and looked up I think you would understand.

[clarsct]

Tjongejonge. Het is duidelijk dat je jouw rechter hersenhelft gebruikt. Of was het linker? In ieder geval, de verkeerde. Het Achtentwintigste Koninkrijk gebruikt de juiste helft... met nadruk op helft. Hij is een soort Lambik, maar dan zonder het intellect.


Glad to see this thread finally make some common sense.....

[Horatius]

I was trying to make the same point a couple of weeks ago. The troofers see these towers on youboob and googlevideo and cannot grasp how absolutely HUGE they were. I am convinced many of them had not ever seen the towers in person. I had been to the top (windows on the world) and been below them looking up from their base. they were incredibly tall. when I came home that Tuesday evening and saw the images of people leaping from them I immediately felt Ill. Just the other night i saw a rebroadcast of "the center of the world" about the WTC on the American experience (http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/product-description/B0002JP4TG/ref=dp_proddesc_0/702-3404645-9196001?ie=UTF8&n=917972&s=dvd)series. When I saw Philippie Petit (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/peopleevents/p_petit.html)perform his high wire act I began to feel ill again. No I do not have a fear of heights. if you had ever stood by the fountain and looked up I think you would understand.

This is something I've thought about a lot since I got involved in all this twoofer-bashing. I never saw the towers in real life. Heck, I've never even been to New York!

But, the more I learn about them, the more I wish I had visited them. There are things about them just seem so, well, cool, if that doesn't sound too geeky. Like Sky Lobbies. For some reason, the whole idea of a floor dedicated to switching elevators makes me smile. And the windows on the world restaurant you mention, is something I think I would have liked.

I've been in the CN Tower in Toronto*, but aside from being really tall, it's not all that big. I think the towers would have been a very different experience, and it's one I now regret missing out on.

Anyone else feel that way?





*The last time I was there, I lucked into seeing the Toronto Air Show - From above :)

[ConspiRaider]

This is something I've thought about a lot since I got involved in all this twoofer-bashing. I never saw the towers in real life. Heck, I've never even been to New York!

But, the more I learn about them, the more I wish I had visited them. There are things about them just seem so, well, cool, if that doesn't sound too geeky. Like Sky Lobbies. For some reason, the whole idea of a floor dedicated to switching elevators makes me smile. And the windows on the world restaurant you mention, is something I think I would have liked.

I've been in the CN Tower in Toronto*, but aside from being really tall, it's not all that big. I think the towers would have been a very different experience, and it's one I now regret missing out on.

Anyone else feel that way?

*The last time I was there, I lucked into seeing the Toronto Air Show - From above :)
I and my ex-wife (still on good terms with) were on top of WTC 2 just a few weeks after Silverstein got the lease. We were there mid-May, 2001.

Buildings were giant. I remember my ears popping going up in the elevator, and I can still see our guide who took us up and showed our group around. I always wonder if she got out on 9/11.

Unbelievable view. Which was the only draw for me. I never really liked the appearance of the Twin Towers, so plain looking in the midst of all that other intricate and creative architecture. But the view made up for everything.

We didn't even know we were on top of WTC 2, or that there was a WTC 7 or anything like that. You pay for the tour, you go with the guide, so who knows from building numbers?

Very weird to look at our pictures, we took at least 2 rolls. Especially the one of the radio tower on WTC 1, that one's hard to look at, because it was so unbelievable to us watching it falling as the collapse began.

[beachnut]

All of you are failing to see one major point.

Namely, that there is no actual proof that the "World Trade Center" actually existed in the first place.

Actually, I can however proof, and so many more people, that there is a 100% chance of it being possible that the whole thing was a set up.

Why? It has mostly to do with very human nature, which is to cheat and try getting money.

I mean, come on. Why would the US government want to do such a bad thing? Do they want to kill their own friends and family? Of course not! Many jobs would go away too, so people only would get more poor from it.

And those "terrorists"? They don't even exist. Even if they did, there would have been a lot of muslims (read: maybe future members of their organization) in the world trade center when they would have destroyed it. And noone wants to kill their own people. That's just wrong. I think anyone who thinks people can do that should see a mental health doctor.

Instead, I will give you the real reason.

Firstly, don't believe the images you see on tv. They look real, but so do cinema movies don't they? Actually, there isn't any proof there were actually towers that collapsed. The only thing they did was spread some dust into the air the day it supposedly happened, they even spread the dust too late! After when the towers officially fell down...

The problem with the whole thing was that when the towers needed to be build, they realized those towers would be actually way too huge to be made. So what they actually did was write on some papers that they were building it, while actually they weren't building anything. Then a few years before "9/11" they put a huge insurance on those (fake) buildings against terrorist attacks. Then 2 years later it got "accidently" hit by an AIRPLANE of all things? YEA RIGHT.

It's so obvious I can't believe people think "world trade center" actually existed in the first place!

Obviously, if so many people were killed that day wouldnt it have gotten more attention? Wouldnt we still be hearing about it daily? And even if you do hear people about their supposed "loved-ones" they dont even give checkable facts, just some emotional mumbojumble.

If thousands and thousands of people were killed, wouldn't you be seeing empty supermarkets? Unfilled homes? Yes you would, and no you don't because it never happened.

Maybe you think it's ok because only the insurance company is victim, and noone else is hurt. But I think it is bad. People are just too ignorant to see such a huge lie. All they need to see is a few fake news reports with bad actors and they think it happened. If they believe this what will they believe next??

I hope I convinced you and if I didn't I am really really sorry for you, because you just can't see the truth even if I present it to you very simply.

And please stop sending all the "world trade center was true" type of messages, now I proved it wrong.

By the way: I think 28th Kingdom has been making the most logic to this thread, so please dont personal insult him.

Have a nice and logic day.

- Mist

Classmates? Two people like 28th? Twins separted at birth?

The towers never existed! good job; are you nuts?

Too bad so many witnesses just used their eyes that day and will never join you and 28th in your inability to use your brains.

Debunked by your own logic. Good job. Welcome.

[LashL]

I was trying to make the same point a couple of weeks ago. The troofers see these towers on youboob and googlevideo and cannot grasp how absolutely HUGE they were. I am convinced many of them had not ever seen the towers in person. I had been to the top (windows on the world) and been below them looking up from their base. they were incredibly tall. when I came home that Tuesday evening and saw the images of people leaping from them I immediately felt Ill. Just the other night i saw a rebroadcast of "the center of the world" about the WTC on the American experience (http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/product-description/B0002JP4TG/ref=dp_proddesc_0/702-3404645-9196001?ie=UTF8&n=917972&s=dvd)series. When I saw Philippie Petit (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/peopleevents/p_petit.html)perform his high wire act I began to feel ill again. No I do not have a fear of heights. if you had ever stood by the fountain and looked up I think you would understand.

Agreed. I have tried to make the same point on other forums as well. I had been to the World Trade Center a few times prior to September 11, 2001 but for someone who has not been there, it seems to be very difficult for them to really grasp the vastness of the site, and, in particular, the sheer size of the twin towers.

Putting it into perspective is not as easy as all that for people who have never actually been there, but if they really think about it, I mean really, really think about it, we are talking about each floor of each tower being an acre in size - an acre - visualize that before moving on - and there were 110 storeys in each tower. Again, you have to really make people stop and think about that instead of just glossing over the words without visualizing how freaking huge it is.

Then you have to try to get them to visualize the vastness of the entire complex as well, which was approximately 16 acres in size. Again, you have to stop them from glossing over those numbers and get them to try to actually comprehend it. Troofers never do. They look at a map and think "it takes up a couple of blocks". Sixteen acres. Acres. And they just never get it.

I'm thinking that a new way of making it make sense to them is to ask what city or town they live in, then look up their city or town and give them specific parameters about how large an area that 16 acres is if applied to their hometown or city. E.g. "Look, if this was situated in your city, it would cover the entire area bounded by A Street to the west, B Street to the north, C Street to the east and D Street to the south." I think that might be a useful way to get them to begin to try to comprehend it, but I won't hold my breath :)

[LashL]

We didn't even know we were on top of WTC 2, or that there was a WTC 7 or anything like that. You pay for the tour, you go with the guide, so who knows from building numbers?

Clearly, you didn't have Gravy as your tour guide :D

[R.Mackey]

The towers never existed! good job; are you nuts?

Too bad so many witnesses just used their eyes that day and will never join you and 28th in your inability to use your brains.

Debunked by your own logic. Good job. Welcome.
Stand easy, it was a humorous post. And quite a good one at that.

The sad thing is, it's not even close to the stupidest theory the Loosers have come up with. Remember the "One Plane Theory" that The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51367) produced, and plenty of Troofers believed it? Good times...

[uk_dave]

This thread needs to be dragged back on topic or it will be shot at dawn, decapitated at noon and will have it's bottom smacked with a bashful ferret somewhere around tea time.

You have been warned!

[Pardalis]

One of the craziest theories I've heard (also humorous of course) is this one:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1612304&postcount=2329

I have been doing a lot of research on Feng-Shui-induced paranormal-explosions, which is why the WTC collapse is of interest to me. The Bush administration had no hand in the WTC terrorist attack. A force much more sinister than Bush and his cronies is behind the collapse of the buildings. I have no doubt that terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the buildings, but why the buildings actually collapsed is up for debate. It is simply a theory at this point in time, and there are a few dots left to connect, but I believe this:

Minoru Yamasaki, the designer of the WTC buildings, was born in Seattle, but just happened to have an Asian-sounding name. Chinatown is located in Manhattan. Just coincidence?

Minoru also designed the Eastern Airlines Unit Terminal in Boston in 1968, just 33 years before 9/11, which is a multiple of 11. Just coincidence?

I believe that Minoru was heavily involved in Feng-Shui, and the WTC buildings are an example of Feng-Shui gone awry. The WTC buildings were so heavily influenced by Minoru's belief in Feng-Shui that they experienced a phenomenon I'm going to coin called 'Feng-Shui Guo Zai', or 'Feng-Shui Overload'.

The combined forces of the plane's impact and the Feng-Shui Guo Zai actually created paranormal-explosions in the building's core, ultimately leading to the building's collapse. Or do you think it's simply coincidence that Minoru died in 1986, just 15 years prior to 9/11, which is not a multiple of 11?

Wow!

:D

[Minadin]

Tillykke med fodselsdagen, Bell.

[A W Smith]

a matter of scale.
I grew up in the era the WTC was being built. In fact one of the things I remember was the television networks protesting because the towers would interfere with their signals broadcast from the empire state building. in fact they had a simulation of what it would look like on TV. A ghosting of two Grey wide stripes overlapping the screen. When the towers were built there was almost nothing of similar scale even near them. in fact they were adjacent to the shore of the Hudson where the financial center and winter gardens stand today. with nothing around them they looked quite odd and out of place. For many including me they were not very attractive and seemed almost out of place. they were beyond human scale and seemed to outweigh all of lower Manhattan. gradually we got used to them being there. after many years they were gradually surrounded by buildings not even half their size. It lessened the impact they had at a distance and gradually a balanced skyline was achieved. because of this modern era photographs and videos of the skyline did not truly convey the towers scale. even though you could see them from most all of Manhattan. It was quite a few years before i actually visited them. about 12-14 years ago. most of my previous visits were midtown via the Lincoln tunnel. I had no reason to venture south as all the concerts and entertainment was away from there. because i then had a pre teen son I became more of a 'tourist" showing him the sights and sounds of Manhattan. Was then while holding his hand we both experienced the towers for the first of many times to follow. You ever look at something so tall you have to back up to see the top? Man sometimes I felt as if i had to walk off the pier by the sidewalk cafés at the marina to view them. By then they finally seemed to fit in. To belong. To be something that would be there for the rest of my life and my sons life.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cuesfid/images/wtc02.jpg

[beachnut]

Stand easy, it was a humorous post. And quite a good one at that.

The sad thing is, it's not even close to the stupidest theory the Loosers have come up with. Remember the "One Plane Theory" that The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51367) produced, and plenty of Troofers believed it? Good times...

I hate being slow. But it works sometimes. thanks

[aggle-rithm]

Back to the topic...

Evolution/natural selection defies common sense, sometimes. Common sense tells us that it would be much more difficult to kill a dinosaur than a cockroach, yet the cockroaches outlived the dinosaurs. It's because the conditions were right for cockroaches, but not dinosaurs. This defies our common-sense reasoning that says they has to be some sort of plan governing the development of species.

I thought about this because the evolution of terror attacks works along similar lines. There are many terror cells plotting many different things. The ones that don't work are either not attempted again or they are re-worked to make them more successful. The 9/11 attacks were successful because the conditions were right. With all these unsuccessful attacks forgotten, it seems as if, out of nowhere, a bunch of ignorant savages just decided one day to take over airplanes and crash them into buildings. Instead, the attacks should be thought of as the equivalent of cockroaches: ugly, but successful, because they exploited a friendly environment.

[Firestone]

If a car is traveling with a helium-filled balloon in the back seat, and the car suddenly stops, the helium-filled balloon moves towards the back.

[JimBenArm]

This thread needs to be dragged back on topic or it will be shot at dawn, decapitated at noon and will have it's bottom smacked with a bashful ferret somewhere around tea time.

You have been warned!

OOO. I've been off topic, too! Punish me, punish me!

I've always had a ferret fetish. Just don't tell the wife...

[defaultdotxbe]

Back to the topic...

Evolution/natural selection defies common sense, sometimes. Common sense tells us that it would be much more difficult to kill a dinosaur than a cockroach, yet the cockroaches outlived the dinosaurs. It's because the conditions were right for cockroaches, but not dinosaurs. This defies our common-sense reasoning that says they has to be some sort of plan governing the development of species.

right, common-sense says "bigger is better" but by far the most successful creatures from an evolutionary standpoint are the smallest, bacteria and green algea

and of course this same "bigger is better" mindset leads one to see the WTC towers are near invincible

[Oliver]

@ConspiRaider & Architect: We need a jawbreaker/language award! :D

By the way, Architect: What does "Troi´n wyntog ac yn lawog" mean? PM? :D

[Architect]

@ConspiRaider & Architect: We need a jawbreaker/language award! :D

By the way, Architect: What does "Troi´n wyntog ac yn lawog" mean? PM? :D


Dunno. I was winding up Remove Bush and 28th by posting the weather forecasts in Welsh, which of course they can't understand, and decided to stick with it. Probably means "today's weather".

www.s4c.co.uk

[TjW]

Iay inkthay ouyay ereway overaythinkingay isthay ategystray.

[Oliver]

Iay inkthay ouyay ereway overaythinkingay isthay ategystray.

Iay amay stytyng toy uyndyrstand. :D

[Dave_46]

It's very hard to grasp to size of the towers. I think most of us have played with HO trains when we were little, right?

The Twin Towers, in HO (1:87) scale would be about 15' 8" (4.8 meters) heigh and 2' 5" (0.73 meters) wide. Still very huge...

I used a similar analogy when working in one of the Cardington airship hangars a few years ago. At that scale the hangars are 3m (10ft) long. It was the only way I could convey the scale.

Dave

[Bell]

a matter of scale.
I grew up in the era the WTC was being built. In fact one of the things I remember was the television networks protesting because the towers would interfere with their signals broadcast from the empire state building. in fact they had a simulation of what it would look like on TV. A ghosting of two Grey wide stripes overlapping the screen. When the towers were built there was almost nothing of similar scale even near them. in fact they were adjacent to the shore of the Hudson where the financial center and winter gardens stand today. with nothing around them they looked quite odd and out of place. For many including me they were not very attractive and seemed almost out of place. they were beyond human scale and seemed to outweigh all of lower Manhattan. gradually we got used to them being there. after many years they were gradually surrounded by buildings not even half their size. It lessened the impact they had at a distance and gradually a balanced skyline was achieved. because of this modern era photographs and videos of the skyline did not truly convey the towers scale. even though you could see them from most all of Manhattan. It was quite a few years before i actually visited them. about 12-14 years ago. most of my previous visits were midtown via the Lincoln tunnel. I had no reason to venture south as all the concerts and entertainment was away from there. because i then had a pre teen son I became more of a 'tourist" showing him the sights and sounds of Manhattan. Was then while holding his hand we both experienced the towers for the first of many times to follow. You ever look at something so tall you have to back up to see the top? Man sometimes I felt as if i had to walk off the pier by the sidewalk cafés at the marina to view them. By then they finally seemed to fit in. To belong. To be something that would be there for the rest of my life and my sons life.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cuesfid/images/wtc02.jpg

Nice post, A W. That's the one thing about the WTC I remember vividly and made such a huge impression while in Manhattan, that you could see them from almost everywhere. They were the first signs of Manhattan I saw when flying in, and the last when we leaved.

I tried to imagine how gigantic it would have been, had the towers collapsed in '93. Not knowing ofcourse that 3 months later exactly that would happen.

[Dave_46]

OOO. I've been off topic, too! Punish me, punish me!

I've always had a ferret fetish. Just don't tell the wife...

She knows

Dave

[Bell]

I used a similar analogy when working in one of the Cardington airship hangars a few years ago. At that scale the hangars are 3m (10ft) long. It was the only way I could convey the scale.

Dave

Wow, you can build a small railroad in those hangars! ;)

Scale maybe can be conveyed this way, but weight is very hard to convey. To make clear how much those tops of the WTC weighted, and that those weights where all that was needed to collapse the towers to the ground after the initial collapse.

[pvt1863]

Evolution/natural selection defies common sense, sometimes. Common sense tells us that it would be much more difficult to kill a dinosaur than a cockroach, yet the cockroaches outlived the dinosaurs. It's because the conditions were right for cockroaches, but not dinosaurs. This defies our common-sense reasoning that says they has to be some sort of plan governing the development of species.

I'm not sure that evolution defies common sense in this case. Yes, common sense tells us that it is harder to kill a dinosaur than it is to kill a cockroach, and that is true. But common sense also tells us that smaller animals tend to have larger populations than larger ones and that animals with larger populations are less likely to go extinct.

I actually threw together a 30 question + 1 essay common sense science test to demonstrate the problem of counter-intuitive science. I posted it on the IMDB board for World Trade Center. I've had a few people try it out by answering some science questions using their common sense, and so far the best response was someone who got nine questions and the essay wrong. One of the more annoying CTers on that board promised to do the test today. We'll see how well he does.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/board/nest/63187281

Most of the questions there deal with heat transfer since that is my field of expertise. I think it would be fun if a lot of people threw something like this together while focusing on their particular field of expertise.

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm not sure that evolution defies common sense in this case. Yes, common sense tells us that it is harder to kill a dinosaur than it is to kill a cockroach, and that is true. But common sense also tells us that smaller animals tend to have larger populations than larger ones and that animals with larger populations are less likely to go extinct.

I actually threw together a 30 question + 1 essay common sense science test to demonstrate the problem of counter-intuitive science. I posted it on the IMDB board for World Trade Center. I've had a few people try it out by answering some science questions using their common sense, and so far the best response was someone who got nine questions and the essay wrong. One of the more annoying CTers on that board promised to do the test today. We'll see how well he does.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/board/nest/63187281

Most of the questions there deal with heat transfer since that is my field of expertise. I think it would be fun if a lot of people threw something like this together while focusing on their particular field of expertise.
nice questions, i like the lake one, the water actually goes down, doesnt?

[28th Kingdom]

I'm not sure that evolution defies common sense in this case. Yes, common sense tells us that it is harder to kill a dinosaur than it is to kill a cockroach, and that is true. But common sense also tells us that smaller animals tend to have larger populations than larger ones and that animals with larger populations are less likely to go extinct.

I actually threw together a 30 question + 1 essay common sense science test to demonstrate the problem of counter-intuitive science. I posted it on the IMDB board for World Trade Center. I've had a few people try it out by answering some science questions using their common sense, and so far the best response was someone who got nine questions and the essay wrong. One of the more annoying CTers on that board promised to do the test today. We'll see how well he does.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/board/nest/63187281

Most of the questions there deal with heat transfer since that is my field of expertise. I think it would be fun if a lot of people threw something like this together while focusing on their particular field of expertise.

1. It is possible to add insulation to a pipe and, as a result, increase the heat transfer rate between the pipe and the ambient air.

Are you serious?

You think this is a common sense question? You guys don't have a clue what common sense is... COMMON SENSE doesn't provide the answer to any and everything you know.

You need a commonly known and accepted piece of information to apply to an event before you can make a prudent judgment based off of a simple perception of the facts. What common piece of information are we suppose to apply to these (events) questions?

http://i.imdb.com/boards/post.gif by gattboy (http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5216254/boards/profile/) 20 hours ago (Sat Jan 6 2007 15:08:12 ) Ignore this User (http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5175988/boards/profile/?k=5216254) | Report Abuse (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/board/abuse/63191773) http://ia.ec.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/78/41/49.gif (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/board/reply/63191773) quick history test-

how many times in the past has a US president used false military evidence to start a war?


I like that guy... hahahaha - see, he has common sense.

[Architect]

28th,

You're a fraud and a coward. Answer the technical points put to you or return whence you came.

[Firestone]

You guys don't have a clue what common sense is... COMMON SENSE doesn't provide the answer to any and everything you know.

You need a commonly known and accepted piece of information to apply to an event before you can make a prudent judgment based off of a simple perception of the facts. What common piece of information are we suppose to apply to these (events) questions?Perfectly applicable to the collapse of the WTC-towers.

Oh, also read this:

28th,

You're a fraud and a coward. Answer the technical points put to you or return whence you came.

[MortFurd]

1. It is possible to add insulation to a pipe and, as a result, increase the heat transfer rate between the pipe and the ambient air.

Are you serious?

You think this is a common sense question? You guys don't have a clue what common sense is... COMMON SENSE doesn't provide the answer to any and everything you know.

You need a commonly known and accepted piece of information to apply to an event before you can make a prudent judgment based off of a simple perception of the facts. What common piece of information are we suppose to apply to these (events) questions?

http://i.imdb.com/boards/post.gif by gattboy (http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5216254/boards/profile/) 20 hours ago (Sat Jan 6 2007 15:08:12 ) Ignore this User (http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5175988/boards/profile/?k=5216254) | Report Abuse (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/board/abuse/63191773) http://ia.ec.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/78/41/49.gif (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/board/reply/63191773) quick history test-

how many times in the past has a US president used false military evidence to start a war?


I like that guy... hahahaha - see, he has common sense.

And just what "commonly known and accepted piece of information" are we supposed to apply the unprecedented collapse of two 110 story buildings in order to come up with your "common sense" answer that it had have been an inside job?

"Common sense" tells me that "common sense" don't know jack **** about what happens when a jumbo jet crashes into one of the tallest buildings in the world.

[defaultdotxbe]

1. It is possible to add insulation to a pipe and, as a result, increase the heat transfer rate between the pipe and the ambient air.

Are you serious?


i woudl think if you know what insulation is you would be able to supply a common sense answer to that (the common sense answer is "no" since that defeats the purpose of insulation, but given the context im assuming that answer is wrong)

You think this is a common sense question? You guys don't have a clue what common sense is... COMMON SENSE doesn't provide the answer to any and everything you know.
you mean like the collapse of a 110 story skyscraper?

You need a commonly known and accepted piece of information to apply to an event before you can make a prudent judgment based off of a simple perception of the facts. What common piece of information are we suppose to apply to these (events) questions?
and what commonly accepted peice of information are you applying to teh collapse of the WTC?

[ConspiRaider]

@ConspiRaider & Architect: We need a jawbreaker/language award! :D

Humbly, Sir Oliver, I admit I do need some kind of award. I mean hell, I've been trying six ways from Sunday to get 28IQ to officially add me to his Ignoren Listlich and publicly post it so other JREFers would then know I have arrived.

Ich maken (mit Architecten helpen) eine Tallen Talen auf Der Grosse Dinosauren und Der Snowen Yeti und Das Nessie Auf Wasser Lochen zu chasen und essen Das kleine noggen 28IQ, aber er Ignoren Listlich appendlich NICHT! MEIN GOTT! Ist nicht so schon, fur mich. Awarden haben nicht.

[Architect]

das is fur 28iq ist eine big meally puddin' mit nae brains aber mit access von internet sur die ordinateur muti....

[28th Kingdom]

And just what "commonly known and accepted piece of information" are we supposed to apply the unprecedented collapse of two 110 story buildings in order to come up with your "common sense" answer that it had have been an inside job?

"Common sense" tells me that "common sense" don't know jack **** about what happens when a jumbo jet crashes into one of the tallest buildings in the world.

Dude... you can use common sense a thousand ways to prove NIST's theory to be impossible. I've done it several times... go read some of my posts.

One way... I proved their theory false, was by observing the upper mass on WTC 2, that fell over to the side... NIST claims this upper mass is the force that crushed the lower floors all the way to the ground... yet, we can clearly see, that seconds after the collapse began... the upper mass was already tilting over. Apply the law of inertia to this event... and you learn that this upper mass will never return to its original position i.e. completely covering the lower floors.

If the upper mass is tilted... than at best, there will only be one of the bottom corners (of the upper mass) touching the lower floors... so what is causing the walls on the other THREE sides of the lower floors (that has no contact with the falling upper mass) to explode into a million pieces?

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/95/wtcsouthtowerlq9.jpg

That's how you use common sense.

[Architect]

what a crock

[Kage]

Dude... you can use common sense a thousand ways to prove NIST's theory to be impossible. I've done it several times... go read some of my posts.

Surely not a thousand? I've unfortunately wasted my existence reading some of your posts, and I have yet to see a single instance where you have proved anything about the NIST report or 9/11 in general, aside from your keen knowledge of the date on which the attacks occured. Common sense is not applicable and does not prove anything. When you can use your common sense to build a building the size of the WTC, then you can use it to describe how the buildings collapse.

What is the difference between being on 28th's ignore list and just being someone who 28th ignores? He's just going to post off topic again.

[uk_dave]

Dude... you can use common sense a thousand ways to prove NIST's theory to be impossible. I've done it several times... go read some of my posts.

One way... I proved their theory false, was by observing the upper mass on WTC 2, that fell over to the side... NIST claims this upper mass is the force that crushed the lower floors all the way to the ground... yet, we can clearly see, that seconds after the collapse began... the upper mass was already tilting over. Apply the law of inertia to this event... and you learn that this upper mass will never return to its original position i.e. completely covering the lower floors.

If the upper mass is tilted... than at best, there will only be one of the bottom corners (of the upper mass) touching the lower floors... so what is causing the walls on the other THREE sides of the lower floors (that has no contact with the falling upper mass) to explode into a million pieces?

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/95/wtcsouthtowerlq9.jpg

That's how you use common sense.

Thank you 28K. That was a perfect example of how your application of 'common sense' means you have no understanding of how assembled structures behave in the real world when they are stressed beyond their design parameters.

Of course, apart from dear old 28k, the best proponent of the 'common sense' approach to dealing with complicated facts, is our old friend killklown and his "well it don't look like a crash site to me" analysis of the shanksville site, based upon nothing more than his own limited imagination as to what should be evident on the ground.

Imagination is truly what the woowoos lack, because they have established their world view and cannot be deviated from it by annoying facts.

Killklown thinks the tail section of the plane at shanksville and the pentagon should be evident, and since it isn't he cannot imagine how such a thing is possible.

[28th Kingdom]

Surely not a thousand? I've unfortunately wasted my existence reading some of your posts, and I have yet to see a single instance where you have proved anything about the NIST report or 9/11 in general, aside from your keen knowledge of the date on which the attacks occured. Common sense is not applicable and does not prove anything. When you can use your common sense to build a building the size of the WTC, then you can use it to describe how the buildings collapse.

What is the difference between being on 28th's ignore list and just being someone who 28th ignores? He's just going to post off topic again.

Why don't you be a man... and directly address what I said... instead of hurling insults at me. Tell me how... my statements about the tilting of the upper mass on WTC 2 don't prove anything. Are you saying that if the upper mass were to of fallen completely off of the collapsing tower... that the lower floors would have continued to explode all the way to the ground?

Tell me how a 10,000 page report on the COLLAPSES of 9/11 - was not a report on the COLLAPSES of 9/11 - but merely a PRE-COLLAPSE Theory... that doesn't even address the actual collapse.

[28th Kingdom]

Thank you 28K. That was a perfect example of how your application of 'common sense' means you have no understanding of how assembled structures behave in the real world when they are stressed beyond their design parameters.

Of course, apart from dear old 28k, the best proponent of the 'common sense' approach to dealing with complicated facts, is our old friend killklown and his "well it don't look like a crash site to me" analysis of the shanksville site, based upon nothing more than his own limited imagination as to what should be evident on the ground.

Imagination is truly what the woowoos lack, because they have established their world view and cannot be deviated from it by annoying facts.

Killklown thinks the tail section of the plane at shanksville and the pentagon should be evident, and since it isn't he cannot imagine how such a thing is possible.

Damn... is that a debunking of what I said? Gee... I don't know... seems like you didn't even address what I said at all... So, if the upper mass fell off completely....the lower floors just continue to explode to the ground, right?

[uk_dave]

Damn... is that a debunking of what I said? Gee... I don't know... seems like you didn't even address what I said at all... So, if the upper mass fell off completely....the lower floors just continue to explode to the ground, right?

Well gee whiz and golly gosh 28k, I didna' know you was a' lookin' for a debunkin'.

Are you claiming that the top of the tower did indeed slide off?

If not, then what happened to the mass of the material contained within that top section?

Common sense must tell you that it didn't just disappear into thin air, right?

Debunking ahoy: Because the top of the tower tilted it must indicate that the structure upon which it was bearing had failed.

As the top portion tilted it DID NOT topple off and end up in the road beside the tower, simply because it's structural integrity was destroyed by the tilt. The lower floors of the tilting section crumpled and momentum was acheived by the top portion falling as a whole.

Coomon sense tells you that the top portion must have stayed intact because you lack the imagination to understand how the forces at work on such a assembled structure would stress it to breaking point as soon as it moved out of upright. That's why the design of the WTC towers could not have been used for anything other than an upright structure.

[pvt1863]

1. It is possible to add insulation to a pipe and, as a result, increase the heat transfer rate between the pipe and the ambient air.

Are you serious?

You think this is a common sense question? You guys don't have a clue what common sense is... COMMON SENSE doesn't provide the answer to any and everything you know.

You need a commonly known and accepted piece of information to apply to an event before you can make a prudent judgment based off of a simple perception of the facts. What common piece of information are we suppose to apply to these (events) questions?

This is very much a common sense question. Our typical experiences are that insulation decreases heat transfer between two regions. Common sense tells us that insulation always does this (because that is what it is designed to do and because we have no experience of this not being the case). This true/false question challenges that idea. If the answer is FALSE, then common sense holds and insulation always insulates. If the answer is TRUE, then common sense is wrong because there are cases where insulation does the opposite of insulating. Which is it?

Which of my true/false statements are true and describe cases where common sense fails? Which are false, meaning that common sense is correct and I simply made up the claim?

You also are missing the whole point of the test. I want to demonstrate one of the key reasons why common sense and intuition are not valid scientific explanations. Common sense and intuition rely upon personal experience, are subject to personal bias, often are only applicable on a specific scale, can oversimplify complex events, and completely fail when faced with counter-intuitive truths. This is why people become experts in various fields. Experts apply science so that they can make decisions and determinations based on verifiable evidence, not intuition. If an expert is forced to speculate, he does so with in-depth experience and knowledge that can make his speculation more accurate than those of someone who is not an expert in the applicable field.

In short, you are not an expert. Your "common sense" is not applicable to the events of 9/11.

[uk_dave]

yeah, what pvt1863 said. :)

[babazaroni]

This 'sliding off' claim has been debunked before.

The backside columns acted as a hinge point as the top tilted towards the damaged side.

[28th Kingdom]

Coomon sense tells you that the top portion must have stayed intact because you lack the imagination to understand how the forces at work on such a assembled structure would stress it to breaking point as soon as it moved out of upright. That's why the design of the WTC towers could not have been used for anything other than an upright structure.

What do you mean the top portion didn't stay intact? Of course, the space (floors) between the upper and lower floors gave out...

What the hell are you saying? Jesus... draw me a picture with a vertical rectangle... that is broken into two pieces... where the top piece is tilted at the same angle shown in the picture I linked to... and show me how all four sides of the top piece are still touching the lower piece.

If the upper mass falls completely off...the collapse stops, yes? Why? BECAUSE the upper mass isn't (touching) applying pressure to the lower floors... how can the upper mass apply pressure to the lower floors...WHEN IT'S NOT TOUCHING IT!

That's why I need you to draw an illustration that shows that the upper mass could have still been touching (applying pressure) to the lower floors even at the angle shown in the picture I linked to.

[Oliver]

What do you mean the top portion didn't stay intact? Of course, the space (floors) between the upper and lower floors gave out...

What the hell are you saying? Jesus... draw me a picture with a vertical rectangle... that is broken into two pieces... where the top piece is tilted at the same angle shown in the picture I linked to... and show me how all four sides of the top piece are still touching the lower piece.

If the upper mass falls completely off...the collapse stops, yes? Why? BECAUSE the upper mass isn't (touching) applying pressure to the lower floors... how can the upper mass apply pressure to the lower floors...WHEN IT'S NOT TOUCHING IT!

That's why I need you to draw an illustration that shows that the upper mass could have still been touching (applying pressure) to the lower floors even at the angle shown in the picture I linked to.

Even the NON-NWO expert JOWENKO said "Nope, WTC 1&2 -no controlled demolition".

What´s your problem? :confused:

Are you an expert, too?

[28th Kingdom]

This 'sliding off' claim has been debunked before.

The backside columns acted as a hinge point as the top tilted towards the damaged side.

Really... and what has been debunked about it? I'm not claiming the upper mass fell completely off. (I was just using that scenario 'image' to illustrate a point) But, go ahead and answer the questions I put forth in the posts before this one.

[Thunder]

28th kingdom- you moron. the structural engineers understand perfectly why the towers fell. you dont understand...because you dont want to. you need bush to be responcible for 9-11...because u hate bush. and no amount of evidence will ever convince u that it was not an inside job. why? because you dont really care about evidence. its all political for you.

Please refrain from using insults.

[R.Mackey]

Why don't you be a man... and directly address what I said... instead of hurling insults at me. Tell me how... my statements about the tilting of the upper mass on WTC 2 don't prove anything. Are you saying that if the upper mass were to of fallen completely off of the collapsing tower... that the lower floors would have continued to explode all the way to the ground?

This 'sliding off' claim has been debunked before.

The backside columns acted as a hinge point as the top tilted towards the damaged side.
Correct. And 28th Kingdom's "common sense" is even more incorrect than that.

Even supposing the upper stories had managed to "fall off completely," how would they get there?

Newton's Third Law -- that whole "equal and opposite" thing -- says that, if enough force was exerted to shift or rotate the upper floors that much, an opposite force would have applied to the rest of the tower. If you actually work out how much force that is, and it is mind-bogglingly huge, it's also enough to start the collapse.

Likewise, the "hinge" doesn't stay that way for long. Structural steel will buckle when it reaches a mere 3% deflection, roughly. That means if you cut out the columns on one side at the bottom, the tower doesn't tip over, but rather tips a slight amount and then collapses straight down. Rather like what we saw. How surprising.

Your alleged "common sense," 28th Kingdom, is an error. One that is easy to correct with even a modicum of scientific knowledge. Your greater error is insisting that your "proof" somehow trumps the entire scientific establishment, both within the US and abroad. Now do shut up, please.

[Arus808]

judging by the answer 28th has given, i dont think he even knows what 'common sense' means.

[mist]

However it is good that 28th Kingdom thought about the situation in a critical way, and that should be noted even if his conclusion is not completely true.

Likewise, 28th Kingdom, it would be very mature and nice of you if you could thank people for explaining things to you. Like, "hey I never thought about it that way, thanks man!".

[Arus808]

mist - you are new here. 28th critical thinking is to ignore people who rebut his claims with technical explanations. He's put several of us regular posters on ignore for pointing out flaws in his claims.

[28th Kingdom]

Correct. And 28th Kingdom's "common sense" is even more incorrect than that.

Even supposing the upper stories had managed to "fall off completely," how would they get there?

Newton's Third Law -- that whole "equal and opposite" thing -- says that, if enough force was exerted to shift or rotate the upper floors that much, an opposite force would have applied to the rest of the tower. If you actually work out how much force that is, and it is mind-bogglingly huge, it's also enough to start the collapse.

Likewise, the "hinge" doesn't stay that way for long. Structural steel will buckle when it reaches a mere 3% deflection, roughly. That means if you cut out the columns on one side at the bottom, the tower doesn't tip over, but rather tips a slight amount and then collapses straight down. Rather like what we saw. How surprising.

Your alleged "common sense," 28th Kingdom, is an error. One that is easy to correct with even a modicum of scientific knowledge. Your greater error is insisting that your "proof" somehow trumps the entire scientific establishment, both within the US and abroad. Now do shut up, please.

What do I say to that? What part of please address exactly what I said and tell me how it doesn't make sense don't you understand?

If the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors... can it still apply pressure to the lower floors?

The upper mass tilted, because it was simply off balance...from the uneven failure of the impact floors... please don't interject some magical super force of energy...that counter reflected to the lower floors...

What is your trip? We are talking common sense here. I am asking utterly simple questions, and you are all scared to answer them. Now... if the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors can it still apply pressure to the lower floors? That is a common sense question... can you answer it?

[Horatius]

1. It is possible to add insulation to a pipe and, as a result, increase the heat transfer rate between the pipe and the ambient air.

Are you serious?

You think this is a common sense question? You guys don't have a clue what common sense is... COMMON SENSE doesn't provide the answer to any and everything you know.

You need a commonly known and accepted piece of information to apply to an event before you can make a prudent judgment based off of a simple perception of the facts. What common piece of information are we suppose to apply to these (events) questions?



Dude... you can use common sense a thousand ways to prove NIST's theory to be impossible. I've done it several times... go read some of my posts.


That's how you use common sense.

Okay, now he's just being stupid. "Now" you say?

Everybody and his cat has at some time used a thermos bottle or a picnic cooler. They're insulated, and everyone knows that is supposed to reduce the flow of heat between things. This is about as "common knowledge" as you can get.

For him to claim anything else is either incredibly stupid, or deliberately lying.

You be the judge.

[HeyLeroy]

If the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors, WTF is suspending it in space, 28th?

Did the Death Star have it locked in a tractor beam?

(ETA) Horatius, I don't believe Thermoses (Thermi?) are all that great. The other day I brought soup and a popsicle to work for lunch. Not too impressed. Nope.

[Horatius]

das is fur 28iq ist eine big meally puddin' mit nae brains aber mit access von internet sur die ordinateur muti....

Are you starting to speak German with a Scottish accent? That's almost as weird as the time my Iaido Sensei translated English into English with a Japanese accent.....

[Dave_46]

Wow, you can build a small railroad in those hangars! ;)

<snip>

Yes, that thought did occur to me. 3m is longer than a lot of model railways.

I've wanted to build myself a model railway since I was about fifteen, I'm up to sixty years now, and still not got around to it.

Dave

[Oliver]

That is your trip? We are talking common sense here. I am asking utterly simple questions, and you are all scared to answer them. Now... if the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors can it still apply pressure to the lower floors?

Oops, i forgot to honor myself - here´s your Badge, Oliver:
Wear it proudly and let everyone know how proud you are
to wear it. :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107458b5f52f083f.gif

[uk_dave]

If the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors... can it still apply pressure to the lower floors?


Good golly, miss molly!

You just make this up as you go along dontcha?

lol

[beachnut]

What do I say to that? What part of please address exactly what I said and tell me how it doesn't make sense don't you understand?

If the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors... can it still apply pressure to the lower floors?

The upper mass tilted, because it was simply off balance...from the uneven failure of the impact floors... please don't interject some magical super force of energy...that counter reflected to the lower floors...

What is your trip? We are talking common sense here. I am asking utterly simple questions, and you are all scared to answer them. Now... if the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors can it still apply pressure to the lower floors?

You never will have any facts. You have no idea how or why the WTC fell. You are helplessly lost. You have no practical experience; how does if feel to be useless when it comes to help your fact-less truth movement.

What, the upper mass was the classic crushing tilt. It looked like it fell and tilted and then the undamaged side was failing in extension, you know the side still in tack was extension, the failure side in compression and the mass destroying the entire building. You and I lack about 2 years of structures to understand what we saw. You are devoid of facts on this issue; but what we see is what we get. BTW there is not enough explosives to stop or change how the buildings fell. The building had the energy of 248 TONs of TNT. You know 496,000 pounds of TNT. We need no stinking explosives to damage the WTC towers; the towers can destroy themselves as seen. If you do not agree it is due to the fact you are ignorant and lack experience and understanding of anything and everything; it appears I am right again. This is why you are so much fun, you are so stupid even a slow BSEE and pilot can feel smart. (you are the king of doubletroubletripledoltthink)

I can tell you I know common sense, I have used common sense, and you have no common sense, you have never experienced common sense. You are the best weapon against the truth movement anyone could hope for.

[R.Mackey]

What do I say to that? What part of please address exactly what I said and tell me how it doesn't make sense don't you understand?
Yes, indeed, what do you say to that?

Total nonsense, that's what:


If the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors... can it still apply pressure to the lower floors?
First time I'm seeing this question. Damn stupid one, too. I'll address it in a minute. Before I do that, let's look at the rest of your prattle:


The upper mass tilted, because it was simply off balance...from the uneven failure of the impact floors... please don't interject some magical super force of energy...that counter reflected to the lower floors...
That "magical super force of energy" you refer to is known to the rest of us as "gravity." Perhaps you've heard of it.

The upper mass tilted as a result of uneven failure of the impact floors, correct. When part of the impact floors sagged more than others, there are two major forces at work:

(1) Gravity pulling down the upper block

(2) A reactive force supplied by the remaining structure

Since, as you pointed out, the remaining structure was asymmetric, this leads to a "force couple," imparting angular momentum into the upper structure. However, the magnitudes of these forces are very large. Both lower and upper block were not intended to experience an asymmetric load, so this force leads to secondary failures.

The next thing that fails is the remainder of the impact floors. The surviving columns (also weakened by heat), now loaded with the full weight of the upper block, are also subject to lateral forces, and even stretching as it tries to fight rotation of the upper block. Failure is imminent.

Even "common sense" should tell you that much.


What is your trip? We are talking common sense here. I am asking utterly simple questions, and you are all scared to answer them. Now... if the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors can it still apply pressure to the lower floors?
I'm only scared to answer this question because it appears to be the ravings of a lunatic.

If the upper floors aren't touching the lower floors, i.e. there is no structural connection between them, then there is very little "pressure" applied, I agree. However, this situation clearly never happened. The upper floors were never suspended in midair, and the upper floors were never traversed such that they were not above the lower floors. Your question is, as noted above, completely bonkers. Now, again, please do shut up. Your inability to participate in a discussion about Common Sense is highly revealing.

[JimBenArm]

She knows

Dave


Did you tell? No wonder she's been giving me odd looks.

[mist]

mist - you are new here. 28th critical thinking is to ignore people who rebut his claims with technical explanations. He's put several of us regular posters on ignore for pointing out flaws in his claims.

Thanks for your comment, I've read this entire thread and I've seen that. I was thinking if you verbal reward people for any brain power they show, they will start showing more and more. That's why I said so.

[Horatius]

You also are missing the whole point of the test. I want to demonstrate one of the key reasons why common sense and intuition are not valid scientific explanations.

Would it be possible to re-post your quiz here? I'm not a member over there, and so can't read that thread.

Thanks!

[Horatius]

(ETA) Horatius, I don't believe Thermoses (Thermi?) are all that great. The other day I brought soup and a popsicle to work for lunch. Not too impressed. Nope.


Well, I admit, you've got me there. 9/11 was an inside job!!!!!

[Bell]

Yes, that thought did occur to me. 3m is longer than a lot of model railways.

I've wanted to build myself a model railway since I was about fifteen, I'm up to sixty years now, and still not got around to it.

Dave

I thought that modeltrain in your avatar was yours. But you're never to old to start building a layout, I think. There are a lot of fine examples of small (4x8 foot) layouts. John Olson's Jerome & Southwestern (http://www.trainplayer.com/Site2/Kalmbach%20Plans.html#Jerome_&_Southwestern) is a good example, and also John Allen's Gorre & Daphetid (http://www.gdlines.com/GD_Galleries/Planning/slides/trackplan.html) is a fine classic example. Both US layouts btw, not English.

[JimBenArm]

I was wondering. Did they have to circumcise 28K so he could breathe?

JAQ!

[Horatius]

What is the difference between being on 28th's ignore list and just being someone who 28th ignores? He's just going to post off topic again.

Perhaps we could get NonBeliever the Philosopher over here to answer this question. Certainly there's no "common sense" answer available :)

[Kage]

Why don't you be a man... and directly address what I said... instead of hurling insults at me. Tell me how... my statements about the tilting of the upper mass on WTC 2 don't prove anything. Are you saying that if the upper mass were to of fallen completely off of the collapsing tower... that the lower floors would have continued to explode all the way to the ground?

So, are you saying that if you were to remove the mass above the impact, the collapse wouldn't have continued? Sure. If you are saying that if you were to remove the mass about the impact after the collapse initiated, that the collapse would have stopped? This is a much more complex problem. As the collapse progressed, the mass moving downward increased. This additional mass at the velocity we are talking about would most likely could continue the collapse, but this depends on the time the mass was removed. If the downward mass is large and/or moving fast enough it would continue to collapse the building. If you are saying that the mass should have tilted and fallen off, then you are assuming that the mass above the collapse is rigid while the mass below collapses. This is not the case. There isn't a solid enough fulcrum to cause the mass to tilt sufficiently.

If you truely believe in CD, why fly a plane into the building to begin with? Why not bomb the building, which would mean you wouldn't need to hide the CD?

[A W Smith]

What do you mean the top portion didn't stay intact? Of course, the space (floors) between the upper and lower floors gave out...

What the hell are you saying? Jesus... draw me a picture with a vertical rectangle... that is broken into two pieces... where the top piece is tilted at the same angle shown in the picture I linked to... and show me how all four sides of the top piece are still touching the lower piece.

are you saying the southern portion of the building acted as a hinge and literally lifted the northern half off the floors below?


If the upper mass falls completely off...the collapse stops, yes? Why? BECAUSE the upper mass isn't (touching) applying pressure to the lower floors... how can the upper mass apply pressure to the lower floors...WHEN IT'S NOT TOUCHING IT!
it is still making contact all the way around. The initial progression of the collapse in floor plan is just not symmetrical within the crush zone at that point,

That's why I need you to draw an illustration that shows that the upper mass could have still been touching (applying pressure) to the lower floors even at the angle shown in the picture I linked to.

Unfortunate the security settings of the nist document i have do not allow extraction of the 3d model I would show you

[28th Kingdom]

That "magical super force of energy" you refer to is known to the rest of us as "gravity." Perhaps you've heard of it.

The upper mass tilted as a result of uneven failure of the impact floors, correct. When part of the impact floors sagged more than others, there are two major forces at work:

(1) Gravity pulling down the upper block

(2) A reactive force supplied by the remaining structure

Since, as you pointed out, the remaining structure was asymmetric, this leads to a "force couple," imparting angular momentum into the upper structure. However, the magnitudes of these forces are very large. Both lower and upper block were not intended to experience an asymmetric load, so this force leads to secondary failures.

So what you're saying is that the energy released from the tilting of the upper mass is what generated the force required to push all of the lower floors into failure, yes?


The next thing that fails is the remainder of the impact floors. The surviving columns (also weakened by heat), now loaded with the full weight of the upper block, are also subject to lateral forces, and even stretching as it tries to fight rotation of the upper block. Failure is imminent.

Failure is imminent... according to what? Your opinion? Your speculation? Where are your calculations for this fact? What lateral forces? Where are your calculations? Are we talking about the wind?

The surviving columns are weakened all the way to the bottom of the structure from heat? How are the remaining lower floors bearing the FULL weight of the upper mass? Where is the proof for this statement?


If the upper floors aren't touching the lower floors, i.e. there is no structural connection between them, then there is very little "pressure" applied, I agree. However, this situation clearly never happened. The upper floors were never suspended in midair, and the upper floors were never traversed such that they were not above the lower floors.

Who said the upper floors suspended in mid-air? Why do you imply that? Where did I say that? Why do the upper floors have to be suspended in mid-air in order for them to be separated (in part) from the lower floors? Why do you say things like this...

[28th Kingdom]

So, are you saying that if you were to remove the mass above the impact, the collapse wouldn't have continued? Sure. If you are saying that if you were to remove the mass about the impact after the collapse initiated, that the collapse would have stopped? This is a much more complex problem. As the collapse progressed, the mass moving downward increased. This additional mass at the velocity we are talking about would most likely could continue the collapse, but this depends on the time the mass was removed. If the downward mass is large and/or moving fast enough it would continue to collapse the building. If you are saying that the mass should have tilted and fallen off, then you are assuming that the mass above the collapse is rigid while the mass below collapses. This is not the case. There isn't a solid enough fulcrum to cause the mass to tilt sufficiently.

If you truely believe in CD, why fly a plane into the building to begin with? Why not bomb the building, which would mean you wouldn't need to hide the CD?

How would arab terrorists get access to plant explosives in the buildings? That's why you fly planes into buildings.

What increasing mass? The floors were exploding... so how was the upper mass increasing in size? Were the floors pancaking? That couldn't be the case, cus NIST says a pancake collapse isn't possible on the WTC Towers... even though, they also claim the upper mass increased in size as it fell... so, how is it increasing in size? The floors are exploding outward... so what material is being added to the upper mass that increases its size as the collapse progresses?

[pvt1863]

How would arab terrorists get access to plant explosives in the buildings? That's why you fly planes into buildings.

What increasing mass? The floors were exploding... so how was the upper mass increasing in size? Were the floors pancaking? That couldn't be the case, cus NIST says a pancake collapse isn't possible on the WTC Towers... even though, they also claim the upper mass increased in size as it fell... so, how is it increasing in size? The floors are exploding outward... so what material is being added to the upper mass that increases its size as the collapse progresses?

Do you have proof that the collapsing region was losing mass through expulsion (which you incorrectly call "exploding") faster than it was gaining mass from the the collapse of additional floors? Or are you just looking at pictures and using your "common sense" again?

And I know you've been told this before, but NIST ruled out pankaking as the reason for the initiation of the collapse. Nowhere do they say that pankaking could not be the reason that the collapse, once initiated, propagated down the towers.