Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Stryder, Jul 9, 2009.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
We've been saying that for years, but apparently you still think explosives was involved.
okay, let's do that:
no cop from the pile reported any type of bomb debris was found.
no video from the pile shows any type of bomb debris being found.
no reporter from the pile has ever stated any type of bomb debris was found.
no investigator from the pile has reported any type of bomb debris was found.
no fireman from the pile reported any bomb debris.
no whistleblower has come forward stating any type of shady operations at the pile.
now scott, what would you say was the most likely cause of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?
If after today, I see you bring up Scott Forbes again without addressing my following points, I will be reporting you as a troll.
50,000 employees and only 1 (Scott Forbes) claims there was a power-down.
Truthers have never shown any documentation of a power-down and not a single other person to corroberate anything Scott Forbes says.
Scott Forbes keeps changing his story: Originally stating 36 hour power-down, he changed it to 26 hours. Claiming it was on the South Tower from the 50th floor up, he later said he wasn't sure if it affected floors below the 90th floor.
With only one person claiming a power-down at the 90th floor, what about all the other floors? What about the North Tower? What about WTC7? 1 person claiming a power-down on a single floor for 26 hours does not a demolition make.
This is another thing were if I see you bring it up again without addressing the following points, I will report you as a troll.
These articles are patents of inventions. Not things which have been shown to cut thick steel columns. This is why he uses diagrams and not the real thing to show his point.
One of the devices is seen on youtube, but it is cutting a 1 inch hollow metal tube. Not tons of steel columns. There is no reason for anybody to believe a linear cut of thick steel columns is possible anywhere
Mythbusters placed 1,000 pounds of thermite on top of a car, and despite cars being made of lightweight metals, the car was not cut in half.
Truthers tried to do linear cuts using thermite at a burning man event, and they failed to such an extent that they couldn't even attempt any linear cuts.
If nothing other than the planes was involved then shouldn't it be possible to analyze the physics of this event with little difficulty considering how much computing power is available today compared to the early 1960s when the towers were designed?
So what is this nonsense with not having the QUANTITY of steel on every level?
Tony talks about the square inches of cross sectional area of the columns. But since each level was 144 inches high the cubic inches of column steel shouldn't be difficult to come up with. With steel having a density of 489 lb. per cubic foot that can be converted to tons of steel. There are simply different ways of specifying the amount of steel. So why don't we even know the amount of steel on each level near the planes' impacts? What kind of SCIENCE is this?
So what is with these people that want to imply that they are so sophisticated and scientific and then dismiss this entire business but don't have any interest in the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers?
Of course after almost EIGHT YEARS they would looks pretty absurd if an accurate analysis of the physics says a plane could not possibly have done it.
Here is a book for people that don't demand correct data:
Perhaps it's not such a simple answer. I mean to build a tall building the reasoning is that you need stronger materials at the bottom to support the weight and as you build up you can use lighter/less strong materials since they don't need to support extra weight but need to be as light as possible.
It's possible that the design did this with the inner core, but kept using the same grade of materials throughout the external framework, making the external framework heavier than it should of been.
However this is hypothesis, since from what I've come to understand is true, the towers were built with the core taking the load. Only would further analysis suggest if that was indeed the case, or if indeed they changed the grade of materials for the out frame like they did with the core.
Haha! You should have a read at that yourself.
I've never read any argument more scientifically illiterate than the one posted by yourself; that tons of steel can be thrown hundreds of feet by bombs without blast events being heard by those underneath the towers.
i guess it's the same kind of nonsense in yelling "BOMBS" !!!
after almost 8 years no whistleblower ever stated there was a bomb or shady operations at WTC 1 & 2.
get a clue.
What do you mean, "the core taking the load"?
The NCSTAR1 report says the load was split 53/47% between the core and the perimeter.
The report also says there were 12 different types of exterior wall panels so the perimeter was not the same all of the way up.
Why keep talking about HYPOTHESES? Why not just demand that AUTHORITY provide the information? How anybody can claim to be SCIENTIFIC and not expect to be told the obviously relevant information is beyond my comprehension. Science isn't about TRUST!
Clues aren't necessary to know that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up.
Get something that would enable you to figure out the obvious.
The site Patriots Question 9/11 has a long list of people who question the official story. Here is a summary of the people who they've found question the official 9/11 story:
190+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
670+ Engineers and Architects
200+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
400+ Professors Question 9/11
230+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
Tell me Stryder, you have a similar list for people who believe that "Elvis flew a UFO with an alien doomsday device weapon to wipe out the WTC to prove that Scientology is a Religion"? Somehow, I really don't think so.
I was tempted to not address any of your points because of your rudeness. If it were up to me, you would have been warned for all your insults long ago. I have decided to atleast address your first point though.
How would you know? Perhaps they did, and found that, as happened in the case of Scott Forbes, no one in the official investigation wanted to hear what they had to say? Perhaps most people just don't have the courage and perserverance that Scott Forbes did. He makes it clear what lengths he went to just to get his story heard by people who -did- want to listen. Here's a good excerpt from and article in The Truth Seeker, where he describes both the effort he put into getting the word out as well as his fear that he might lose his job for it, as 9/11 truth luminaries Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan have before him:
In the end, Forbes says that even though these disclosures could jeopardize his current employment, he has stepped forward because, “I have mailed this information to many people, including the 9/11 Commission, but no one seems to be registering these facts.”
He highlights the problem. Not many people are willing to lose their jobs when it seems clear that so few who were -supposed- to be interested in finding out the truth are actually interested in hearing it. I know you like to bury your head in the sand when it comes to the obvious, but perhaps one day you might ask yourself, why did the 9/11 Commission and others not want to listen to him? The only reason his story got through is because he kept on telling it until he found people who were willing to listen. I wouldn't be at all surprised if others originally told it but when they realized that none of the official investigators wanted to hear it, they decided that it wasn't worth possibly losing their jobs over it.
I decided that, for the truth if nothing else, I'd respond to a bit more of your post...
Do you have any evidence that anyone else in a position to know was asked?
I think it's understandable that some details could have been fuzzy. It's also possible that some people in high places have been applying pressure for him to change his story, if only slightly. If I were you, I'd focus on the fact that no one to date has refuted his claim that there was a power down. Why do you suppose that is?
Is that what he's saying now? That it was a single floor? If so, can you cite your source?
let's see, i don't think any of these people were present on the pile scott.
the people that WERE present has this to say:
Heck with it, might as well finish off your post...
Do you think that they patented the nuclear bomb before they gave it a test drive? Kenny, we're talking about the military here; I wouldn't be surprised if they tested some stuff -before- it was patented.
Look Kenny, the military isn't going to go bragging about its top secret military capabilities, not if it wants to keep them exclusively to itself at any rate. And that's -especially- so if those military capabilities were used in an operation that most people would agree amounts to high treason. The Bush family is certainly is familiar with treason. Were you aware of that?
Again, thermite is not the same thing as nano thermite. Thermite is an incendiary, nano-thermite is a high-level explosive.
Tony already dealt with your pile stuff. I'm not going to address it again.
And KennyJC just has to claim that something is a "strawman" for it to be one.
Suppose we created a computer simulation of something that we know could not happen in the real world?
Make a computer model of the north tower and then remove 5 levels, 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96. This would leave a 60 foot gap with 14 levels in the air with no support. So 14 levels would fall straight down impacting the lower portion at 44 mph.
I think everyone would have to concede that the total elimination of 5 levels is more than the airliner and fires could possibly have done. But to analyze the result wouldn't the computer model have to know the quantity and strength of steel and concrete on every level? So if this computer model was accurately done and the entire building did not collapse then what would that say about this EIGHT YEAR debate?
That doesn't cut it Scott. Bottom line is that you have only one person making this claim. We have nobody inside the building, no e-mails, no documentation of any kind proving that half the tower was shut down. Not one of the millions of people outside the tower has made any comments about seeing the top half of the tower shrouded in darkness.
This is not a problem, that's an excuse on your part as to why you have no supporting evidence.
Been getting help from Headspin? LOL
The real question is there ANY evidence to back up what Scott Forbes is saying? Not a single bit.
Really? No one has refuted his claim?
we paid $13.50 each for the tickets to the observation deck of the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Brian held my hands in his and stared into my eyes trying to keep me calm as the express elevator climbed and climbed to the observation deck on the 107th floor. We walked around, looked through the telescopes, watched a movie on the history of the buildings, and even pressed a couple of commemorative pennies in one of those little machines.
Picture of ticket stubs - Note the date and time:
Bear in mind Scott Forbes says that the power down started at noon, yet these tickets were purchased more than 90 minutes later. So not only is Scott Forbes unable back any of his claims, but we know the top of the tower was open to the public.
I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors
The J. Hudson building is the largest steel building to be demolished, and it took 7 months to set up. 7 months on an empty building... and here you are claiming that the South Tower can be rigged in 26 hours. Absolutely insane.
Even if his story is true, why drastically shut down only half of one tower? That accounts for only 60 of all 267 floors that collapsed 3 days later.
Of course these things are top secret... that's why it's on YouTube cutting a thin peice of metal, right?
So just as a matter of faith, you believe the military has lateral cutting thermite devices able to cut thick steel?
You have absolutely no proof that nanothermite (which for all intents and purposes, exists in small quantities in laboratories) has been touted by researchers to be able to cut large scale objects, let alone steel columns.
It all comes down to faith. You have no idea how nanothermite behaves.
In the instance of any Scientific investigation it would require people to do a job, a job they aren't being paid for. If you truthers put your money where your mouth is, then you could gain the information that you keep bugging people about, but alas you couldn't give that much of a crap about the information or you'd be out there with a bucket getting other truthers to delve into their pockets to get an "independent" study done.
Actually in all honesty "YES" if I was to go out and run a poll across the whole of the US and the UK, the numbers of people that would actually vote that was responsible, would probably be the same percentage as the numbers you have from your own wacked out story. The reason for this is because some people will pick the wackiest answer in a poll just for the sake of it being wacky.
It doesn't have anything to do with truth, polls never do. In fact with the correct Neural Linguistics any poll can be easily slid in favour of any singular result. This is proven many times with elections.
Separate names with a comma.