[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still think that AQ did 9/11 you should be in adult day care.
I have had a decent "Newtonian, calculus based physics course" (I assume you mean "studied Newtonian mechanics as part of a degree level physics curriculum"). Please explain to me, complete with the relevant equations, your calculation of the rate of fall and its significance.
@Deuces - even better, just answer the above.
I'll be the first to admit that mechanics was not my favourite subject, but somehow I doubt that Deuces McCrackhead is going to out-physics me here. E'da knows about 100x the maths and physics that I do, but unsurprisingly he is not bothering with this thread.
I've had him on my ignore list for like a decade from old 9/11 conspiracy threads. He's not a challenge, he's just obnoxious. Brian James level content producer.
It's my view that the 3 columns that were on the side of the building that was actually on fire, faced the wtcs and received damage from those buildings collapsing lead to those columns to fail first leading to the penthouse to fall first. Which is what we see. Then when a building loses 3 columns + an incredibly heavy amount of the building to fall, the transfer trusses that support the remain columns are put under quite a load at that p
Your jinga/Death Star theory of collapse is ridiculous on the surface. Not even the NIST people tried to get away with that. If your theory was in any way believable we would see the NIST simulation reflect it and the building would fall in the simulation. The building doesn't fall in the simulation. NIST also knowingly misrepresented the blue prints of building 7 in order to get a more favorable model of the collapse. This is proven. But even with what we know about the ridiculous assumptions NIST made, and the lies, the building still doesn't fall in the simulation. You'd have to go outside of NIST to find a credible explanation. Unfortunately, the pickings are quite slim for research supportive of the government narrative.
We see the penthouse fall first and about 3 secs the entire building fall. That makes pretty clear sense that aligns with the damage to the building. If it was detonated, it aligned perfectly both the timing and locations of the detonation in relation to the damage taken to the building.
We don't know exactly what ancillary damage was done to the building pre collapse. We don't know what kind of demolition mechanism was used. We did hear, in a CNN video done by Ashley Banfield as building 7 collapsed, a series of blasts timed apart to machine precision as shown by audio software which measured the intervals. This was shown by someone with 2 masters degree in technical fields from Harvey Mudd college, an engineering college prestigious enough to boast higher starting salaries for its graduates than MIT.
deuces -- a few skeptics have at least engaged asking you to post simple bullet points stating your case. do that, with links to the "peer reviewed" studies you claim. disjointed paragraphs of text are not swaying anyone.
I'm not reading all of this crap, but please tell me there aren't people besides the standard conspiracy potatoes believing the AE911truth crap? I just need to know that so I can do something else.
Those publishing at A&E911 are not conspiracy potatoes. Granted the polling I looked at was a long time ago, but a majority of New Yorkers don't believe the official narrative. Most people in the world don't believe the government narrative. The majority of the U.S. domestic population outside of NYC do believe the government narrative. But they also have believed every lie the government has ever told so there's that.
Let's back up for a sec. It's been demonstrated here that none of you who are calling names even know the official story past the absolute basics that AQ did it and the planes caused the buildings to fall. If you don't even have the arguments then who are you to tell people they are stupid to not believe something? You don't even know why to believe it?
The Earth is round. I hope we all believe that. But if someone comes up to you on the street and claims the Earth is flat you should have some informal proof or explanation as to how you know that the Earth is round or you should shut your mouth. "Everybody knows" or "some smart person said so" are not valid arguments.
You're telling me I'm an idiot for saying AQ didn't do it. The prosecution just cut a deal with the supposed mass murderer of 3K American citizens, the alleged planner of the whole thing. Is that not registering? How do you know AQ did this? If you know something the government prosecutors don't you need to email them right away lol.
You're not even saying the Earth is flat. You're saying "LOL you believe the Earth is round, I'm not saying it is or isn't, but you need to go read this 1,000 page report the by Earth shape truthers".
But yeah, you're exactly the sort of person I can imagine coming up to random pedestrians to discuss your pet theories about Earth shape.
deuces -- a few skeptics have at least engaged asking you to post simple bullet points stating your case. do that, with links to the "peer reviewed" studies you claim. disjointed paragraphs of text are not swaying anyone.
We already did that in the other 9/11 thread. We went over the physics of free fall. We went over Newton's laws and how they apply to Bazant's boneheaded thesis. We went over modeling real world events. We even went over the spectrometry of thermite ffs. Several peer reviewed papers were dissected and debated. I destroyed the NIST report. We went into the money trail where Jiggs and I showed the faithful that our government just voluntarily, with no justification, stopped following the money trail in several spots. I probably wrote a volume there equivalent to a an 800 page book. All that and we never even got too much into the the security response in real time or the anthrax attacks.
I want to keep it lighter now. Plus, clearly, no one in the inquisition has the attention span to dive into more in depth discussions.
I'm mainly trying to figure out why people believe things which are demonstrably false just because an authority figure asserts it. But on 9/11 it's like people aren't even saying what they think, just trolling along.
[QUOTE=Deuces McKracken;58675940I']m mainly trying to figure out why people believe things which are demonstrably false just because an authority figure asserts it. But on 9/11 it's like people aren't even saying what they think, just trolling along.[/QUOTE]
lecturing people with "if you only knew" might not be the quickest way to understand their belief systems
You're not even saying the Earth is flat. You're saying "LOL you believe the Earth is round, I'm not saying it is or isn't, but you need to go read this 1,000 page report the by Earth shape truthers".
I'm trying to keep this shorter for you per your request.
Me - Galileo
You - a faith proclaiming peasant who wants to see someone crucified
The U.S. government and its media acolytes - The Holy Roman Church
Also you - Self appointed minion of the inquisition
Also me - Napoleon
Starry Night - "A structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7"
Is this a better format for you?
But yeah, you're exactly the sort of person I can imagine coming up to random pedestrians to discuss your pet theories about Earth shape.
I wish I could trade insults with you but I don't have much to go on and I tend not to make things up. All I know is that 95% of what you say are insults. I don't know how to map that onto real world people types. I guess it's a good guess you are very quiet. Most of your impulses, as seen here as indication, are socially unacceptable so I think you don't talk a lot.
I'm trying to keep this shorter for you per your request.
Me - Galileo
You - a faith proclaiming peasant who wants to see someone crucified
The U.S. government and its media acolytes - The Holy Roman Church
Also you - Self appointed minion of the inquisition
Also me - Napoleon
Starry Night - "A structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7"
Is this a better format for you?
I wish I could trade insults with you but I don't have mu
Well, we've now learnt that you are as good at psychology as you are at physics, but we've still yet to see any concrete claims regarding what really happened on 9/11.
Deuces, did you ever get around to explaining what caused the towers to fall at any point in your 80,000-page manifesto, or is it all just flinging insults at people who know more about physics than you?
deuces -- a few skeptics have at least engaged asking you to post simple bullet points stating your case. do that, with links to the "peer reviewed" studies you claim. disjointed paragraphs of text are not swaying anyone.
He has kind of done that. Personally, I'm not so sure anyomre.
Why don't you watch his youtube video that he posted showing people hearing bombs and how Ashly banfield says this is it and everyone in the news knowing that the building was going to come down and that we should all reach safety for public safety as they detonate it.
What are your thoughts on that video?
here is the video just in case.
Deuces, did you ever get around to explaining what caused the towers to fall at any point in your 80,000-page manifesto, or is it all just flinging insults at people who know more about physics than you?
(trigger warning for D2 - words more than 3 syllables are used below)
We discussed a lot of topics. You were there. Do you block the memory of getting owned in that thread as easily as you block it out when you see evidence authorities are lying to you? I did explain that free fall of a building such as observed requires systematic, exogenously coordinated removal of support. They just kept arguing that it wasn't exactly free fall and trying to find little nit picks. Like if misspelled a word that was like Predator blood on a jungle leaf. Like if I can misspell a word then I must be vulnerable. D2 has now picked up that mantle which he doesn't realize is flattering to me.
Again, you are the one asserting something, that the buildings fell because of X. The burden of proof is on you and you haven't met that. No one has because all the assertions you hold on this matter are false. If they weren't false we would have the proof. This goes for just about everything. If KSM was guilty we would have the proof. If we had the proof he would have been executed years ago. Maybe you guys aren't typical Americans or even Americans. But just to jog your memory, KSM is an Arab terrorist who they say killed thousands of rich white Americans. And they gave him a deal (or tried to). This is as good as proof that AQ didn't do 9/11 as any. There are other ways to know this. I predicted this years ago. But you won't accept it even though you have no other proof supporting your assertion. You are holding a naked assertion against a mountain of counter evidence.
Why? What is going to happen to you if you think for yourself? Are you going to have a panic attack or something? Maybe you tried it once and had a bad experience.
A complete strawman, of course. Of course the government lies about things! The whole Iraq War was predicated on lies! This *is* the mainstream view! None of this explains why the towers fell.
Yeah Trolly here is the difference between you and me: I knew it was a lie when the evidence surfaced that it was a lie and said as much even though I was still in school at the time. You knew it was a lie ONLY when they told you it was a lie, even though you could have seen that for yourself with just a little thinking. Same thing with Russiagate. Are you off that now? Did they tell you it's ok to believe the truth on that? Or are we still pretending Trump colluded with Russia?
What is this hyperbolic rhetoric even supposed to mean here? NIST is a public agency, their reports can be read. The 9/11 commission report can be found on Amazon FFS, who says you're not "supposed" to read it? What will happen to you if you read it?
Reading the NIST report and believing it is like driving a station wagon with wood paneling and thinking you're in a horse drawn wagon. The NIST report is a skeuomorphism.
(trigger warning for D2 - words more than 3 syllables are used below)
We discussed a lot of topics. You were there. Do you block the memory of getting owned in that thread as easily as you block it out when you see evidence authorities are lying to you? I did explain that free fall of a building such as observed requires systematic, exogenously coordinated removal of support. They just kept arguing that it wasn't exactly free fall and trying
Deuces, why did the Twin Towers fall on 9/11, what caused that?
Can you think of a reason why thermite would be found in the rubble other than thermite being used to take them down?
How about you state clearly what you think happened instead of dropping these vague hints?
Somehow we have two 9/11 scholars and neither can articulate the most basic explanation of what happened.
How about you state clearly what you think happened instead of dropping these vague hints?
Somehow we have two 9/11 scholars and neither can articulate the most basic explanation of what happened.
They blew the buildings up Trolly.
They used thermite which explains the molten metal, and something else which explains the pyroclastic like clouds and lateral ejections. It's not too hard.
