Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Tony, do you have my e-mail address? We can discuss the format privately. You have my word that I will never attempt to insult or humiliate anyone who appears on 'Hardfire.' I save my nasty stuff for anonymous net-denizens. Real people with the courage of their convictions deserve civility.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps we agree there. Gage has a religious like belief in the conspiracy and no amount of evidence or debate will ever change his mind. To him it is a noble cause.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the buildings were brought down with explosives/incendiaries? Any at all?

In this forum alone I have contributed several hundred posts to the “evidence” presented by scott and others. After all this time the evidence still is not even close to compelling. The best you guys seem to come up with is where there is a lack of evidence. That is a little sad.

When you look at the enormous amount of claims regarding 911, some of which are absolutely moronic but still wont go away, some of which are more difficult to clear up, it is clear that there is a desire to believe here which is no different from the desire to believe in the alien conspiracy or that Elvis was alive. You may complain about that being psychological nonsense but you are refusing to step back and see that this is the case.

As to your 'grade school physics problem', surely you are able to make an accurate estimate of these masses? But then you would have nothing to post about ....

Utter nonsense. Actually I am Australian but I don’t want US troops to die either. I don’t think they should ever have gone over there. However that does not change the fact that you don’t have compelling evidence for the conspiracy. We all saw what happened to the buildings, you have no evidence for explosives/incendiaries yet you ramble on that there might be a conspiracy because you can't find data which could fairly accurately estimated anyway.. :shrug:

Lol I don’t care what Ron said. (No offence Ron) . This is the pathetic position you are in that you take someone making a slip like that to be a victory which you repeat over and over. You are so desperate for any win over Ron, Mackey or anyone. You are completely ridiculed by the more qualified at the JREF so you retreat here where you feel safer to talk about your laughable ‘victory’ over Mackey.

I haven’t watched them.

What was I “making a big deal about” ?

So you did something that took some time.. and ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.
In case you haven't noticed I don't deal in conspiracy crap evidence.

You asked me about my model and I responded and now you say nothing, AGAIN.

The plane was less than 200 TONS the building was more than 400,000 TONS. I thought about this for two weeks after 9/11 and concluded the plane could not produce the effects we see. I could give less than a shit about snide remarks from you or Wieck "Brain" Ron. His "ten thousand tons" was just funny to me. You people that BELIEVE the plane caused it can't even tell us the tons of steel on each of the five levels where the planes struck. So how can you explain the buildings coming down in less than 18 seconds?

You people BELIEVE IN MAGIC as far as I am concerned.

I have built two models demonstrating the relevance of the inertia of the mass distributed through the building in its responses to forces in horizontal and vertical directions. I didn't need to do it because I can do it in my head. But since this idiotic shit has dragged on for SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS now I felt there was a need to demonstrate the obvious. So if you can believe that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid when you don't even ask about the distribution of mass that had to come down in less than 18 seconds you go right ahead. I don't have access to any sources of information about explosive that you do not and I DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO WHATEVER IS OUT THERE. I know damn well that if someone gave me a piece of steel from the WTC with sulfur content because of thermate and took me to a fully equipped chemistry lab, I would not have the vaguest idea of how to analyze it for sulfur. I would have to take somebody's word JUST LIKE YOU. I AM NOT GOOD AT TAKING PEOPLE'S WORD. But I understand mass and inertia and force and momentum and kinetic energy and I don't need to take anybody's word about that.

As far as I am concerned it is GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS. If some people don't get it, tough shit.

If you don't give a damn about the models I built that is perfectly fine with me, but then don't waste my time asking questions about them. It just shows you are worthy of Ron's boring insults.

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well it's simple.
the plane hits, fires erupt, the buildings fall.

i have question for you psiky.
what if your model says it couldn't happen?
what conclusion are you going to draw?

 

That simple, huh? Fires erupt, the buildings fall, on the outside.
That doesn't necessarily tell us what was really going on inside.

 

It does seem like magic to think that the building(s) withstood the impact, stood there burning and managed to be strong enough to stay up for around an hour, and then in less than 20 seconds crumbled into dust.

What also seems very magical? The stunning convenience of the too perfect storm that killed several birds with one stone, as far as political agendas go (PNAC et al.). Of course, that would be a conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? :runaway:

You were speaking of psychology earlier. What is to be said of the psychology of someone who says scenario A is correct because scenario B is a conspiracy theory?
What is up with the phenomenon of invalidating someone's argument merely by flinging the "conspiracy theorist" label?

 

Looking at the remainder of this post, yes you do.

You don’t seem to be sane so I will explain. You appeared to be contradicting yourself and I asked for clarification. You seemed to be saying that certain information was needed, you don’t have the information but your model is still correct. Do you understand this?


I have missed a post of your over the page as I can only post so much while I am at work. You will no doubt take that as a victory or something…

I will get to your model eventually. I can't watch videos at work.

What does that matter? The weight of the plane did not cause the collapse! Were you not aware of this? You understand that the fire softening unprotected steel actually initiated the collapse right?

When you say sentences like that it appears that you have very simplistically just weighed up "200 Tons plane Vs 400, 000 Ton building… hrm the building would win", as if we are talking about a boxing match.


A bullet of a hundred grams or so can bring down animals over 100 kg. Can you comprehend that? Must be magic.

Well that’s compelling evidence. You thought about it and decided it couldn’t happen…. That’s it?

We all saw what happened. Give me evidence that something other than the plane did it. You don’t have any. You just know (believe) that it couldn’t because you thought about it and you would have nothing to say.

No I can’t, but that doesn’t compensate for the lack of evidence for a conspiracy.

Once again, you could fairly accurately calculate the tons of steel and concrete. If you actually did that then you wouldn’t have any missing information to complain about. You would have even less to say then.

Gravity can be problematic at times….

You are the one claiming that it can’t happen based on ‘thinking about it for two weeks’. Your only evidence appears to be a little model which has been ridiculed at the jref......

The rest of your post was a rant and not worth responding to.

 

according to the videos i've seen of the collapse the buildings fell on the inside too.

in case you missed it tony himself has confirmed the core columns were broken instead of cut.

 

Perhaps you didn't realise I was being sarcastic. Clearly you are somewhat focused on Ryan Mackey.

 

.
JEEZ! I wish I had a dollar for every idiot I have communicated with on the internet that resorted to that analogy.

In talking about an airliner hitting a building we are discussing and INANIMATE OBJECT hitting another INANIMATE OBJECT. But you come up with an inanimate object hitting an ANIMATE ONE and want to pretend that the comparison is valid.

Buildings do not have knees. Buildings do not have hearts. Buildings do not breath, at least not for themselves. The have ventilation systems for the people. You can make a horse collapse by putting a plastic bag over its head causing it to sufficate. If you could have put a giant plastic bag over one of the WTC towers do you think it would collapse?

Suppose you got an 8 foot piece of telephone pole and dug a 2 foot hole in the ground and buried one end so it stood straight up. If you then shot it with a rifle from a few feet away do you think it would fall down? That would be an INANIMATE OBJECT hitting another INANIMATE OBJECT and more like what happened on 9/11.

That is the DEBATING GAME CRAP that people play. DEBATING GRADE SCHOOL NEWTONIAN PHYSICS is idiotic. People either understand it or they don't. If people that understand it disagree then somebody is probably lying.

Now I could deal with more of your points but since that analogy you provided adequately demonstrates the quality of your thought I won't waste any more time responding.

We can just agree to regard each other as incompetents that are not worth the time.

psik

 

.
So you can't tell the difference between the diagrams and the man?

Maybe you didn't understand the diagrams?

Maybe you didn't even watch the video but want to play psychological bullshit games because that is all you know how to do?

psik

 

This is one of the most interesting and amazing videos I have seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

That is the start of the south tower collapse 56 minutes after impact.

The vertical lines you see on the side of the building are the perimeter columns. Those columns are 3'4" center to center. So it looks like the part of the building just above the sheer moved to the right 7 column spreads in a matter of seconds before everything came down and it does not look like what was below offered significant resistance.

So how could fire make so much mass move like that? Entire floor slabs had to move. Columns had to be completely sheered off. But then we aren't told the tons of steel on each of those levels. Just BELIEVE!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

psik

 

people do get impolite if someone insists that the sky is green, but i think your ego is too big and is hampering your judgment.

read your first paragraph and try to figure out why that should not apply to you.

i knew from the minute Scott started posting here that you guys had already made the rounds and were looking for a new soapbox.

its all about ego, ego is one of the downsides of being human...the root of so many problems too.

 

what really kills me is tony accuses ron of being biased.

at least i'm willing to concede that those buildings were indeed taken down with explosives.
the problem is that no supporting evidence can be found for such a scenario.
there were construction engineers on that pile along with demolition experts, cops, and firemen. for all of them to miss evidence of explosives is unimaginable.
for tony to state these people wouldn't know what to look for and wasn't looking for it is laughable.
forensic testing is not required to tell whether a girder was cut or broken.

 

.
And what is the distribution of steel and concrete in a skyscraper about? EGO?

Skyscrapers are held up by EGO?

I agree athey are built because of EGO but I don't think gravity gives a shit.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do you ever think that most people do not like people that are obviously smarter than they are? Whose ego really has the problem? Are the smart people supposed to PLAY DUMB? To a certain extent that is the SMART thing to do, but it is SO BORING, day after day after day.

psik

 

.
You don't think it is obvious?

He called me a conspiracy liar!

When have I ever talked about conspiracies? He has not specified what I supposedly lied about or provided evidence.

He think in terms of groups. He has put me in a group and accuses everyone in that group of the same stuff. He just needs what he regards as scientific support for what he has decided to believe. Ryan Mackey is his scientific AUTHORITY.

Talking about a skyscraper collapsing without having the distribution of steel and concrete data is scientific nonsense.

Doing it SEVEN YEARS after the fact is insanely hilarious. LOL

psik

 

well psiky?

 

he made a model out of toothpicks and washers, a model that has no relevance to this discussion because it is not even close to being an accurate representation. you can make that say anything you want. he should have taken a torch out and incorporated it into his model.

 

freudian slip there sikey.

 

.
NO!

I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

Did you notice it was a question?

In college the psychology courses were referred to by a rather sexist term implying they were so easy they were a joke. EVERYBODY got at least a B, it was just a question of whether you wanted to do the extra work to get an A. If you weren't in the top 5% on the SAT you didn't get into the school.

The funny thing about that psychology book THOUGH, was something I made a point of remembering exactly because it was so STUPID.

"Intelligence is what intelligence tests measure."

So the psychologists validate themselves. I think the idea of boiling intelligence down to a single number is inherently STUPID. I was taught in grade school that you don't use a word to define itself. I guess psychologists don't agree with that. LOL

psik