response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks

Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri May 07, 2010 1:10 pm

Galaxian wrote:The braying continues, eh? Such inane remarks as the following. Galaxian's response in RED
Coito ergo sum wrote:
klr wrote:Riiiight ... the "bulky pod" that just happens to look like what the main undercarriage bay fairing would look like when viewed from a certain angle and in a certain light, when moving at speed.What lazy bullshit you spout. Have you even bothered looking at photos of similar planes?
So, how did they manage to attach this ... er ... pod ... thing ... to the belly of an airliner, and take off, without anyone noticing? were you asleep through the previous posts? Did you bother watching the videos I posted?...No, of course you didn't. It's too taxing on the brain!
Well, like Galaxian said, it's not really a commercial airliner. It's a non-commercial airplane. Apparently, it was fitted with a pod to fire missiles. So YOU assume it was a missile pod. Then why wasn't it fired? The instant before it struck the tower, a missile was fired If so, then where is the exhaust of the missile or the image of it re;easing & miving forward?which caused the instantaneous flash of white light as it impacted Missiles do NOT cause a flash of light upon impact, neither do planes. They explode upon impact (or after depending on the fuse setting). Watch some missile impact clips. .
I'm not sure why they had to go through all this trouble, though, since also according to Galaxian, the building was brought down by a controlled demolition Not quite. Galaxian said that they could NOT have come down as they did by natural collapse. In other words, controlled demolition is, by far, the more likely scenario. But, nevertheless, that is Galaxian's argument. The buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition, but the buildings were also hit by noncommercial planes made to look like airlines but fitted with military missile pods underneath in order to fire a missile at the exact instant that the nose of the plane was hitting the wall of the tower. And, the US military "must have" ordered the air defense to "stand down" so as not to intercept these noncommercial planes that were actually controlled by the same people who rigged the airplanes to fire the missiles as they struck the towers.
The rest of your inane post is more of your febrile imagination. Do you have a temperature? Might be bird(brain) flu! :funny:
If you wouldn't mind, please stop with the "responding in red" - respond in the proper form please. It is difficult to engage in a discussion when you change the normal method of post-response to a color scheme.

By the way - the towers fell and did not look anything like a controlled demolition. One would not expect the towers to fall as they did if it was a controlled demolition. It's not only not "more likely" to have been a controlled demolition, it's obviously not the case. I've seen controlled demolitions in person, and I posted the video to the closest comparison we have - the Hudson's building. That controlled demolition looks nothing at all like the WTC. Don't you agree?
Last edited by Coito ergo sum on Fri May 07, 2010 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Pappa » Fri May 07, 2010 1:10 pm

owtth wrote: :fp:

Ladies and gents we have a Godwin
Image
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.


When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri May 07, 2010 1:15 pm

Galaxian wrote:More cliche-ridden nonsense. Using not just smoke & mirrors, but also blindfolds! Galaxian's response in RED
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Galaxian wrote:Here is the "convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry which most of you put down to chance:
2) That WTC 1 & 2 were hit by non-commercial planes; as evident from the bulky add-on under their fuselage.
:
On to number 2 -
No, there were no bulky add ons. Your saying it doesn't make it so. What's your evidence?You could try using your eyes. Here's the photo pasted by you:
Image

Look especially at the bottom, close-up.

They found parts of the commercial airliners at the scene of the world trade center collapse, and DNA of passengers.Did they indeed? Lot's of passenger bits. Even an undamaged passport from their suspect! But the 4 black boxes were missing...oh dear! How inconvenient (NOT). The flights did take off from commercial airports and they are gone. Pieces of the planes and the passengers were found at the WTC. There has been an allegation from Truther groups that an image of the undersigned of one of the planes on 9/11 contains a "military pod" underneath the fuselage. It doesn't though. It's a fairing for the landing gear.
CES your sophistry knows no bounds. Was your mentor Plato...or more likely St Thomas Aquinas. Just look at the photo! :hehe:
Make your point. What are you alleging about the bottom close up?

Note - I pulled the image from one of your conspiracy-in-a-tin-foil-hat websites. It would be easier if you just posted your own evidence/links. But, since you generally refuse to do that, preferring instead that we go do your research for you, then you'll have to work with what gets posted. If another image is better for you, relative to your "bulky pods" on the bottom of the planes, then by all means link to it.

User avatar
Galaxian
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:11 pm
About me: Too old & too far away from the Beloved...
Location: Koreye-koor
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Galaxian » Fri May 07, 2010 1:18 pm

Ian wrote:Galaxian, you could really do with taking a critical thinking course. You wouldn't last a week in my job. As an intel analyst, when I get a piece of information I immediately have to ask things like "Is the information source reliable? How objective is it? Could I be misinterpreting it? What cognitive biases do I already have about the subject/country? What information do I not have? How might this affect my analysis? What are the odds that my assessments are wrong?" You don't seem to be asking these things. You certainly haven't answered my questions, I suspect because you cannot answer them and would rather just debate physics and rant about the evil US government.
Ian, I suspect you were on the team that assured the White House & UK government that Iraq had lots of WMD, & ready to launch within 45 minutes. And that they got yellow cake from Africa, and they were in cahoots with Bin-Laden.
So many cocky, instant experts here. They see trees but can't make out the forest. You're just a pawn Ian, just a pawn :levi:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment._Sam Nejad
There's no Mercy. There's no Justice. There is only Natural Selection! _Galaxian
The more important a news item, the more likely that it's a hidden agenda disinformation_Galaxian
"This world of sheeple has no hope!" Thus just 13 years left before extinction by AI_ Galaxian

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri May 07, 2010 1:24 pm

Galaxian wrote:CES, you're such a literalist in your world view that it is embarrassing being seen on the same forum as you. Howbeit, that's the cross I have to bear in disseminating knowledge. Some examples follow: Galaxian's response in RED
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Galaxian wrote:Here is the "convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry which most of you put down to chance:
1) That the air defense of NY & Washington DC was stood down on 9/11.
Coito ergo sum wrote:I'll take the first one:
The problem with your allegation is that it is wrong. There was no "stand down" order. "By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell - and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed." Adolf Hitler
If you claim there was one, provide a link or citation.
"The essence of lying is in deception, not in words. A lie may be told by silence, by equivocation, by the accent on a syllable, by a glance of the eye attaching a peculiar significance to a sentence. All these kinds of lies are worse and baser by many degrees than a lie plainly worded. No form of blinded conscience is so far sunk as that which comforts itself for having deceived because the deception was by gesture or silence, instead of utterance." John Ruskin. My guess is that you are inferring a stand down order from the failure of US fighters to intercept the planes that crashed into buildings on 9/11.
Funny, though, as an aside, you and other Truthers have also made the argument that the planes, drones or missiles that crashed into the buildings were planted by the government. If the government had really orchestrated the events of 9/11 such that they knew they were taking the towers down by controlled demolition and they knew they were hitting the Pentagon with a missile.....why would they "stand down" the military at all? They control the military. Wouldn't someone orchestrating this plan know that if they ordered the military to stand down, it would look suspicious and so they should send up military craft, but control them in such a way that they looked like they responded, but couldn't stop the events? Have you just admitted that you are a terrorist mastermind in the 9/11 cabal?
Nevertheless, it is neither quick nor easy to locate and intercept a plane behaving erratically, and that the hijackers on 9.11 turned off or disabled the onboard radar transponders. Without these transponder signals to identify the airplanes, the hijacked airplanes would have been only blips among 4,500 other blips on NORAD’S radar screens, making them very difficult to track. Fourteen fighter jets were on alert in the contiguous 48 states on 9/11. There was no automated method for the civilian air traffic controllers to alert NORAD. A passenger airline hadn't been hijacked in the US since 1979. "They had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. By way of example, NORAD intercepted golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 22 minutes to reach the jet from the time when contact was lost.That paragraph was pure sophistry.
Rules in effect on 9/11, barred supersonic flight on intercepts. Before 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones. Until 9/11 there was no domestic Air Defense Identification Zones.YOU provide the evidence. But be careful, I'm likely to claim that it is a convenient disinformation.
There was no stand down order. Period.You think every order is written in black & white & released to the world at large? So the secret services don't really exist?

You really must develop some degree of cynicism & skeptical thinking. Taqqiya or dissimulation has been around for millions of years. It is in the natural order of things. Except...in your naive world view in the US government. :read:



O.k. - so, you have no proof of a stand down order. You just think there must have been one, right?

I know you will consider just about everything said that debunks your cock-a-mamie "hidden conspiracy" claim a "convenient disinformation." That's the way your try to prove your case. You claim there is an "admission" when there isn't one (because what you really claim is an "implied" admission). You claim there is a stand down order, and you ask "Why was the the US military ordered to stand down on 9/11???" But, when asked for the stand down order or any proof that there ever was a stand down order, you don't have any. You apparently think that it is a hidden order that we're not privy to. You have no evidence for it, but you list it as one of your top 3 pieces of "evidence" for your stupid claim that 9/11 was an inside job.

Surely you can see how others, not possessing your powers of clairvoyance, might be a tad skeptical of your claim when one of your top, key pieces of evidence is completely unsubstantiated?

No no, though...you think we should open our minds to non-evidence based ideas and just not think so literally about it. Right? We should look at it "metaphorically," in your book, or maybe allegorically or just in sort of a "figurative" manner. That way we can know the "Truth," because the capital T "Truth" is not the same as what actually happened or didn't happen, right?

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri May 07, 2010 1:26 pm

Galaxian wrote:
Ian wrote:Galaxian, you could really do with taking a critical thinking course. You wouldn't last a week in my job. As an intel analyst, when I get a piece of information I immediately have to ask things like "Is the information source reliable? How objective is it? Could I be misinterpreting it? What cognitive biases do I already have about the subject/country? What information do I not have? How might this affect my analysis? What are the odds that my assessments are wrong?" You don't seem to be asking these things. You certainly haven't answered my questions, I suspect because you cannot answer them and would rather just debate physics and rant about the evil US government.
Ian, I suspect you were on the team that assured the White House & UK government that Iraq had lots of WMD, & ready to launch within 45 minutes. And that they got yellow cake from Africa, and they were in cahoots with Bin-Laden.
So many cocky, instant experts here. They see trees but can't make out the forest. You're just a pawn Ian, just a pawn :levi:
LOL...I love how the conspirators who hold the strings were perfectly capable of orchestrating the events of 9/11/01 and to this date keeping everyone quiet about it, but were for some reason unable to plant a load of uranium, anthrax and Sarin in a hole in Iraq and claim that the WMD's were found.... :funny:

User avatar
Galaxian
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:11 pm
About me: Too old & too far away from the Beloved...
Location: Koreye-koor
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Galaxian » Fri May 07, 2010 1:29 pm

Razor wrote:
Galaxian wrote:
Thinking Aloud wrote:Here's the Pentagon video I was talking about - you'll all have seen it before...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Thank you for at least posting something. Just a pity it's way out of field. It's understandable why it took them an inordinate length of time just to get this & one other poxy video out to the public...they needed time to doctor them.
This is by far your most revealing comment imo. It demonstrates entirely that your position is indeed unfalsifiable.
Lets imagine that those 83 tapes all exist and lets assume they were all released tomorrow. What would your reaction be if each one that captured the event showed a passanger plane crashing staight into the pentagon as per the "official" explaination?
Would it be
"I now accept that a core reason for my suspicions have been demonstrably and beyond doubt proven to be false and I withdraw my claims and and admit I was wrong"?
Would it fuck.
What it would be is:
"Of course they all show that. They've all been doctored"
Your position is unfalsifiable. Case closed.
Hurray! You've discovered a cliche word, but have little idea of its worth or application.
Okay, this is the deal: In analogy I am like Copernicus or Kepler. You are like a monk in a medieval abbey. I propose that the Earth orbits the Sun at a distance of millions of miles. You come back & assert that my position is contrary to the Bible, & is also (horror!) 'unfalsifiable'. So I must be wrong.
The trouble is: a) the disparity in my knowledge vs yours. b) The gulf between our respective powers of analysis. c) The degree to which the courage of one exceeds that of the other. Now, you decide who is on which side of a, b, c. Voila! :dono:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment._Sam Nejad
There's no Mercy. There's no Justice. There is only Natural Selection! _Galaxian
The more important a news item, the more likely that it's a hidden agenda disinformation_Galaxian
"This world of sheeple has no hope!" Thus just 13 years left before extinction by AI_ Galaxian

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Ian » Fri May 07, 2010 1:32 pm

Galaxian wrote:
Ian wrote:Galaxian, you could really do with taking a critical thinking course. You wouldn't last a week in my job. As an intel analyst, when I get a piece of information I immediately have to ask things like "Is the information source reliable? How objective is it? Could I be misinterpreting it? What cognitive biases do I already have about the subject/country? What information do I not have? How might this affect my analysis? What are the odds that my assessments are wrong?" You don't seem to be asking these things. You certainly haven't answered my questions, I suspect because you cannot answer them and would rather just debate physics and rant about the evil US government.
Ian, I suspect you were on the team that assured the White House & UK government that Iraq had lots of WMD, & ready to launch within 45 minutes. And that they got yellow cake from Africa, and they were in cahoots with Bin-Laden.
So many cocky, instant experts here. They see trees but can't make out the forest. You're just a pawn Ian, just a pawn :levi:
And you still haven't answered a single one of my questions from this post:
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 00#p450791

C'mon ya clear-minded genius, let's hear it! :pop:

User avatar
owtth
The Enchanter
Posts: 1674
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:21 pm
About me: Well y'know
Location: Barcelona
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by owtth » Fri May 07, 2010 1:33 pm

Galaxian wrote: Hurray! You've discovered a cliche word, but have little idea of its worth or application.
Okay, this is the deal: In analogy I am like Copernicus or Kepler. You are like a monk in a medieval abbey. I propose that the Earth orbits the Sun at a distance of millions of miles. You come back & assert that my position is contrary to the Bible, & is also (horror!) 'unfalsifiable'. So I must be wrong.
The trouble is: a) the disparity in my knowledge vs yours. b) The gulf between our respective powers of analysis. c) The degree to which the courage of one exceeds that of the other. Now, you decide who is on which side of a, b, c. Voila! :dono:
Image
At least I'm housebroken.

User avatar
Clinton Huxley
19th century monkeybitch.
Posts: 23739
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:34 pm
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Clinton Huxley » Fri May 07, 2010 1:37 pm

Galaxian wrote:Hurray! You've discovered a cliche word, but have little idea of its worth or application.
Okay, this is the deal: In analogy I am like Copernicus or Kepler. You are like a monk in a medieval abbey. I propose that the Earth orbits the Sun at a distance of millions of miles. You come back & assert that my position is contrary to the Bible, & is also (horror!) 'unfalsifiable'. So I must be wrong.
The trouble is: a) the disparity in my knowledge vs yours. b) The gulf between our respective powers of analysis. c) The degree to which the courage of one exceeds that of the other. Now, you decide who is on which side of a, b, c. Voila! :dono:
Yep, Galaxian, you are definitely like Copernicus :funny:

Thanks, though, your self-regarding delusions of grandeur have given me a chuckle
"I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled"

AND MERRY XMAS TO ONE AND All!

Imagehttp://25kv.co.uk/date_counter.php?date ... 20counting!!![/img-sig]

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri May 07, 2010 1:47 pm

Galaxian wrote:
Razor wrote:
Galaxian wrote:
Thinking Aloud wrote:Here's the Pentagon video I was talking about - you'll all have seen it before...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Thank you for at least posting something. Just a pity it's way out of field. It's understandable why it took them an inordinate length of time just to get this & one other poxy video out to the public...they needed time to doctor them.
This is by far your most revealing comment imo. It demonstrates entirely that your position is indeed unfalsifiable.
Lets imagine that those 83 tapes all exist and lets assume they were all released tomorrow. What would your reaction be if each one that captured the event showed a passanger plane crashing staight into the pentagon as per the "official" explaination?
Would it be
"I now accept that a core reason for my suspicions have been demonstrably and beyond doubt proven to be false and I withdraw my claims and and admit I was wrong"?
Would it fuck.
What it would be is:
"Of course they all show that. They've all been doctored"
Your position is unfalsifiable. Case closed.
Hurray! You've discovered a cliche word, but have little idea of its worth or application.
Okay, this is the deal: In analogy I am like Copernicus or Kepler. You are like a monk in a medieval abbey. I propose that the Earth orbits the Sun at a distance of millions of miles. You come back & assert that my position is contrary to the Bible, & is also (horror!) 'unfalsifiable'. So I must be wrong.
The trouble is: a) the disparity in my knowledge vs yours. b) The gulf between our respective powers of analysis. c) The degree to which the courage of one exceeds that of the other. Now, you decide who is on which side of a, b, c. Voila! :dono:
There is a key difference, among many others, between you and Copernicus/Kepler. They offered proof for their theories. You don't.

Copernicus collected data, and did not merely "raise questions" and then conclude that the planets must therefore likely revolve around the sun. He had proof.

You're actually more like the monk in your example, because despite having your arguments shot down time and time again, you keep asserting the same things. You believe not only in absence of evidence, but IN SPITE OF CONTRARY evidence.

I have no doubt, that given the kind of evidence that you are willing to accept as proof of a mysterious conspiracy, you would have been quite ready to be convinced in the 16th century that your neighbor's wife was consorting with witches. You'd just think "non-literally" about it, and you'd know the "Truth."

Razor
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:41 am
About me: Mostly normal
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Razor » Fri May 07, 2010 2:31 pm

Galaxian wrote:
Razor wrote:
Galaxian wrote:
Thinking Aloud wrote:Here's the Pentagon video I was talking about - you'll all have seen it before...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Thank you for at least posting something. Just a pity it's way out of field. It's understandable why it took them an inordinate length of time just to get this & one other poxy video out to the public...they needed time to doctor them.
This is by far your most revealing comment imo. It demonstrates entirely that your position is indeed unfalsifiable.
Lets imagine that those 83 tapes all exist and lets assume they were all released tomorrow. What would your reaction be if each one that captured the event showed a passanger plane crashing staight into the pentagon as per the "official" explaination?
Would it be
"I now accept that a core reason for my suspicions have been demonstrably and beyond doubt proven to be false and I withdraw my claims and and admit I was wrong"?
Would it fuck.
What it would be is:
"Of course they all show that. They've all been doctored"
Your position is unfalsifiable. Case closed.
Hurray! You've discovered a cliche word, but have little idea of its worth or application.
Okay, this is the deal: In analogy I am like Copernicus or Kepler. You are like a monk in a medieval abbey. I propose that the Earth orbits the Sun at a distance of millions of miles. You come back & assert that my position is contrary to the Bible, & is also (horror!) 'unfalsifiable'. So I must be wrong.
The trouble is: a) the disparity in my knowledge vs yours. b) The gulf between our respective powers of analysis. c) The degree to which the courage of one exceeds that of the other. Now, you decide who is on which side of a, b, c. Voila! :dono:
It's my decision? Great.Decision made. For now on, I shall call you Rasputin.

Otherwise, I am quite happy to let others make their own judgement. Lets just say I am quietly confident..

User avatar
orpheus
Posts: 1522
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:43 am
About me: The name is Epictetus. Waldo Epictetus.
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by orpheus » Fri May 07, 2010 2:40 pm

:coffee:
I think that language has a lot to do with interfering in our relationship to direct experience. A simple thing like metaphor will allows you to go to a place and say 'this is like that'. Well, this isn't like that. This is like this.

—Richard Serra

User avatar
Galaxian
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:11 pm
About me: Too old & too far away from the Beloved...
Location: Koreye-koor
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Galaxian » Fri May 07, 2010 2:43 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Galaxian wrote:Here is the "convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry which most of you put down to chance:
4) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, collapsed at close to freefall accelaration, despite the fact that each floor had to collide with & dis-engage each floor below it, and thus set it accelarating, from scratch. So how did they reach the ground as fast as if there had been nothing in the way?
:
Ummm....no.
We've already established that the towers did not fall at "close to" free fall speed. They fell, and you admitted this, at a speed at least 40-45% faster than freefall speed. So, the answer is, they did not reach the ground as fast as if there had been nothing in the way. They fell at the speed and acceleration one would expect if the top floors collapsed on the ones below the impact area, and caused a catastrophic collapse of the whole building from the top down.
And, that is how they fell - you can see it from the video, Galaxian. The top began to fall, and then the progressively lower floors fell.
In a "controlled demolition" it looks and sounds like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg
And, that's completely unlike how the buildings fell on 9/11/01. They aren't even in the same realm. Nothing about the towers on 9/11 looks like a real controlled demolition. Exhibit A is the hudson's building above, which I saw in person, which took many weeks to prepare, was gutted, and rigged very carefully while the block around the building was cordoned off.
Now watch the south tower collapse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFz9TZUyIZk
Look at it. It is collapsing, obviously, from the top down. It's not happening even remotely like the Hudson's building collapsed. It does not look like a controlled demolition at all.
Now watch the North Tower collapse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo
It's not being blown out from the insides like the Hudson's bulding. The whole chunk from above the impact area gives way and drops on the floors below it and the building can no longer hold the weight because its structural supports have given out. It is collapsing from the top down.
Do you still maintain it was a controlled demoltion?
There are cases where demolitions are down, top-down, or middle up & down, or from one side to the other. Seek & ye shall find!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWOaAFvjrfM

And how steel buildings prefer to tip over sideways, even when they have cutter charges, not placed properly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMtb5Vndo2g

I maintain that the only part of the WTC 1 & 2 buildings that was exploded was the central core. Hence no flashes, hence muffled sounds, hence squibs ejected in the middle of the width. The outer frame would follow of its own accord, as it didn't have the strength to stand by itself.
Hurry up & do the dynamics calcs before ranting further about 14s not being close to 10 sec, or 11, or 12. Hint, take air resistance into account. That was my point about the lead cannonball which whistled over your head.
And, by the way, here's something about the 'experts' that are wheeled out by the government: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=5071 .Their jobs depend on behaving themselves; they know which side of the bread is buttered. That, & fear of reprisals. Don't try to guess the strategy of the conspirators. I doubt that you are an insider. I have never proposed cut-&-dried motivations. :tea:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment._Sam Nejad
There's no Mercy. There's no Justice. There is only Natural Selection! _Galaxian
The more important a news item, the more likely that it's a hidden agenda disinformation_Galaxian
"This world of sheeple has no hope!" Thus just 13 years left before extinction by AI_ Galaxian

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri May 07, 2010 2:56 pm

Galaxian wrote:
:
:funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :hilarious: :
I had to respond right away.....the first of your videos I clicked on was this one. I, literally, spit out my coffee laughing....

You cite an obviously fake video for some proposition about how buildings are actually taken down by controlled demolition? Are you fucking kidding? You think that the World Trade Center should have tipped over like this....
:D :hehe: :hehe: :bump: :badger: :: :mutley:
Oh, fucking christ on a bicycle....I am laughing so hard I can't breathe....
:hyper:
Everybody....everybody! You HAVE to watch this video! Oh, holy jeebus, I'm laughing again....
:surprised3: :Iluvu2:
"Jesus Christ! It's coming down! It's coming down!" And, the little CGI crinkles on the roof and the flopping, rubbery antenna at the top are just priceless.

Oh, boy...I'm wiping tears from my eyes now....911 Truther Proof that the Towers should have tipped over.... a fucking cartoon. :coffeespray:
Last edited by Coito ergo sum on Fri May 07, 2010 3:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests