9/11 Poll

[shaman_]

The point is not irrelevant; before FEMA's report, by which time Kevin Ryan had made it abundantly clear that the fires couldn't have melted the steel (and was fired shortly thereafter), many people believed that the fires did just that.

The investigations into 911 did not conclude that the fire melted the steel (apart from some possible eutectic solution caused by the addition of sulfur). This conclusion had nothing to do with Kevin Ryan who was fired for making false claims about subjects he knew little about and compromising the reputation of his company.

No, they couldn't have. But feel free to point out any evidence that suggests that they had even the slightest chance of doing so.

I have gone through it with you, painstakingly, over and over and over.

I certainly have plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that NIST had to imagine heat and use tweaked computer models in order to get the towers even to the point of "collapse initiation". Here's a good link to see their imagined heat:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration

I have addressed the problems with these claims with you numerous times. I'm not talking about once or twice, I'm talking about so many times that I was suggesting that you have some sort of memory problem.

Here's the same link at a part where it's showing how their model ignored conduction:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#conduction

Also been here many times. I have demonstrated to you using the Cardington tests that the conduction between the steel components was actually not very effective. The temperature difference between connecting peices of steel was often several hundred degrees celcius.

The same link again, this time critiquing NIST's "Global Analysis":
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#analysis

How was that even relevant to what we were discussing? You are just spamming now.

You may be right that it will be shut down soon. I would argue that this speaks more of the moderation then of the validity of the arguments I and others have made here in favour of the inside job theories, however.

Your 'arguments' have been shot down over and over by many members of this forum. You cannot defend yourself so you keep spamming the same nonsense over and over.

Unless others have something new to add to this I think it should be shut down. Your post here is a good example why. You have just repeated the same pathetic claims which have been exposed over and over and then thrown in some spam for the sake of it. You have absolutely nothing new to add. Instead of comprehending this you will probably take it as an indication the the mods can't handle the truth or perhaps they are even involved.

 

[stereologist]

Thanks Trippy. The problem is that this does not have the properties of a pyroclastic flow nor act like a pyroclastic flow. If you want to know what a big pyroclastic flow is like try looking up nuee ardentes.

Even underwater turbidity currents such as the one I showed in the modeling center can travel at 60 miles per hour, which is 3 times the speed of the dust clouds at the WTC.

 

[Trippy]

Thanks Trippy. The problem is that this does not have the properties of a pyroclastic flow nor act like a pyroclastic flow. If you want to know what a big pyroclastic flow is like try looking up nuee ardentes.

Even underwater turbidity currents such as the one I showed in the modeling center can travel at 60 miles per hour, which is 3 times the speed of the dust clouds at the WTC.

You're welcome.

And you know - I still haven't come up with an adequitly ridiculous analogy to illustrate how ridiculous comparing the WTC debris flows to a pyroclastic flow - that alone should indicate just how blatantly ridiculously ridiculous it is.

I may not have majored in Geology, but I was intending to double major, and I do have a strong geology background (not as strong, as for example, ophiolite).

 

[stereologist]

trippy I hope you realized I was talking to the entire forum and not just you. I want to alert people to the odd and wrong claim of the pyroclastic flow.

You have my mind buzzing now thinking of something that looks similar, but is completely different. My thoughts always jump to the backwards turning wagon wheels as an example of something that is easy to see on film, but is not happening.

 

[Trippy]

trippy I hope you realized I was talking to the entire forum and not just you. I want to alert people to the odd and wrong claim of the pyroclastic flow.

Absolutely, but it has always been one of my pet peeves, just because of how absurdly wrong it is.

I mean seriously, the only thing that upward flowing dust indicates that it's either entrained in an updraft, (hmm, in the middle of a city what could possibly be causing updrafts </tongue in cheek></sarcasm>) or that the airflow its entrained in has encountered and obstacle of some kind (hmmm, in the middle of downtown manhattan, what could possibly obstruct airflow </tongue in cheek></sarcasm>).

And as far as the dust clouds reaching above the height of the towers goes?

Well...
http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/facts-about-empire-state-building-3195.html

An intriguing fact is that the original intent of the building was that it was to be used as a mooring mast and depot for zeppelins. That proved both impractical and dangerous due to the sizable updraft from the building itself.

And I'm sure i've come across information elsewhere suggesting that sky scrapers can be associated with significant updrafts.

I mean think about logically for a minute.
BIG concrete and steel edifice.
All day sunlight...

I hope you realize this post isn't just directed at you anymore :3
Somewhere <rant> was opened, but never closed :3

 

[Trippy]

My thoughts always jump to the backwards turning wagon wheels as an example of something that is easy to see on film, but is not happening.

In a similar vein...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=en&v=cNsYAJUlPGU
It looks like this helicopter is taking off without using its rotors.

Anyone wanna try and argue that that's what's happening?

Just because two things resemble each other superficially, doesn't mean they're the same.

 

[Trippy]

Here's another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyisg9-Mwjw
Now, obviously because it looks liken the helicopters are operating without moving their rotors, they must be, it must be some sort of government conspiracy, really these vehicles operate on the same pricnicple as the TR-3B, and in these isolated cases, the pilots simply forgot to turn the spinny engine on, and accidentally blew their cover.

That is... If we ascribe to Conspircay theorist logic.

 

[stereologist]

What's even more amazing is that the helicopters have 3 wheels that form a triangle like the flying black triangles. And the large white pyroclastic flows overhead are scary! I've heard that if you get vaccinated you can't be a pilot of an anti-gravity helicopter. A friend of a friend also told me that the people that shot those videos were eliminated by unknown government agency with unlimited spending capabilities.

OK. I can't get too silly here, because I would like an answer at some point from scott3x on why huge amounts of heat are supposed to be involved.

 

[KennyJC]

Pro science? There are full fledged -scientists- on my side, such as Steven Jones, who had been published in both Scientific American as well as in Nature, perhaps the top scientific journals, before 9/11 even came to pass. There are also 653 (and counting) architectural and engineering professionals who support a reinvestigation of the WTC building collapses, as can be seen in the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth homepage.

You can't Ben Stein me on this issue.

Consensus rules. Kooky website's with a relative handful of college graduates and a junk scientist does not answer why the bulk of respectable science just laughs at demolition claims.

 

[scott3x]

You can't Ben Stein me on this issue.

Consensus rules. Kooky website's with a relative handful of college graduates and a junk scientist does not answer why the bulk of respectable science just laughs at demolition claims.

Look, you and people like you can continue to deny all the evidence out there, dismissing it as kooky or what not. There are times when I just get tired of arguing with people who clearly don't really want to do any investigating that would put into question their own beliefs. So go on believing whatever you want to believe. In the end, I believe that time will reveal the truth to everyone, just as time has revealed that the WMDs that were allegedly in Iraq weren't Weapons of Mass Destruction and they weren't there; that instead, we had the official story's Weapons of Mass Delusion. Now don't get me wrong, I bought it for a bit too; but like Scott Ritter who was originally put in charge of ferreting them out before the U.S. called in the big guns, I became suspicious of the official story; I wanted to investigate further. Just as I became suspicious of the official 9/11 story. Anyway, if you ever have doubts concerning the official 9/11 story, you know where to look for information.

 

[Trippy]

Look, you and people like you can continue to deny all the evidence out there, dismissing it as kooky or what not. There are times when I just get tired of arguing with people who clearly don't really want to do any investigating that would put into question their own beliefs. So go on believing whatever you want to believe. In the end, I believe that time will reveal the truth to everyone, just as time has revealed that the WMDs that were allegedly in Iraq weren't Weapons of Mass Destruction and they weren't there; that instead, we had the official story's Weapons of Mass Delusion. Now don't get me wrong, I bought it for a bit too; but like Scott Ritter who was originally put in charge of ferreting them out before the U.S. called in the big guns, I became suspicious of the official story; I wanted to investigate further. Just as I became suspicious of the official 9/11 story. Anyway, if you ever have doubts concerning the official 9/11 story, you know where to look for information.

Right.

So anyone who doesn't buy your story is either delusional or stupid?

 

[The Esotericist]

Since no new evidence has been presented it would seem that "there is not an open "scientific" mind" toward it is somewhat of a pre-judgement, neh?

Touche' good sir, touche'. Point well taken. Although I have, as you must know, read quite a bit of posts, and noted the hostility. Though, to be fair, it is probably at this point, fueled to some degree by exasperation. However, I did come across one thread that even acknowledged that SCIFORUM members where inherently argumentative. lol I think the thread topic asked the question, Why are Sciforum members argumentative? Something to that affect.

And of course, there's none the other way, is there?
No predisposition toward a conspiracy solution?

Oh no, you are absolutely correct. It crossed my mind as I was writing my post. I believe I mentioned it in passing, I myself was incredulous to the idea of conspiracy until 2006. There is a vast amount of material out there, and really, unless you are motivated to go over it all with an open mind, then it is difficult to make a judgment. Once you do, you have two choices, the first choice is to find one hundred and one different reasons and excuses to explain all of the anomalous evidence, queer behavior, and shocking footage, or the second is to use the Occam's razor principle which nicely fit the pieces together into one coherent theory. You have a third way in mind?

Hmm, surely the paper linked would indicate that no-one can look at any new evidence with a proper detachment.

Again, you are quite correct. However, from the raw physical and empirical circumstantial evidence, sometimes we are having to make analyzes, yes? Well, in this instance, it is my contention that what is needed is an inductive proof. scott3x has been trying to argue against evidence presented by sources associated with the very people he accuses of conspiracy. That's insane. It's like using the bible to argue with a christian that god doesn't exist. This is a logical fallacy called, "Begging the question," he should just save himself some time and call them out on it. He's trying to prove conspiracy and they are listing NIST statics to prove their case!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pow5_UYKaJ8 (RIP)

The reason why people are continually "beating" the dead horse as it were, is b/c they are losing sight of the heart of the matter, which is CONSPIRACY, is it not? So all the facts in the world are not going to mean a hill of beans if the other side of the argument doesn't accept the authority of that which is producing the information.
For instance, the head of the 9/11 commission was a close personal friend and business associate of Condoleezza Rice. What does this tell us about the value of said report in any discussion, other than for it's discrepancies, and the manner in which it was produced? Not a whole lot.

Specifically to your point however? This is actually quite humorous. NIST and the governments "official reason" for why the tower fell, changed, and then changed back again. It is doubtful "new" evidence will come to light. However, you are right, I believe, the "conspiracy nuts", at least the vast majority or them, or so frothy at the mouth with rage and being ostracized at this point? If any new data came out? They wouldn't even look at, but would say it had been "manufactured."

So, we HAVE to assume that neither the government is reliable, nor are the, what are they called, "woo woo's? cranks?" and a third party is necessary to analyze and report data. This, is VERY hard to find however. If you know the intricacies of how the NWO is set up, most Universities can not even be trusted to be impartial. Why? Because most Universities derive some portion of funding from either foundations, and the foundations themselves are tied to internationalist organizations such as the CFR or the Tri-lateral commission, or Universities are compelled to compete for government grants, do they not?

PS thanks for the link, downloaded to read at some point in the near future.

No no no, I am thankful to you, for helping me keep it real. I is readily apparent, no one comes into this forum with bullshit, and it is certainly a trial by fire. Perhaps you should consider a change in your handle to. . . Gatekeeper?:mufc:

 

[Oli]

Touche' good sir, touche'. Point well taken. Although I have, as you must know, read quite a bit of posts, and noted the hostility. Though, to be fair, it is probably at this point, fueled to some degree by exasperation. However, I did come across one thread that even acknowledged that SCIFORUM members where inherently argumentative. lol I think the thread topic asked the question, Why are Sciforum members argumentative? Something to that affect.

Are they born argumetative or do they learn it?
Yes, mine, prompted (as you'd guess) by certain topics that never reach a conclusion.

Oh no, you are absolutely correct. It crossed my mind as I was writing my post. I believe I mentioned it in passing, I myself was incredulous to the idea of conspiracy until 2006. There is a vast amount of material out there, and really, unless you are motivated to go over it all with an open mind, then it is difficult to make a judgment. Once you do, you have two choices, the first choice is to find one hundred and one different reasons and excuses to explain all of the anomalous evidence, queer behavior, and shocking footage, or the second is to use the Occam's razor principle which nicely fit the pieces together into one coherent theory. You have a third way in mind?

Hmm, it comes back to predispositions again though.
"One coherent theory" is more comforting than actually looking for the reality (in many cases).

Again, you are quite correct. However, from the raw physical and empirical circumstantial evidence, sometimes we are having to make analyzes, yes?

One problem is that so many people are unqualified to make an analysis, and in nearly as many cases are unqualified to understand analyses made others.

The reason why people are continually "beating" the dead horse as it were, is b/c they are losing sight of the heart of the matter, which is CONSPIRACY, is it not?

And the problem with that is those predisposed to the conspiracy theory use that very supposition to support their point of view:
Any data that disagrees with the conspiracy theory is dismissed as part of the cover up.

For instance, the head of the 9/11 commission was a close personal friend and business associate of Condoleezza Rice. What does this tell us about the value of said report in any discussion

I have no idea since I don't exactly know who Condoleeza Rice is or what she does.

If you know the intricacies of how the NWO is set up, most Universities can not even be trusted to be impartial.

NWO?

No no no, I am thankful to you, for helping me keep it real. I is readily apparent, no one comes into this forum with bullshit, and it is certainly a trial by fire. Perhaps you should consider a change in your handle to. . . Gatekeeper?:mufc:

Me?
Not particularly - I just happened to be around when you posted - there's many who'd actually qualify for that position.

 

[stereologist]

I think by NWO they mean New World Order. I too don't like the abbreviations here. It makes it too simple to misinterpret what is being said. IUKWIM

 

[Trippy]

I wish I could remember the guys name, but there was an individual, he was an ex-vietnam veteran, he did security for one of the big banks that was situated in one of the towers (I think the second tower to get hit).

He and an ex-army buddy got together (I think either one of them, or both of them also ran a private security firm). They realized that the twin towers would become a target for terrorism, and they predicted, based on the security measures in place before the 1991 bombing, that any such attack would be through the basement, as a car bomb.

Once that was dealt with, and after the farcicle evacuation of his people, he came to the conclusion that the only thing left to do was to fly an aircraft into the buildings at speed, and this would be what the next attack would attempt to do, and he 'trained' and drilled the people he was responsible for to get out if they thought anything was amiss (this training resulted in the saving of a substantial number of people that day). He died because he went back in to get others out.

 

[Oli]

I think by NWO they mean New World Order. I too don't like the abbreviations here. It makes it too simple to misinterpret what is being said. IUKWIM

Ah, that old fiction.
Dang, I hope nobody notices one particular SciForums society I belong to...

 

[MacGyver1968]

FYI Oli, Condi Rice was the Secretary of State during the Bush organization.

NWO- "New World Order" I think its kinda the same thing as the Illuminati.

 

[Trippy]

There is another forum I participate in.
On that forum there is a 9/11 conspiracy thread.
That thread is sitting at 5,120 posts (20 posts per page, 256 pages), and was started in Feb 2007.
That thread is the continuation of a 5,760 post thread (20 posts per page, 288 pages),
And is combined with a 7,400 post thread (20 posts per page, 370 pages)
and a 1,040 post thread (20 posts per page, 52 pages).

19,320 posts, over about four years, in a sub forum where the typical thread gets maybe 20 replies to it, and a long thread gets 50-100 replies to it.

All that bandwidth, and still the same misconceptions and wrong points get dragged up over and over again.

 

[Trippy]

There is another forum I participate in.
On that forum there is a 9/11 conspiracy thread.
That thread is sitting at 5,120 posts (20 posts per page, 256 pages), and was started in Feb 2007.
That thread is the continuation of a 5,760 post thread (20 posts per page, 288 pages),
And is combined with a 7,400 post thread (20 posts per page, 370 pages)
and a 1,040 post thread (20 posts per page, 52 pages).

19,320 posts, over about four years, in a sub forum where the typical thread gets maybe 20 replies to it, and a long thread gets 50-100 replies to it.

All that bandwidth, and still the same misconceptions and wrong points get dragged up over and over again.

To put this in perspective - this averages out at 14.5 posts per day for 1329 days.

 

[leopold]

Dust From Collapses Expanded to Many Times The Towers' Volume

interesting.
this seems to contradict the "controlled demolition" hypothesis.
only by a sustained blast of compressed air can a dust cloud increase in volume from a collapse like this.

the blasts from explosives are very brief.