response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks

[Faithfree]

Personally I think Ratz is all an elaborate hoax.

Now that you know the truth it is only a matter of time before the clique will track you down.

[Rum]

Personally I think Ratz is all an elaborate hoax.

Now that you know the truth it is only a matter of time before the clique will track you down.

Are they Masons too?

[BlackBart]

Personally I think Ratz is all an elaborate hoax.

Fixed.

[owtth]

Personally I think Ratz is all an elaborate hoax.

Now that you know the truth it is only a matter of time before the clique will track you down.

Are they Masons too?

You poor misguided thing, the Masons are just a smokescreen erected by the illuminati.

[Thinking Aloud]

I don't know why I bother. I really don't. I post links & videos that people don't care to use. Then they ask the questions that those links/videos had already answered:

Coming to this discussion a little late, I haven't been paying attention to all the stuff that's come before. You could have replied "50th" or "70th" or whatever - that would have been really helpful.

Seems a bit odd to say "fires were not an issue" when the amount of smoke and flame pouring out of both towers hinted slightly at there being a burning aeroplane in each one.

Are you sure that you're an impartial observer here?

Why shouldn't I be?

Didn't you read about the black smoke indicating low temperature?

Nope. I'm going off the well-observed phenomenon of black smoke indicating burning aviation fuel.

Thanks for posting that video of the plane hitting the wall at 500mph. Can CES see the bright (non)flash at the nose?

You're welcome.

The flash is visible in this version of the same crash footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY

As seen in this still:

Picture 5.jpg

The plane's momentum was absorbed by the towers. They were robust enough not to even sway noticeably.

Well yes. You wouldn't expect them to. However for momentum to be "absorbed" that force has to be taken up somewhere. The planes had finite surface areas moving into the structure. Those points of impact with the main structure would have been small areas, and the likelihood of that internal structure being able to withstand a collossal sideways force onto a small area (for which it would never have been designed) without any deformation is extremely small.

But I said that already.

The impulse was dissipated by the steel structure, starting with the struck perimeter columns.

How?

I'm having tremendous difficulty visualising a lattice of steelwork "dissipating" an impact like that without any deformation or damage. It's either so strong that the whole structure DOES move as a single undeformable entity (which you've already said it doesn't), or part of the structure gives way under the momentum of the plane. The only alternative is that the structure acts like a trampoline and bounces the plane back out again - which there seems to be no evidence for.

One tower starts to tip over at the top by 15 degrees, when, as soon as the handlers notice this they fire the charges below it, thus initiating vertical collapse.

Why does this top section start to tip? If the plane has caused no damage to the structure of the building, why has the top section become unstable?

A steel structure with a massive core acts like a giant sequoia.

A sequoia is a tree, completely solid and homogenous internally. A steel structure is a lattice of struts, bolted or welded together at intervals, with gaps in between, and completely at odds with the structure of a tree in just about every possible way.

The towers were indeed designed to take hurricane strength wind loads. Do the calculations & you'll see that the plane impacts were within those parameters.

I'm sure that a hurricane strength wind could easily match the lateral force of an impacting airliner, but the difference is that an airliner hits in one spot, while the wind attacks the building as a whole. The force of a hurricane on any one airliner-sized section section would be comparably low - in fact this is obvious by the fact that the glazing and outer facing of the building is designed to withstand hurricane-force winds - but failed to withstand the planes. But I think we're talking cross-purposes here.

I never said that the impact would tip them over. Merely that the eventual collapse, if it ever led to that, would have been messy.

But I still don't see why it should be messy. What would cause those buildings to tip over during collapse in any way at all (see last post - quoted below) ?

For them to fall anything other than straight down, some truly massive force would need to be applied sideways, or for some obstacle be placed to prevent an even collapse.

TA, don't let the general ratbaggery, arm-waving, populist posts here put you off. Investigate all 9/11 sites.

I've been doing that a little of late, but I don't have that much time, I'm afraid. As I've said, I don't have much of an opinion, though I've not seen anything convincing yet to suggest demolition of the WTC.

[Faithfree]

Didn't you read about the black smoke indicating low temperature?

Oh look, here's a recent example of a low temperature fire. It must be low because there's black smoke.

[owtth]

The flash is visible in this version of the same crash footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY

As seen in this still:

Picture 5.jpg

Probability of Galaxian ignoring this: HIGH

Probability of Galaxian referring to his earlier posting of ludicrously dodgy CGI as proof of his buttplucked theories: Very Very Low

[Randydeluxe]

What follows are quotes taken from this thread only. They are presented here in the order they were posted. Why? Because the first 19 quotes make the 20th quote so, so beautiful.

the mods might want to keep an eye on off-topic bullshit & buffonery posted by every respondent

Read it if you reckon you've got the brains.

I doubt that such forums are a platform for serious discussion of anything, seeing that they are infested with buffoons, more interested in farting & burping than in expanding their own knowledge

the level of ignorance on this thread regarding 9/11 is shocking

I notice that glaring offenses to rationality & information gathering from your buddies previous posts have whistled past you.

The lot of you sound like Christian Fundies with a God given Bible that you dare not question.

This is for the lurkers, not the children:

Contains disturbing images for sheeple.

I do not take you seriously

On second thoughts, you'll find it easier to swallow the official dogma. It's comforting. Now you know how Roman Catholics think & feel.

Don't bother with your next question. You're not sincere.

you're such a literalist in your world view that it is embarrassing being seen on the same forum as you.

your sophistry knows no bounds.

You know little to nothing about physics & the laws of Nature. Or if you do, it is as a magpie collects pretty & bright things, not knowing the function or importance or application of those laws & principles

What lazy bullshit you spout.

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!

The rest of your inane post is more of your febrile imagination. Do you have a temperature? Might be bird(brain) flu!

You're just a pawn Ian, just a pawn

In analogy I am like Copernicus or Kepler. You are like a monk in a medieval abbey.

...

decency is apparently not in your lexicon.

[owtth]

What follows are quotes taken from this thread only. They are presented here in the order they were posted. Why? Because the first 19 quotes make the 20th quote so, so beautiful.

the mods might want to keep an eye on off-topic bullshit & buffonery posted by every respondent

Read it if you reckon you've got the brains.

I doubt that such forums are a platform for serious discussion of anything, seeing that they are infested with buffoons, more interested in farting & burping than in expanding their own knowledge

the level of ignorance on this thread regarding 9/11 is shocking

I notice that glaring offenses to rationality & information gathering from your buddies previous posts have whistled past you.

The lot of you sound like Christian Fundies with a God given Bible that you dare not question.

This is for the lurkers, not the children:

Contains disturbing images for sheeple.

I do not take you seriously

On second thoughts, you'll find it easier to swallow the official dogma. It's comforting. Now you know how Roman Catholics think & feel.

Don't bother with your next question. You're not sincere.

you're such a literalist in your world view that it is embarrassing being seen on the same forum as you.

your sophistry knows no bounds.

You know little to nothing about physics & the laws of Nature. Or if you do, it is as a magpie collects pretty & bright things, not knowing the function or importance or application of those laws & principles

What lazy bullshit you spout.

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!

The rest of your inane post is more of your febrile imagination. Do you have a temperature? Might be bird(brain) flu!

You're just a pawn Ian, just a pawn

In analogy I am like Copernicus or Kepler. You are like a monk in a medieval abbey.

...

decency is apparently not in your lexicon.

But as we all know, a ridiculously large ego is a natural substitute for a passing acquaintance with reality, plus facts retrieved from ones bunghole are far more valuable than those based on your so-called science. I mean what has science done for us? Besides the aqueduct?

[Feck]

Do you know I think you get a better arguement with Mandy than Galaxian !

[Rum]

Has he been warned? There is a lot of personal abuse in those quotes.

[Tigger]

Has he been warned? There is a lot of personal abuse in those quotes.

I was thinking that. One moment ...

EDIT:

Hmm. I mentioned people's inflammatory comments before (page 12), and Charlou put a note on the same page aimed at Galaxian. Once again, the moderators (me actually) picked up on the out and out clear personal comments that others sometimes make in response to what they perceive as a poor, frustrating argument, but the unpleasantness concealed in the more verbose posts is sometimes overlooked. As a fallible human, I apologise if I missed anything I should not have missed.

As a moderator I say to Galaxian: please do not use personal attacks in your arguments. Several have been itemised above and some appear after the gentle reminder. Please play nice according to our rules here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#playnice

[amused]

People who believe in the god of the bible WANT to live in a world with a psychotic bastard in charge.

People who want to believe 911 conspiracies WANT to live in a world where such an improbable grand conspiracy is possible.

Why do they want such a perverse world?

[Ian]

People who believe in the god of the bible WANT to live in a world with a psychotic bastard in charge.

People who want to believe 911 conspiracies WANT to live in a world where such an improbable grand conspiracy is possible.

Why do they want such a perverse world?

Because they have a dim, pessimistic view of human nature.
Probably because they have a dim, pessimistic view of themselves.

I doubt they want such things, but they're cynical enough to accept it as reality. It's a rather pathetic mind-set, IMO.

[Rum]

People who believe in the god of the bible WANT to live in a world with a psychotic bastard in charge.

People who want to believe 911 conspiracies WANT to live in a world where such an improbable grand conspiracy is possible.

Why do they want such a perverse world?

The truth is actually rather more scary. Really bad things happen mostly because people constantly fuck up.