Galileo/Newton agree-- 9/11 was an inside job!

[ErnestoA]

What if "reality" is science fiction?

 

[nicobie]

What if "reality" is science fiction?

I wouldn't touch this thread with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Punx0r]

Teehee.

ErnestoA, I'm afraid I had to get a bit personal in order to balance out your earlier posts where you resorted to personal insults. As they say, "if you can't take it..."

Attempting to narrow down my earlier question: Is there a conspiracy theory you don't believe?

Arlo, I recall Luke mentioned some declassified documents, but do you have a link? Being deliberately careless in order to encourage your enemy to engage you first in some situations is plausible, it could have happened. I'm sceptical that of most of the claimed "false flag" theories I've heard, though. There may be better examples, hence my asking.

Also, I'm not sure what leader you think I'm following. People seem to keep forgetting that I am not a U.S. citizen. Also, agreeing with the findings of ostensibly independent scientists and engineers doesn't make me a follower of the Authorities. Nor am a follower of conspiracy theorists, who have their own personal motives and agendas in trying to convince others only they know the "truth". I do my own thinking after examining the available evidence. I think I have a reasonably good B.S. detector.

These conspiracy theories are also like religions: so many, usually contradictory yet all claiming to be the only correct one.

 

[nutnspecial]

Reroute to remain: just popped in my head- check the lyrics! Funny how stuff's in your head you didn't even know about.

It started as a whisper
Now try to dodge this roar
Unified, the most forceful way to go
Waste this one? It's up to you!
We need this revolution
Destroy the pattern, anything that separates
Across the times, who dares to follow?

For years we wandered these circles
Hold on to whatever lie gets us through

Design new latitudes
Find ways to channel bliss
Us defined is too fragile to neglect

Never want to look back in greed
Can I please have your attention?
There are mountains to cross
For all that are willing
There are never ending treasures that awaits you
___________________________
I was rereading the thread and gonna quote ernesto, but most of this page is quoteworthy . . .http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=70103&start=50

Also love the pictur and quote from Neptronix about blast points and sand people.
frocking funny as hell!

 

[ErnestoA]

Lol, don't you guys see what punxr did there? A little punking imo .

Trolling is supposed to be witty and funny.

From the first page the goal has obviously been to go off topic with moon landing etc.
See the pattern, the method, the motive?

This thread will be here for countless others to potentially hear that little whisper 'look deeper'.
Kudos- and that said, what a colorful thread.

This is why I reply. Not to change the minds of anyone posting, but to provide alternate viewpoints for others that may see the thread in the future. :wink:

 

[Punx0r]

Just do us all a favour and explain what, exactly, this "8th grade math" is supposed to demonstrate? The NIST document I linked details the acceleration of the façade of the building during collapse, with some part of it being at freefall, which you agree with. It seems like you're insisting physics disproves that account, yet you accept it.

Since you can't have read that document I will help you out with another quote from it:

Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

So there you go, by the time the part you can see in the video started to fall there was fuckall holding it up.

The building was 95% empty space and relatively weak. That's why it disintegrated. Think about the dented coke can again. This is stuff that we've been over and over. You just can't seem to get your head round. Such structures don't behave like a felled tree. You have also yet to offer an alternative explanation of why the building came down. "Controlled demolition" and "space weapons" have been mentioned, but not a single piece of evidence has been presented. You just excitedly dance about shouting "physics! freefall! Exclamation!!!!".

Yesterday, a hot day, a friend noticed a fridge failing to cool properly. Examination showed the condenser to be badly blocked up with fluff so that it couldn't work properly. A good blast of compressed gas cleared it and it was soon operating properly again. I think your brain could do with the same treatment.

 

[arkmundi]

Thanks Punx0r, for a memorable E.S. Quotable Quotes !. Please send emergency supply of compressed gas! :lol:

 

[joepah]

The building was 95% empty space and relatively weak. That's why it disintegrated. Think about the dented coke can again. This is stuff that we've been over and over. You just can't seem to get your head round. Such structures don't behave like a felled tree. You have also yet to offer an alternative explanation of why the building came down. "Controlled demolition" and "space weapons" have been mentioned, but not a single piece of evidence has been presented. You just excitedly dance about shouting "physics! freefall! Exclamation!!!!".

Yesterday, a hot day, a friend noticed a fridge failing to cool properly. Examination showed the condenser to be badly blocked up with fluff so that it couldn't work properly. A good blast of compressed gas cleared it and it was soon operating properly again. I think your brain could do with the same treatment.

+1 Ever wonder how many of these conspiracy theorists have a BS in Engineering? Very few if any.

On 9/11/01 We were at work at the Nuclear Plant watching this horror on TV like everyone else. While the two towers were burning, a civil engineer in the room said those fires looked very intense and might weaken the structural steel and the building could collapse. We all looked at him like he was crazy but said nothing.. We just assumed it would burn out. The guy was absolutely right.. The structural fireproofing was not designed to withstand the fire fueled by large airliner fuel tanks.

How many lives would have been saved if the NYC had a civil engineer on their emergency response team?

 

[Punx0r]

Free fall acceleration is a known constant-- ~9.8 meters per second(^2). This occurs when a body is falling through air

Actually acceleration due to gravity is only constant at ~9.81m/s^2 in a vacuum (on Earth). Not in air.

Those points you mention has all been debunked already. Even though most of them did not even support the theory you promote, as I have already point. Huge lumps of glowing steel being found weeks after a huge fire are "evidence" of a controlled explosive demolition only in the most schizophrenic manner. That one is definitely "not even wrong".

Dnmun was correct when he mentioned some people were just not capable of doing science. Several posters in this thread play very fast and loose with the concept of "evidence". One of the first things any technically or scientifically educated person is taught is how to asses the quality of sources and evidence. For example, youtube videos, blogs and Wikipedia articles are not equivalent to peer-reviewed journal articles or official findings of respected scientific or engineering institutions.

 

[Arlo1]

Don't you find it ODD that every steal beam gave out at the same time and the buildings came strait down? Also do you really think building 7 would have fell at all?? it was supposedly hit by a piece of debris and there was not jet fuel yet it came down the same way as the other 2.....

And I really don't see why the bottom floors give out first after reported loud explosions.....

 

[Punx0r]

Joepah,

The irony is that consensus amongst those qualified to comment would probably have been against a collapse. It seems they should not have collapsed (comparable collapses being unknown), but they did due to a nuance of their design.

One thing that niggles be about all this "debate" is the disrespect it demonstrates towards all those who died. It was a tragedy and this muck-racking trivialises that. I can also imagine the effect it has on the engineers/architects in involved in the design/construction of the buildings and the analysis of their destruction to be harassed by self-professed "experts" accusing them of being complicit in mass-murder.


Buzz Aldrin clocking a conspiracy weirdo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k

 

[Punx0r]

Arlo, all those points are addressed and answered in this NIST document: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

One point in there is that the stored diesel for the generators is considered not to have contributed significantly to the blaze. It sounded plausible when suggested before, but as is often the case, when more details are known about the circumstances, the result ends up being different.

 

[Arlo1]

Arlo, I recall Luke mentioned some declassified documents, but do you have a link? Being deliberately careless in order to encourage your enemy to engage you first in some situations is plausible, it could have happened. I'm sceptical that of most of the claimed "false flag" theories I've heard, though. There may be better examples, hence my asking.
.

Start digging

http://www.foia.cia.gov/document/cia-rdp80b01676r001900100033-7

http://www.foia.cia.gov/search/site/approved%20contingency%20plans?page=1

 

[Punx0r]

You just keep restating the same tired soundbites over and over while never substantiating anything

I don't even know where you are trying to go with this freefall/maths/physics stuff anymore. I asked you to state what you are trying to prove and you just keep quoting the same wall of text from earlier posts. Calcuation of velocity of an object accelerating due to gravity while ignoring air resistance is trivial and proves nothing. You are making a leap from "F = MA" to "remaining structure offered little support during the fall" to "was exploded in mid-air".

Your attempted justification using pudding shows your ignorance. Steel is not weaker or less viscous than pudding per unit area, but it probably is when comparing pudding of cross-section equivalent to the building and the comparatively tiny cross-section of (buckled) steel columns that remained. The building structure below also didn't flow around the falling building - again, it's a false analogy. Go and drop a brick into a bucket of pudding and then onto some upright matchsticks.

Who are the engineers in this thread who have unequivocally supported your claims? Someone saying they don't entirely believe the given official account doesn't mean "anything goes".

The building is intact as it falls, it didn't look like "95%" is gone at all.

No. The *construction* is ~95% open space. This allows space inside the structure for people, desks, potted plants and the other frivolous things people insist there must be room for.

Be scientific about it: In a video you can see part of the facade of the building and it falling. Unless you have x-ray vision you cannot say anything at all about the state of any other part of the building. So your statement should actually be "the part I can see appears to be intact as it falls".

From reading the previously linked NIST document it appears progressive structural collapse occured for a period before the building fell. So if you want to talk time taken to collapse it should be longer than the 5.4 seconds where the building was actually falling.


Your problem is you are grossly over-simplifying what is in reality a complex mechanical problem.

I am happy to accept the reasoned findings of those who are more intelligent and qualified than I am (this is why we have the concept of experts). You seem to not trust the testimony of anyone, presumably because everyone except you is an idiot.

 

[Punx0r]

I grant you, it looks bizarre and it should do because no one has seen anything like it before. If you showed me that video, with the context unknown, I would assume it was a controlled explosive demolition, but I would be a little puzzled by what seemed like smoke in the air beforehand and the huge dust cloud afterwards, which would normally be much better controlled. That would be a reasonable and logical conclusion.

However, once given the context and technical analysis of the collapse, that turns to be wrong. Initial impressions formed without any supporting information often are. No different to an optical illusion.

Aside from there being no evidence of a controlled demolition there is also the unanswered point of how the building could possibly be prepared for it in secret. Bigger than that is why on earth it would be necessary or desirable! That's leaving aside the flaw of all large conspiracy theories of how on earth such a thing could possibly be kept secret. No one managed to keep a lid on Watergate and that was trivial by comparison.

The report you linked proving freefall occurred has that info because they watched a video. They proved free fall acceleration occurred for 58% of the observed period. Thus it met no resistance-- the building fell as fast as acceleration due to gravity. This defies the laws of physics!

The devil is in the detail. The building fell at "approximately" freefall speed (these things are always subject to a uncertainty (tolerance) because it met little/negligible resistance. Rest assured, there was some resistance which slowed it slightly. There has to be - even the building hitting a fly on the way down would slow it. The problem is the level of accuracy available from an ad hoc video recording at a distance isn't sufficient to properly time the descent. If, for some reason, proper timing equipment had been pre-installed you would be able to discern the retardation of descent due to the collapsing of the remaining supports. But it wasn't, so it's not. This uncertainty is what conspiracy theorists like to dig around in (along with statistical noise).

Anyway, your theory relies on the premise that *every* structural support in that building was blown clean away, not only in mid-air, but precisely timed to do so progressively as the building, so it looked like it was falling (rather than just being blown up). This has a number of flaws other than just "why?!":

* Enormous, unnecessary complexity in the timing
* You would hear and see the thousands of blasts (and they would have to be blasts to achieve the required timing precision)
* Almost certainly no demolition of this type ever performed before (where does the skill originate? Risky)
* No forensic evidence of such (there would be thousands of steel beams which had obviously been cut by the charges)
* The end result, if it all went exactly to plan, would look frocking weird because the building would be in freefall when it shouldn't be! Much better to do a standard demolition on a few floors (where you know you're going to set the fires) and let the thing collapse naturally.

I trust the testimony of over 2350 [strike]Architects and Engineers[/strike] idiots and [strike]Newton's laws of motion[/strike] brief general rules covering the motion of all moving things, over 100 [strike]first responders[/strike] brave, skilled, valuable people but who don't know jack about structural or forensic engineering, [strike]chemists[/strike] irrelevant but "science-y" types , etc. My message hasn't changed because [strike]the laws of physics are constant[/strike] I suffer the double-burden of ignorance.

Fixed it for you

 

[Chalo]

OK Punx0r, then you do what I have failed to do: Find another large steel building that fell straight down from fire alone. Surely if three of them can do it in one place on a single day, despite being of different construction and having different fires, then it would be easy to find at least one other such example. I must be oblivious, because I have been unable to find even one.

On the other hand, if nothing like that can be found anywhere else in the world, ever, then maybe we need to question the supposition that the three building collapses at issue were the result of fire alone.

 

[Punx0r]

Yep, improbable, isn't it?

The three examples can really be reduced to two: WTC7 and WTC1/2 because the 1 & 2 are a repetition of the same event. Each example was indeed of different construction, suffered different damage and, apparently, collapsed in different ways and for different reasons. While both buildings were of different construction, they were apparently both unconventional, with long-span floors to allow large open spaces unimpeded by columns. This, (again, apparently) means there hasn't been comparable high-rise building fire.

This page does provide a good summary of the mechanism of the collapse of WTC 7 and how it different from WTC 1/2: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

It really is worth taking 10 minutes to read at least the top half of the page. I imagine NIST have published a similar document analysing the failure of WTC 1 and 2.

My interpretation is that the design was flawed. Thermal expansion caused the internal floors to collapse, which left a vertical column with horizontal support, it buckled and because of a lack of redundancy, the whole building came down. The fire only indirectly caused the collapse - failure of that single column by any means would have triggered the collapse.

My life experience suggests that explanation is plausible: No design is perfect and that one was flawed, but subtly so. It was the "gotcha!" - that multi-ordered, nonlinear effect that arises in failure mode analysis when certain factors coincide in a particular way. I'm sure you can also appreciate that scientists and engineers hedge a lot when reporting findings. This lack of absolute certainty seems to fuel conspiracies as lay folk are don't appreciate why it is necessary to avoid speculation or extrapolation of limited data.

 

[Punx0r]

I am a skeptic. Given sufficient evidence (a plausible theory, expert analysis and consensus and hard evidence) I would accept those buildings were destroyed by a deliberate explosive demolition (it certainly looks like it in the videos). By comparison I have a feeling that eTrike (and others) would never believe it was anything other than a conspiracy no matter what quantity and quality of evidence they were presented with.

I have spent some time reading the last few days, not so much about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but about conspiracy theories in general and the kinds of people who perpetuate them. They have actually been the study of academic study I am becoming increasingly convinced that myself and ErnestoA will never see eye-to-eye on this issue because of the way we each think, due to a real physical or cognitive difference. Assuming a "nurture" cause, perhaps if my life experience had been different I wouldn't have stopped believing some conspiracy theories. I imagine if I'd been repeatedly frocked over for whatever reason I would be more paranoid and more likely to suspect conspiracy everywhere I looked.

it's only a wiki, but this theory in particular got me thinking about the root cause of our differences:

Social systems do exhibit complex forms of order and integration which emerge from the non-intentional consequences of intentional action; these emergent orders can be mistaken for conspiracies by people who have no real concept of social structure and therefore believe that every aspect of society must be the product of someone's will. For instance, "free" capitalist markets tend to generate oligarchies or even monopolies wherever economies of scale grant competitive advantages and/or where there is a high transaction cost for consumers who switch suppliers. For an observer who naively believes that a free market really always is a level playing field, the formation of oligopolies seems like an anomaly, which the conspiracy theory explains.

A variation on this is found when practices that are common in one context are not generally known to the wider public. For instance, the intelligence agencies of the US and USSR during the Cold War routinely shared information which was kept secret from the citizens of both countries. In business, certain levels of collusion among competitors, especially in oligopolistic markets, are fairly common. Such practices look conspiratorial to outsiders and may even be conspiratorial in a strict sense of the term but have little in common with the fantastic conspiracies postulated by crackpots.

A third form of this misperception occurs when conspiracy theorists assume, on the basis of ignorance and/or stereotyped thinking, that the group who is ostensibly responsible for something could not possibly have done that thing. For instance, conspiracy theories postulating that examples of ancient monumental architecture (the Egyptian or Mayan pyramids, Stonehenge, the Easter Island statues) must have been the product of aliens or whatever usually depend on a serious underestimation of the engineering skills and technological know-how of the actual human beings on the scene.

The 9/11 attacks provide an example of all three forms of this misperception. Many powerful American individuals and institutions benefited from the attacks, including the Bush regime itself and its allies in the military-industrial complex. However, this is in no way an indication that the attacks were an American conspiracy; this is just how global geopolitics works: when something major and unexpected happens, one interest group or another will find a way to benefit from it. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, 9/11 conspiracy theories actually get in the way of a realistic understanding of global geopolitics and the often amoral rules by which it is played[35]. Likewise, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks the Bush regime acted quickly to return to Saudi Arabia high-ranking Saudi officials and members of the Bin Laden family who were in the US at the time; this might seem conspiratorial to the average American but is consistent with standard diplomatic practice. Third, as Immanuel Wallerstein has observed[36], 9/11 truthers under-estimate the actual organizational capacity of Al-Qaida.

Overall, conspiracy theories tend to depend on the fallacious belief that everything that happens in society must have been intended to happen by some specific agent, when in actuality many important (and also many everyday) events are the unintended or unforeseen consequences of intentional action.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

 

[nutnspecial]

This entire movement started because of the victims of that day and all since-- from the family members who pushed until the 9/11 commission was formed, to every brave soul like Beverly Eckert who pushed for truth about her husband's death and first responders suffering and dying at catastrophic rates, and the untold millions who suffer as a result of lies based on that day. It continues in honor of them and future generations. It is your words which spite them and their lives, whether knowingly or not.

Thanks man, and thanks for that slo-mo! I'm trying to ascertain how much of the material makes it to the ground vs becoming a dust trail.

Ps, hey punxor, so taking the quote above into account, why are you here bud? Why is it so important for you to dispute this? Enlighten us please. Peace

 

[Chalo]

Yep, improbable, isn't it?

Yes, more than improbable.

But you didn't furnish a single other comparable example, just as I did not find one. I reiterate that things which don't happen at all, don't happen three times in the same place on the same day. So there must be another explanation.

Repeating the official line doesn't make it more plausible. It only calls your judgment into question.

 

[nutnspecial]

+1

 

[Punx0r]

Chalo, I have never had any reason to disagree with anything you've posted before on engineering subjects, but I think your intuition has lead you down the wrong track on this one.

To repeat, to my knowledge a high rise building of comparable construction has never caught fire. I don't pretend to be initmately familiar with the construction details over every high rise that has ever suffered fire, but many highrise steel-framed buildings appear to be of a modular, cubic lattice, with short spans and many intermediate vertical columns, giving greater rigidity and redundancy.

Insisting on precedent to accept a novel event is illogical. Comparison to other "somewhat similar" events is, at best, anecdotal evidence, which you know isn't scientific.

I think your assesment of the probability is also off by assuming these are three separate events. In reality you only have two different constructions and each shared a common initiating event (fire from plane crash). That they collapsed in the same day isn't a coincidence. I don't know the history of the WTC complex, but did the buildings have designers/architects in common? Lack of appreciation for thermal expansion effects may have been inflicted on both designs by the same people.

Let's also remember that really improbable stuff happens literally all the time. Is this not an argument from incredulity?

It seems to me that if you construct a building like WTC7 and set it on fire it there is a reasonable probability it will collapse. It's a testable, falsifiable, repeatable theory. The structure can be modelled and simulated to a good degree of accuracy, whereas the counter argument is seemingly based on an anecdotal dataset of zero (comparable constructions).

I also have to wonder why you question either the motives or competence of NIST?


Nutspecial, I feel somewhat duty-bound to try and reduce ignorance, especially in technical matters.

 

[nutnspecial]

I feel somewhat duty-bound to try and reduce ignorance, especially in technical matters

Maybe it's best to be able to achieve an impartial vantage point first.
Otherwise there is danger in thinking that all but your own beliefs are ignorant.

You have most of the media and nist/govt on your side, but that alone (and any arguments I've heard from you and the others) doesn't make it necessarily coherent, plausible, sensible.

Remember, in the end the only actual 'proof' there can really be is in math and alcohol. Everything else is just conjecture and perception. Perception can't increased without increasing impartiallity imo.

I can say with certainty that all I have looked at calls into question the 'official story', and it's almost frightenly clear the possibility of some really crazy stuff.

Whether to engineer or just utilize the happenings of 911, I think we have all lost. WHOMEVER the true terrorists are have won.
People and citizens all around the world are now excecuted (not even secretly) without trial at our hand.
And see how the level of intrusion into air and ground travel has and continues to greatly increase for all of us- meanwhile the borders are left wide open. It's heading towards a newage version of nazi/east germany imo, and people are tricked to accept it as necessary.

”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”
”Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.”

These are some quotes from the founding fathers. I highly esteem much of their thinking, although I don't think it was right to go to war with england and kill over taxes.
How are England and US that much different in those respects of freedom and taxes today?
IMO it wasn't worth it. But that comes from the present ability of hindsight, impartially applied to some basic info and values, yes?

 

[Punx0r]

Maybe it's best to be able to achieve an impartial vantage point first.
Otherwise there is danger in thinking that all but your own beliefs are ignorant.

I am as impartial as the average person could be expected to be. I hadn't read any document from NIST before this thread. All I'd heard was the conspiracy theories, which were largely dismissible using critical thinking. What I've stated in this thread aren't beliefs, they are the consensus amongst intelligent, rational people. Belief is defined as accepting something as fact without proof. That is the absolute opposite of my standpoint.


You have most of the media and nist/govt on your side

Again, it's not "my" side or argument. It's simply the most likely, most logical explanation. It is therefore the "truth" as far as can be determined.

Remember, in the end the only actual 'proof' there can really be is in math and alcohol. Everything else is just conjecture and perception. Perception can't increased without increasing impartiallity imo.

Again, no. NO! That is the "uncertainty tactic" in arguments using faulty logic. "Science says nothing can ever been known with absolute certainty, so any old shit is plausible". That is not science. Science is the absolute opposite of that. That's like people thinking the theory of evolution or gravity can be dismissed because "it's only a theory". Science does not deal in conjecture or perception. Fact only. With "fact" being defined as currently known not to be false to a high level of probability.

I can say with certainty that all I have looked at calls into question the 'official story', and it's almost frightenly clear the possibility of some really crazy stuff.

That is either because you lack the ability to think critically, or you do not understand the evidence provided to support the "official story".

Whether to engineer or just utilize the happenings of 911, I think we have all lost.


It's worrying that you put those two things casually together in a sentence, as though they are effectively equivalent. They are worlds apart with the former being incredibly unlikely and the later being very likely, based on all known information about governments, politics and diplomacy.

 

[markz]

I dont know, if NIS lied about Molten Metal, why trust anything they say. Multiple eye-witnesses saw molten metal.