nutnspecial
10 MW
Ahahahhaha. What a GEM.
[youtube]Ddz2mw2vaEg[/youtube]
Galileo/Newton agree-- 9/11 was an inside job!
- Thread starter dnmun
- Start date
Ahahahhaha. What a GEM.
[youtube]Ddz2mw2vaEg[/youtube]
rscamp
1 kW
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-ae911truths-wtc7-explosive-demolition-hypothesis.t1727/
nutnspecial
10 MW
[youtube]YsRm8M-qOjQ[/youtube]
[youtube]5w5pQ-Ldn2U[/youtube]
[youtube]fMjaUky85o4[/youtube]
[youtube]RqbcsU0_RjU[/youtube]
[youtube]hlIUGqai81k[/youtube]
[youtube]LgYNPaO1rNY[/youtube]
[youtube]5w5pQ-Ldn2U[/youtube]
[youtube]fMjaUky85o4[/youtube]
[youtube]RqbcsU0_RjU[/youtube]
[youtube]hlIUGqai81k[/youtube]
[youtube]LgYNPaO1rNY[/youtube]
megacycle
100 kW
The following won't cost you anything either-Punx0r said:
Left-wing compared to what? I remember watching BBC News back in the 70's. You need a reference point, I watched a lot of news reports, when I was over in the UK last Dec for a month and the BEEB was being flagrantly, right-wing partisan, compared to Aussie ABC news, at the time (not now though), to the point I couldn't handle the BS and started watching the RT news, there for some reality.
I digress, but Cameron and his mates, like Murdoch, keeping the establishment status quo going over there, that's where it slots back into this topic and right-wing conservatives in power during 9/11, 'blue ties tell lies' to look after their 1%er mates, they have to keep the secrecy through deceit, that's how the scum floats to the top.
Totally agree with you on some of the other programming, excellent value, for your license.
I don't want to drag this off-topic, but to answer your questions, my frame of reference is approximately the last decade. I concede that internationally definitions of left/right-wing politics vary greatly. You may wish to bear in mind that the current UK government is centre-right, but before this May it was the same party sharing power with a definitely left-wing (liberal) party. From 2010 back to 1997 it was the left-centre, socialist-leaning Labour party in power.
eTrike, a quick tally puts your linked videos at ~13.5 hrs of content. You must have a lot of free time (and patience to sit through that stuff). I note with interest the first video you linked - the AE911Truth one is a free preview of a video only available to purchase on DVD. While I applaud the AE911Truth people's desire to disseminate the "truth" to all people on this vitally important issue I can't help but feel this being subservient to making a quick buck lacks integrity.
eTrike, a quick tally puts your linked videos at ~13.5 hrs of content. You must have a lot of free time (and patience to sit through that stuff). I note with interest the first video you linked - the AE911Truth one is a free preview of a video only available to purchase on DVD. While I applaud the AE911Truth people's desire to disseminate the "truth" to all people on this vitally important issue I can't help but feel this being subservient to making a quick buck lacks integrity.
rscamp said:
Great summary and only <10 mins to read
I didn't realise AE911Truth was such a scam. I thought it was a simple co-operation of like-minded people. Instead the guy running it aparently draws an $85,000 annual salary. DeepThroat did say to follow the money to reach the truth, but it's instead of the government being exposed, it's the people claiming to be exposing the government. ZOMG!dnmun
1 PW
integrity? patience?
what about the effect of an egocentric psychosis? no other way to be this disturbed.
what about the effect of an egocentric psychosis? no other way to be this disturbed.
megacycle
100 kW
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-ae911truths-wtc7-explosive-demolition-hypothesis.t1727/
This link is so poor in any evidence based evaluation, it's clutching at straws to feed an appearant confirmation bias.
He'd probably get more working somewhere else, with less stress.
This link is so poor in any evidence based evaluation, it's clutching at straws to feed an appearant confirmation bias.
So this proves what? He's in it for profit, do you really think so, putting his reputation on the line.Punx0r said:
He'd probably get more working somewhere else, with less stress.
rscamp
1 kW
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html
rscamp
1 kW
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476.pdf
Hillhater
100 TW
Ahh !, but he wouldn't be able to stirr the 5h1t so easily whilst being paid ! :wink:megacycle said:
You just keep repeating the same shit you were on page 1 of this thread. Yourself or the whole AE911Truth group have so far failed to offer a single piece of actual evidence (as defined in the scientific method, not your idea of "evidence" which equals "speculation") to support your theories, let alone a model explaining what actually happened in the collapse.
Feel free to offer any kind of actual argument to support your criticisms.
For all the appeals to "science" and "physics" from Truthers in this thread, there is a scarcity of either. Just vague, hand-waving descriptions sometimes involving random, dis-jointed scientific terms. I think we've yet to see a single equation offered.
megacycle said:
Feel free to offer any kind of actual argument to support your criticisms.
For all the appeals to "science" and "physics" from Truthers in this thread, there is a scarcity of either. Just vague, hand-waving descriptions sometimes involving random, dis-jointed scientific terms. I think we've yet to see a single equation offered.
nutnspecial
10 MW
^^*ignore*^^
he is obviously deluded. The scientific method is exactly what is followed by the majority of the information P refuses to view and/or follow. Absolutely unbelievable. ignore.
he is obviously deluded. The scientific method is exactly what is followed by the majority of the information P refuses to view and/or follow. Absolutely unbelievable. ignore.
rscamp
1 kW
Punx0r said:
I can't justify spending a lot of time on this. The evidence doesn't support it. Is there doubt? Sure. But the cherry picking is out of hand.
"Hand waving" is a good description. There is a lot of motivated reasoning. Conflicting evidence is not being addressed or is being ignored. The possible is being construed as the probable. There is a lot of armchair analysis by people not familiar with the technologies involved. There is money changing hands that supports political positions and supports the livelihood of promoters of an ideology. These are all red flags.
Arguments are being used and scenarios proposed that are clearly less likely by virtue of requiring great complexity. There are a lot of "should"s and "would have to"s and "anyone can see that"s, and "that has been debunked"s and "it should have fallen sideways"s but this too is a red flag.
I've just read the rest of that that thread on metabunk and I have to take my hat off to the guys in the discussion. They're knowledge, methodical and polite and easily refute every single claim raised by participating Truthers.
Initially I didn't know a lot about this whole subject and assumed the Truthers were playing about in areas of genuine uncertainty. However, the more I've read has lead me to believe that there isn't a single point raised by AE911T or other Truthers that hasn't already been refuted years ago. The Truthers just keep repeating the same, invalidated points over and over, either out of stubbornness, or ignorance because they don't even understand the claims they are making - just parroting them.
Given the over-whelming nature of the available evidence, the only explanation for anyone believing these controlled-demolition theories is either ignorance of the available evidence or idiocy. I'm done trying to be tolerant and respectful of otherwise intelligent people believing this crap. Anyone doing so who calls themselves an engineer is an incompetent moron.
Initially I didn't know a lot about this whole subject and assumed the Truthers were playing about in areas of genuine uncertainty. However, the more I've read has lead me to believe that there isn't a single point raised by AE911T or other Truthers that hasn't already been refuted years ago. The Truthers just keep repeating the same, invalidated points over and over, either out of stubbornness, or ignorance because they don't even understand the claims they are making - just parroting them.
Given the over-whelming nature of the available evidence, the only explanation for anyone believing these controlled-demolition theories is either ignorance of the available evidence or idiocy. I'm done trying to be tolerant and respectful of otherwise intelligent people believing this crap. Anyone doing so who calls themselves an engineer is an incompetent moron.
megacycle
100 kW
Punx0r said:
I got interested mainly by peripheral details, which to me appeared odd, when there's disagreement on the science there's always these facts to fall back on.
I started out through seeing the movie passport above, then reading about false flag events, finding out the buildings had problems, then the insurance policy, then noticing how ugly they were on the skyline, plus a myriad of other ancillary facts and details, all, seemed to me, that these massive buildings were due for demolition and how would this be achieved, efficiently.
The whole process was so 'grossly' efficient, how all these simultaneous, supposedly unconnected factoids, all come together, by chance, to find these buildings, almost perfectly demolished, with what must be considered minimal surrounding damage, considering their size, should make a critical mind wonder.
Chalo
100 TW
There are still people who insist Hitler's goons didn't burn the Reichstag. Just like there are going to be people, for the indefinite future, who believe and insist that Bush's lackeys didn't take down the twin towers.
The larger context of history has persuaded most people on the former, just as it will on the latter in due course.
Yes, there are still open questions and suspicious circumstances. Yes, there was a cover-up. But ultimately, we don't need to know the details, because the greater truth is already obvious.
The larger context of history has persuaded most people on the former, just as it will on the latter in due course.
Yes, there are still open questions and suspicious circumstances. Yes, there was a cover-up. But ultimately, we don't need to know the details, because the greater truth is already obvious.
Hillhater
100 TW
..it didn't happen that way for one simple reason..Chalo said:
...there is NO ONE SMART ENOUGH in the USA to pull it off .!
..let alone the 100's of individuals needed to facilitate it and keep quiet about it afterwards !
And anyone who even half believes it's possible is seriously deluded.
I know it must be hard to accept that a few half arsed Arabs could outwit the finest US security systems, but you are just going to have to get over it.
The WTC buildings were clearly destroyed by the U.S. Government in a -magical- controlled demolition because, on the balance of probability, the SA acting on the orders of a senior NAZI may-have/probably set fire to an empty public building with incendiary devices?
eTrike, you keep miss-representing what I said, so I will clarify it for you. I refuted your claim that the building fell at free-fall velocity on the grounds of average velocity over the whole fall. This is correct. You failed to specify that freefall occurred for only part of the collapse. I do not disagree with this - it proves nothing.
You also keep mentioning this "high school physics teacher" who allegedly caught NIST lying and forced them to admit the building fell at freefall. I did your job for you and found his name: David Chandler. He is indeed a high school physics teacher but does not have a degree. I read his article and it's unscientific and his understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion seem suspect, even to me. More educated people than me consider him an idiot. He is, apparently, the only physics teacher in the world who supports AE911T.
Following a bit of background reading, the issue with NIST seems to be similar to what I did above. NIST calculated the average velocity of fall over a given number of storeys and stated it in their draft report, this was 40% greater than freefall. In a public feedback session for the draft report Chandler asserted that parts of the fall were at different speeds. In their final report NIST broke down the original fall speed into three distinct phases, the middle one of which was 2.25 sec of freefall.
NIST generously elaborated on an irrelevant aspect of the collapse. They were not caught out, exposed or forced to change their conclusions. The approximately free-fall velocity was obtained for a brief period is not surprising, nor proof of anything. Truthers have concocted the false argument that freefall can only be caused by controlled explosive demolition, hence the huge over-emphasis placed on the issue, and the triumph at getting NIST to "admit" it. The period of freefall was always there in NIST's modelling, just not spelt out (along with myriad other low-relevance or irrelevant factors)
The actual objective of the NIST report was to ascertain why the building collapsed to determine any preventive measures necessary to ensure the safety of other buildings. They were only interested in what caused the building to collapse. The exact speed at which it did so doesn't matter any more than it matters whether your car is engulfed in fire in 5 or 6 seconds due to a fault while driving at speed.
I have clarified the Chandler issue because eTrike failed to do so, despite citing him anonymously as proof of his claims. eTrike only parrots clichéd Truther claims that have long been discredited, which is a shame because if one is going to bullshit, one ought to make a good job of it
eTrike, you keep miss-representing what I said, so I will clarify it for you. I refuted your claim that the building fell at free-fall velocity on the grounds of average velocity over the whole fall. This is correct. You failed to specify that freefall occurred for only part of the collapse. I do not disagree with this - it proves nothing.
You also keep mentioning this "high school physics teacher" who allegedly caught NIST lying and forced them to admit the building fell at freefall. I did your job for you and found his name: David Chandler. He is indeed a high school physics teacher but does not have a degree. I read his article and it's unscientific and his understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion seem suspect, even to me. More educated people than me consider him an idiot. He is, apparently, the only physics teacher in the world who supports AE911T.
Following a bit of background reading, the issue with NIST seems to be similar to what I did above. NIST calculated the average velocity of fall over a given number of storeys and stated it in their draft report, this was 40% greater than freefall. In a public feedback session for the draft report Chandler asserted that parts of the fall were at different speeds. In their final report NIST broke down the original fall speed into three distinct phases, the middle one of which was 2.25 sec of freefall.
NIST generously elaborated on an irrelevant aspect of the collapse. They were not caught out, exposed or forced to change their conclusions. The approximately free-fall velocity was obtained for a brief period is not surprising, nor proof of anything. Truthers have concocted the false argument that freefall can only be caused by controlled explosive demolition, hence the huge over-emphasis placed on the issue, and the triumph at getting NIST to "admit" it. The period of freefall was always there in NIST's modelling, just not spelt out (along with myriad other low-relevance or irrelevant factors)
The actual objective of the NIST report was to ascertain why the building collapsed to determine any preventive measures necessary to ensure the safety of other buildings. They were only interested in what caused the building to collapse. The exact speed at which it did so doesn't matter any more than it matters whether your car is engulfed in fire in 5 or 6 seconds due to a fault while driving at speed.
I have clarified the Chandler issue because eTrike failed to do so, despite citing him anonymously as proof of his claims. eTrike only parrots clichéd Truther claims that have long been discredited, which is a shame because if one is going to bullshit, one ought to make a good job of it
Fun fact: The gravitational potential energy of each of WTC 1&2 has been calculated as approximately 4x10^11 Joules. This is approximately equivalent to 100 Tons of TNT (4.2 x 10^11J), or a small tactical nuclear weapon. Dat shit did work on the way down.
Source: Analysis of Mass and Potential Energy in the World Trade Center Twin Towers by Gregory H. Urich
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/wtc_mass_and_energy.pdf
Source: Analysis of Mass and Potential Energy in the World Trade Center Twin Towers by Gregory H. Urich
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/wtc_mass_and_energy.pdf
megacycle
100 kW
Take that!! and coming from a guy that just voted in Australia's answer to G.Bush, sucked in through media hype.Hillhater said:
So false flag events that have surfaced and been proven, how many people were involved, how did they keep them secret?Hillhater said:
Take that 2!!Hillhater said:
Some people need certainty while other tend to deal with the opposite.Chalo said:
Hillhater
100 TW
....OR, from someone who voted out a totally incompetent bunch of useless dik heads !megacycle said:
Hillhater said:
Err?.. If they "surfaced and been proven". So they didn't manage to keep them secret , did they ?...just my point !megacycle said:
I cannot believe I have let myself get dragged back into this futile drivel !
megacycle
100 kW
How's that working out for you?Hillhater said:
Hillhater said:
What are you on? Decades down the track, they come to light.
Don't perpetuate drivel and we won't have to keep on dealing with it
megacycle
100 kW
Not at all. Both sides of an argument might have facts and bullshit.Punx0r said:
What I'm saying is the way different personalities would view this matter differently.
Depending, for example if you've got liberal or conservative values.
Conservatives tend toward grouping, social dominance, tradition and certainity, liberals tend toward the opposite values.
