It's like you just look up memes and insults and re-post them in no particular order.
Once again, there were rivers of molten aluminum flowing out of the WTC that day. Everyone saw that. No molten iron.
World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy
- Thread starter someguy1
- Start date
- Status
Once again, there were rivers of molten aluminum flowing out of the WTC that day. Everyone saw that. No molten iron.
It's like people who study science and math all come to similar conclusions, because they base their reasoning on the same principles! It must be a conspiracy. Yeah, that's it.
Moderator note: Q-reeus has been warned for insulting other members. Specifically, he has accused other members of supporting serious crimes, without attempting to provide any evidence for his accusations.
This kind of behaviour towards other members of sciforums is unacceptable.
Due to accumulated warning points, Q-reeus has been temporarily banned from sciforums for a period of 2 weeks.
Q-reeus said:
Q-reeus was asked to either support or retract his accusations. He has made no effort to do either, so far.James R said:
This kind of behaviour towards other members of sciforums is unacceptable.
Due to accumulated warning points, Q-reeus has been temporarily banned from sciforums for a period of 2 weeks.
Are you threatening me?
That's even more serious than your previous libel. Be aware that we have a zero-tolerance policy here regarding threats made from one member against another. If you ever threaten any member here again, I will permanently ban you, regardless of your warning point status. Clear?
The proof that there is no crushing proof is crushing. The real proof is always ignored by the crazy gullible people who still, unbelievably, post completely unaltered bilge from 20 years ago. One wonders as to the mental state of somebody who believes almost every single conspiracy going, knows nothing at all about any of them yet defends them to the absolute limit, where there is clearly no point in attempting to reason with such a cluelessly unreasonable person.
Long videos like this should not be cut-and-pasted with zero commentary, description or personal opinion or analysis attached. Please review our site posting guidelines, including the sections on proselytisation and propaganda.
Here's some more info I just came across. It's mostly speculation but it does make sense.
Flight Attendant sheds new light on 9/11.
NEW EVIDENCE against 9/11 plotters.
Flight Attendant sheds new light on 9/11.
NEW EVIDENCE against 9/11 plotters.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I've just expended considerably more effort merely on this response than you did in illuminating the content of those videos - which, together, run past two hours.
Is this a typical example of your effort, diligence and attention to detail in your search for truth?
As it stands, I'd say we are justified in giving it no more attention than you have.
:reported:
Last edited:
I could summarize it but there are a lot of little details. Why should I spend an hour summarizing when all the viewers have to do is watch it?
What did I do wrong? I'm just arguing the alternative version of events. If you think something is wrong, tell us why. If open debate is permitted, the truth finally prevails. You seem to be afraid that the the truth will prevail.
I especially like number four on this list.
https://fs.blog/2012/05/bertrand-russell-ten-commandments/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://fs.blog/2012/05/bertrand-russell-ten-commandments/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You never summarise a single bloody thing. It is customary when presenting anything to explain to potential viewers why they should watch something, because quite frankly, your opinion is widely regarded by the entire internet as being a touch useless.
An hour? Just highlight 4 or 5 significant points and show how they are verifiable. People often spend long times responding to your incessant bollocks and you more often than not ignore the whole lot. You are a known forum spammer who shows no signs of being able to debate honestly. Nobody is going to watch your stupid videos unless you give good reasons to - especially troofah videos that dump an hour of boring content on a video.
E8. When linking to other sites, include a description and/or meaningful link text – not just ‘Link’ or ‘Click here’.
No you aren't. You are dumping 20 year old crap on a subject done to death. You aren't arguing anything, you just avoid any debate.
You mean just like you never do? I could write a hundred questions that you would never respond to!
The truth has prevailed, you seem obsessed with trying to convince people about a whole myriad of crazy things.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Trollin' trollin' trollin, keep them lies a-rollin'.............
Moderator note: Fat Freddy has received a warning for inappropriate content.
Members are reminded that cut-and-paste content from other sites, including videos, should be accompanied by some topic to spur discussion. "Click here" or "Look at this video" is usually insufficient. You should provide at least a brief description of the content and some preliminary analysis of your own when posting this kind of thing. Otherwise, it is just cut-and-paste spam. Anybody who is interested can go to youtube and find it for themselves. Sciforums is not a clone of youtube.
Don't rely on other people to search through hours of footage and come up with something to discuss for you. Do your own homework first. Come ready to start a discussion, or come with a question that is informed by your own analysis of the content.
---
Due to accumulated warning points, Freddy will be taking another brief break from sciforums.
Members are reminded that cut-and-paste content from other sites, including videos, should be accompanied by some topic to spur discussion. "Click here" or "Look at this video" is usually insufficient. You should provide at least a brief description of the content and some preliminary analysis of your own when posting this kind of thing. Otherwise, it is just cut-and-paste spam. Anybody who is interested can go to youtube and find it for themselves. Sciforums is not a clone of youtube.
Don't rely on other people to search through hours of footage and come up with something to discuss for you. Do your own homework first. Come ready to start a discussion, or come with a question that is informed by your own analysis of the content.
---
Due to accumulated warning points, Freddy will be taking another brief break from sciforums.
You "did your research" eh?
It's a pity you didn't have a longer poop. Her central claim is that all the planes were landed, and other substitutes (like the "secret holographic missiles") were flown into the buildings. Her #1 argument in support of this is that people made cellphone calls from the aircraft and that's impossible over 1800 feet.
If you had a longer poop, perhaps you could have checked in with the pilots who regularly use their cellphones far higher than that. Maybe eat more fiber?
Yeah, but in other issues, it is sufficient.
Here's a weird point that isn't a conspiracy theory unless we make it into one, yet remains true all the same: If we let people behave this way at an intersection of science and politics, then it doesn't seem so strange to let other conspiracism, e.g., make-believe about Black people, run amok. I know, I know; another discussion for another time.
Really, though, consider where this discussion is at. Q-reeus↑ is on about "nonsensical … 'math' i.e. wild conjecture, has zero support, from anyone who would matter", and Psikey↑ is gobsmacked because "hundreds if not thousands of engineers and scientists have not been all over that like white on rice", and accuses↑, "all of the institutions that grant degrees in structural engineering and architecture have made themselves accomplices after the fact", is hardly unclear.
That is, the one is refusing what approximately accords with the math of the science in favor of what remains unproven, while the other just can't believe that so many qualified people somehow don't agree with him. Neither gives reasonable consideration to the improbability of a conspiracy of this scale holding for twenty years; cf. Grimes, 2016↱.
Consider your point↑ that "'I think this is fishy so I don't believe it' does not rise to the level of theory, let alone a competing one". The phenomenon you're addressing might best be summed up by looking through Psikey's roving terminology; in mundane American politics, when religious freedom would not work, some went with assertions of sincerely held beliefs, and if "belief is for morons"↑, as our neighbor has it, we should observe that the pretense of sincerely held beliefs eventually devolved into alternative facts.
(Suggesting anti-scientific and particular political conspiracism repeatedly intersect is a two-dimensionsional representation; they're helically bound, forever twisting 'round one another, working components of a larger phenomenon; that's a different discussion, though.)
Also, there is this thing I sometimes say about religion, having to do with letting people we know are wrong set terms of discussion. So, Billvon was not↑ wrong↑, per se, but if I observe that someone did actually say steel, there are a couple points to make. Having taken a moment to consider the link Q-reeus↑ provided, the conspiracism makes a particular leap, apparent to anyone who checks: If the question is why the tower collapsed, the underground evidence known to have spent multiple days at high temperature is not going to tell us that answer. Moreover, the source opens with a misrepresentation of someone's words, compiles a list of quotes purportedly contradicting the misrepresented statement, and closes with a pretense describing the collapse of a highrise office tower struck by a jet airliner as a simple office fire. Billvon isn't necessarily wrong, but, rather, his effort is somewhat futile, essentially doing other people's work for them. But it's more than Q-reeus can do, apparently; his only retort is to complain that the math is nonsensical. The irony of Psikey opening a post by disdainfully asking, "You want me to make guesses on the basis of video without data?" and closing with the particular video he offers should make some sort of point, but there is also this:
Per Dwyer and Fessenden, 2002↱, for the New York Times:
Although most elevators were knocked out of service, Chief Palmer found one that was working and took it to the 41st floor. At that point, he was halfway to the impact zone, which ran from the 78th to the 84th floors ....
.... When Chief Palmer radioed from the 78th floor, he sounded slightly out of breath, perhaps from exertion or perhaps from the sight of all the people who moments before had been waiting for an elevator and now were dead or close to it.
"Numerous 10-45's, Code Ones," Chief Palmer said, using the Fire Department's radio terms for dead people.
At that point, the building would be standing for just a few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.
.... When Chief Palmer radioed from the 78th floor, he sounded slightly out of breath, perhaps from exertion or perhaps from the sight of all the people who moments before had been waiting for an elevator and now were dead or close to it.
"Numerous 10-45's, Code Ones," Chief Palmer said, using the Fire Department's radio terms for dead people.
At that point, the building would be standing for just a few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.
Chief Palmer was one of two firefighters who reached the seventy-eighth floor; our neighbor finds it difficult to understand how these two did not know or call in what was happening in the rest of the impact zone. And when we stop and think about how much of that conspiracism depends on the idea that a dead man wasn't psychic, or approached the impact zone in a naturally sequential order, or otherwise didn't know what was going on above the seventy-eighth floor—i.e., the rest of the impact zone that he had not seen and therefore could not know—we would seem to be looking at an example of just how stupid this twenty year-old conspiracy theory can get.
Semantic nonsense? To suspect without evidence? How is it that twenty years later, this is it?
Maybe the problem isn't really that this is all there is; maybe that was never really was the problem. Remember how much conspiracism in recent years is invested in telling other people how lowly and ignorant they are. This, at lest, is what the masses have learned from the bourgeoisie. And in a place like this, where things like truth, fact, and evidence don't really matter, what do you really think the point of all this is?
Conspiracism is, in its way, about empowerment. Think about how so many conspiracy theorists and their tinfoil talk orbits reminding other people of their place; the conspiracist knows truth, the masses are ingornat and thankless. Did you ever notice when religious argumentation is similarly ignorant, or does your outlook draw broader distinctions that separate the behaviors? Think about the point at which preaching God, or white supremacism, breaks down to an advocate accusing disbelievers of ignorance and treachery. If you want grotesquerie, watch the various factions of manpill misogyny try to cockstrut each other about whose eyes are open and who is a cuck.
If I think back to antifluoride conspiracism, how many people can remember what the world was like prior to the rise of the Internet in the 1990s? My entire life, we've accommodated antivax, and the problem has never really been the medical exceptions; it's like digital photography and what, was it West Virginia, and for whatever concern anyone might have about the government issuing driver licenses, Christians denouncing digital photography as the Mark of the Beast is the one that won accommodation.
When in history have the common masses truly adored their masters for genuine wisdom and kindness? It doesn't really happen. In our capital-consumerist societal iteration, people are acutely aware of their powerlessness because as consumers it is their role to constantly consume reminders. Finding a reason to say no has always been the underlying empowerment of conspiracism. Believing oneself smarter than everyone else is a salve to soothe the self.
And that is pretty much what is left, an ephemeral feeling of empowerment. Beyond that, we might look back four years to the topic post↑ and the prospect that, "Anyone who questions the official story is labelled a 'conspiracy nut.'" I've heard all sorts of this stuff over the years and virtually all of it gets the same answer: It's not that "anyone" who "questions" the "official" version, but, rather, that there are actually ranges of explicitly wrong answers and fallacious rhetoric. 9/11, moon landing, cure for cancer, antifluoride, antivax, literal satellite-communication tinfoil; we also hear the same sort of stuff about what's wrong with atheism, feminism, liberalism, multiculturalism, and human rights. I'm still waiting for the master treatise connecting 5G-Covid to Critical Race Theory and the effort to distract us from the Great Replacement with fake news about space travel above our Flat Earth.
Twenty years down the conspiracy hole, and four years into the present discussion, this is apparently the best these 9/11 jokers can come up with.
It's not really about winning any argument; it's about clambering one's way over the wreckage of others in a self-fulfilling fantasy of empowerment. Toward that end, this is apparently the best justification these jokers can come up with.
Notes for #695↑ Above
Dwyer, Jim and Ford Fessenden. "Lost Voices of Firefighters, Some on the 78th Floor". The New York Times. 4 August 2002. Web.Archive.org. 25 October 2021. https://bit.ly/3nquQ5I
Grimes, David Robert. "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs". PLOS ONE. 26 January 2016. Journals.PLOS.org. 24 October 2021. https://bit.ly/3nquQ5I
Dwyer, Jim and Ford Fessenden. "Lost Voices of Firefighters, Some on the 78th Floor". The New York Times. 4 August 2002. Web.Archive.org. 25 October 2021. https://bit.ly/3nquQ5I
Grimes, David Robert. "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs". PLOS ONE. 26 January 2016. Journals.PLOS.org. 24 October 2021. https://bit.ly/3nquQ5I
Try finding any source that specifies the distribution of steel down any skyscraper over 200 meters. That is why I provided a link on the center of gravity of the CN Tower. I couldn't find anything like that on any skyscraper.
But you people accept stuff as "scientific" without good details. No one has ever provided a quote from the NCSTAR1 report with the total for the concrete even though pamphlets given to tourists had the steel and concrete. The NIST admits the same amount of steel but concrete total disappeared.
Of course the center of gravity of the tilted top of the South Tower is irrelevant to all people who cannot think for themselves.
How could experts admit they were wrong about such a simple problem after 20 years?
Stuff that Q-reeus writes either makes no sense to me or seems unimportant. I don't care who did it anymore and as long as the physics is not resolved that will not be determined .
Sadly, everyone here thinks that stuff you write is equally unimportant or makes no sense! The physics has been resolved many times. The problem is that you don't seem to be able to understand it, or just reject it because you haven't learnt enough about it. For god knows how many times, you have been asked to offer an explanation for your bizarre claims, one that works - every time you fail to do so.
Do you ever think that you've been at this complete bollocks for too long?
ROFL
People who think the potential energy of a 1360 ft skyscraper is unimportant when it supposedly could collapse straight down due to aircraft impact and fire are truly impressive. Especially considering that the PE cannot be computed without distribution of steel data.
Truly intelligent for a SCIENTIFIC Forum!
And then you can't notice the error in my post about potential energy. I was looking for a response. The height of the blocks should not have been numbered 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. It should have been 0 1 2 3 4 5 6. The block at the bottom could not fall. That does not change the point though.
No scientific analysis has been done without distribution of mass data, which would also make it possible to locate the center of gravity of the tilted top of the South Tower.
Last edited:
- Status