Prophet For A Dying Empire

[Airstrip One]

Weren't the buildings deliberately built to collapse downward, because it was only assumed a single floor might give out, and so it was a believed to be a superior design, as the failing floor could be supported by the structure?

 

[Howey]

Weren't the buildings deliberately built to collapse downward, because it was only assumed a single floor might give out, and so it was a believed to be a superior design, as the failing floor could be supported by the structure?

Oh, quit being reasonable Threedee!

 

[blackascoal]

All 9/11 truther claims have been meticulously refuted. The Popular Mechanics refutation is a good one, but there are many others.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

'Truther' claims are based on the complete opposite of the scientific method: start with a conclusion, and then stretch the facts to support your idea. Basically no different than what young earth creationists and other religious crackpots do every day.

If you are actually interested in the truth, this seems pretty good so far. Just started it yesterday.

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X

:0)

Absolutely mind-blowing ridiculous.

Popular Mechanics .. best known for 'how to fix a toilet' .. has been refuted and debunked many times.

But before this conversation gets all tangled up in nonsensical pablum .. as is the manner of swallowers like yourself .. YOU NEVER ADDRESSED THE 3rd GRADE SCIENCE QUESTION PUT TO YOU.

It's simple science that doesn't require you to run and hide behind debunked thought.

Collapsing buildings/mass ALWAYS seeks the path of least resistance when collapsing .. thus, they topple over, not straight down.

Falling mass that encounters equal or greater mass ALWAYS slows down. Simple 3rd grade science. Falling at anywhere near free-fall speed is IMPOSSIBLE.

The events of 9/11 CANNOT be replicated. They are IMPOSSIBLE to science.

Given that you call yourself a 'rationalist' and assuming that you understand 3rd grade science ..

1. Does science and physics demonstrate that collapsing mass always seeks the path of least resistance?

2. Do falling objects slow down when encountering equal or greater mass?

3. What looks like a controlled demolition that is not?

Here, I'll give you a study guide for your answers ..

That building burned with RAGING fires for 26 HOURS, and so intense that you could see it from space .. which did not happen to the three 9/11 buildings .. and after the fires burned out ..

Not only is the building still standing, but the crane on top of the building still stands. The towers were built much stronger than this building and was DESIGNED to absorb multiple airplane strikes .. yet the towers melted and WTC7 .. nobody knows.

Collapsing buildings ALWAYS seeks the path of least resistance and I defy you to produce one that did not.

"I'm an old interceptor pilot, I know the drill, I've done it. I know how long it takes, I know the rules... and... critics on the government story on 9/11 have said: 'Well, they knew about this, and they did nothing'. That's not true. If our government had done nothing that day, and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive." -- Lt. Col. Robert Bowman

Robert M. Bowman is a former Director of STAR WARS, the Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations, and a former United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions. He holds a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from the California Institute of Technology.

 

[blackascoal]

bac, did you read the reports about the major design flaw that caused the building to collapse the way it did?

i studied math and science in secondary school and college. enough of what you say is true that some who do not know better will believe it, but you are wrong. once the 'pancake' effect started, the design of the building propagated it. the supports rather than being spread throughout the building were built into the outside portions of the structure not the inside.

WTC 7 had a completely different design and structure and was not hit by a plane, didn't have raging fires .. yet, it went down in the exact same fashion as the towers.

Given that you know science and I assume physics, surely you are aware that localized fire cannot cause uniform asymmetrical collapse as supposedly happened in bldg 7.

 

[Don Quixote]

:0)

Absolutely mind-blowing ridiculous.

Popular Mechanics .. best known for 'how to fix a toilet' .. has been refuted and debunked many times.

But before this conversation gets all tangled up in nonsensical pablum .. as is the manner of swallowers like yourself .. YOU NEVER ADDRESSED THE 3rd GRADE SCIENCE QUESTION PUT TO YOU.

It's simple science that doesn't require you to run and hide behind debunked thought.

Collapsing buildings/mass ALWAYS seeks the path of least resistance when collapsing .. thus, they topple over, not straight down.

Falling mass that encounters equal or greater mass ALWAYS slows down. Simple 3rd grade science. Falling at anywhere near free-fall speed is IMPOSSIBLE.

The events of 9/11 CANNOT be replicated. They are IMPOSSIBLE to science.

Given that you call yourself a 'rationalist' and assuming that you understand 3rd grade science ..

1. Does science and physics demonstrate that collapsing mass always seeks the path of least resistance?

2. Do falling objects slow down when encountering equal or greater mass?

3. What looks like a controlled demolition that is not?

Here, I'll give you a study guide for your answers ..

That building burned with RAGING fires for 26 HOURS, and so intense that you could see it from space .. which did not happen to the three 9/11 buildings .. and after the fires burned out ..

Not only is the building still standing, but the crane on top of the building still stands. The towers were built much stronger than this building and was DESIGNED to absorb multiple airplane strikes .. yet the towers melted and WTC7 .. nobody knows.

Collapsing buildings ALWAYS seeks the path of least resistance and I defy you to produce one that did not.

"I'm an old interceptor pilot, I know the drill, I've done it. I know how long it takes, I know the rules... and... critics on the government story on 9/11 have said: 'Well, they knew about this, and they did nothing'. That's not true. If our government had done nothing that day, and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive." -- Lt. Col. Robert Bowman

Robert M. Bowman is a former Director of STAR WARS, the Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations, and a former United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions. He holds a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from the California Institute of Technology.

living inside the bubble i see - i would have thought better of you

 

[Howey]

living inside the bubble i see - i would have thought better of you

We should note the past couple of weeks as the time BAC imploded and turned into an anti-semitic, Alex Jones worshipping conspiracy theorist of the highest order

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

We should note the past couple of weeks as the time BAC imploded and turned into an anti-semitic, Alex Jones worshipping conspiracy theorist of the highest order

Howey when you call someone like BAC anti-Semitic, you cheapen the meaning. He is in no way anti-Semitic. Using the phrase in this manner turns it into a weapon used to silence people you don't agree with. No one here believes BAC is anti-Semitic, let me be clear. We have all known him too long. He has no bigotry in him whatsoever, towards anyone. You're wrong.

 

[blackascoal]

living inside the bubble i see - i would have thought better of you

:0) Yet you haven't addressed anything I've posed to you .. other than 'the pancake effect.'

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

You just tossed something out .. and declared yourself the winner. You didn't address anything else posted.

You are one of my favorite posters brother .. but you are also a demonstration of the tactics employed by those I call swallowers.

You guys never answer any questions, never address evidence .. not even the questions of science which NONE of you have addressed .. yourself included.

This is why I don't usually engage in these conversations .. it's like talking to brick. Even simple science becomes an enemy of the state.

 

[blackascoal]

We should note the past couple of weeks as the time BAC imploded and turned into an anti-semitic, Alex Jones worshipping conspiracy theorist of the highest order

We should note that the dumbest poster on this board can turn every conversation into an imaginary attack on Jews.

We should also note that the dumbest motherfucker on this board didn't have the intelligence to address a goddamn thing .. just a Don Quixoteish defense of windmills.

"antisemite" .. you mean I don't like Arabs .. who are every bit as 'semitic' as you are.

Stupid

 

[cancel2 2022]

We should note that the dumbest poster on this board can turn every conversation into an imaginary attack on Jews.

We should also note that the dumbest motherfucker on this board didn't have the intelligence to address a goddamn thing .. just a Don Quixoteish defense of windmills.

"antisemite" .. you mean I don't like Arabs .. who are every bit as 'semitic' as you are.

Stupid

Do you subscribe to the five Israelis watching the towers falling down theory? In other words, Mossad caused 9/11.

 

[cancel2 2022]

WTC 7 had a completely different design and structure and was not hit by a plane, didn't have raging fires .. yet, it went down in the exact same fashion as the towers.

Given that you know science and I assume physics, surely you are aware that localized fire cannot cause uniform asymmetrical collapse as supposedly happened in bldg 7.

There were four main reasons:

The collapse of WT1 and 2 cut off the water to the sprinklers in WT7
There were huge falls of debris from the twin towers onto WT7
The lowest six floors were completely ablaze and burnt out.
Because of the fact that it was built over an existing electricity sub station, certain design compromises had to be implemented.

What the truthers have done is to concoct a theory then tried to fit the facts to it. What you are trying to do is the same shit with the Moon landings, using half baked scientific principles to back up a loony theory.

 

[blackascoal]

Do you subscribe to the five Israelis watching the towers falling down theory? In other words, Mossad caused 9/11.

Have you EVER read me to suggest anything like that?

With regards to Mossad, their own credo speaks for itself.

"By deception thou shall do war"

Rather than inject something never said, nor implied .. you could more easily answer the 3rd grade science question.

 

[blackascoal]

There were four main reasons:

The collapse of WT1 and 2 cut off the water to the sprinklers in WT7
There were huge falls of debris from the twin towers onto WT7
The lowest six floors were completely ablaze and burnt out.
Because of the fact that it was built over an existing electricity sub station, certain design compromises had to be implemented.

What the truthers have done is to concoct a theory then tried to fit the facts to it. What you are trying to do is the same shit with the Moon landings, using half baked scientific principles to back up a loony theory.

I have no intention of spending my day debating with people who don't know 3rd grade science.

 

[blackascoal]

I'm done with this issue.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Have you EVER read me to suggest anything like that?

With regards to Mossad, their own credo speaks for itself.

"By deception thou shall do war"

Rather than inject something never said, nor implied .. you could more easily answer the 3rd grade science question.

The owner of that website Veterans Today is on record as saying exactly that.

Gordon Duff, the VT senior editor and chairman of the board, as a "anti-Semitic conspiracist." In a July 2010 essay on VT, Duff asserted that the "five dancing Israelis" arrested on 9/11 were part of a "team of Israeli intelligence agents" who remotely guided the planes into the World Trade Center with the knowledge of "top members of America's military." He added that America's security continues to be threatened "by a nefarious and disloyal group of Americans who have dual U.S./Israeli citizenship and who control government organizations and private companies.

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

 

[Don Quixote]

:0) Yet you haven't addressed anything I've posed to you .. other than 'the pancake effect.'

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

You just tossed something out .. and declared yourself the winner. You didn't address anything else posted.

You are one of my favorite posters brother .. but you are also a demonstration of the tactics employed by those I call swallowers.

You guys never answer any questions, never address evidence .. not even the questions of science which NONE of you have addressed .. yourself included.

This is why I don't usually engage in these conversations .. it's like talking to brick. Even simple science becomes an enemy of the state.

i cannot agree with you on this one, but i apologize for my dismissive comment.

i watched the mess live and if it was staged or part of a conspiracy it was a most excellent one. having said that, conspiracies leak. do you have any proof of a conspiracy? how many people do you think would have had to be a part of the conspiracy to make it all work. it is the empirical and Occam's razor at work that convinced me. i would not have put it past bushco to do it, i just do not think that they were that competent.

 

[cancel2 2022]

I'm done with this issue.

What the truthers cannot seem to get through their heads is that much of the inside of WT7 had already collapsed and what you are seeing in that famous video is the collapse of the building's facade. It is also not falling in free fall as it is timed at 5.4 seconds, if it were in free fall then it would have taken 3.9 seconds.

[h=4]In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?[/h] In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Sporadic fires, not at all along the entire floor. But lets say there were fires on ALL floors. Never before or since has a steel pillar core building EVER brought down by fire alone. The building free fell. Straight down on itself. No single physicist can legitimately explain this. NOT ONE.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

 

[blackascoal]

i cannot agree with you on this one, but i apologize for my dismissive comment.

Apology accepted and appreciated. I only came back to this thread to read your response to my post to you.

i watched the mess live and if it was staged or part of a conspiracy it was a most excellent one.

In truth, it wasn't that good. Evidence of a fraud are to be found everywhere.

Like you, I watched it too, as did Peter Jennings .. and it looked exactly as he called it .. a controlled demolition.

Can you think of anything that looks like a controlled demolition that isn't?

having said that, conspiracies leak. do you have any proof of a conspiracy?

The science questions that you can't answer are proof that the official story is a lie.

how many people do you think would have had to be a part of the conspiracy to make it all work. it is the empirical and Occam's razor at work that convinced me. i would not have put it past bushco to do it, i just do not think that they were that competent.

Where is the competency?

The official story was that when one of the planes hit one of the towers .. a paper passport fell out of the pockets of one of the hijackers, then fell through fire, fell hundreds of feet to the ground ,, then shortly after, an FBI agent, thought dust, smoke, and pulverized concrete so thick one could hardly see a hand in front of their face .. and among thousands of tons of pulverized steel, metal, office furniture, and paper .. that FBI agent walked over and found the passport and immediately related it to the event.

That's the OFFICIAL story.

I repeat, you CANNOT replicate the events of 9/11 because there are scientifically IMPOSSIBLE.

There is a plethora of evidence that conclusively demonstrates the fraud.

What do you have to say about what Col. Bowman said? Is he a looney .. doesn't know what he's talking about?

Much respect for you brother .. we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[blackascoal]

What the truthers cannot seem to get through their heads is that much of the inside of WT7 had already collapsed and what you are seeing in that famous video is the collapse of the building's facade. It is also not falling in free fall as it is timed at 5.4 seconds, if it were in free fall then it would have taken 3.9 seconds.



http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Sorry ,, that's ignorant .. and you've YET to answer the simple science question ..

This is an apple

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition