Jump to content

9/11


PolyNewbie

Your apoinion on 911  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Riverwind:You can continue to insist that a bomb is the only thing that could have brought the buildings down, however, you have presented no evidence or analysis other than unproven claims about the laws of thermodynamics and incorrect data regarding the speed of collapse.

I have shown how simple high school level physics can be used to show that 911 was an inside job. I have explained enough so that anyone with a knowledge of physics can figure out how to do the calculations.

The buildings both fell in less than 10 seconds. The initial rate of collapse is timed and compared with a falling object on many 911 videos -in fact most if not all 911 videos show the initial rate of collapse that of freefall. This is impossible without bombs. Steel does not suddenly fail before first deforming. The steel was not deformed in such a way that it changed the shape of the structure before the collapse.

The second law of thermodyanmics is not an unproven claim. If you don't believe me, look at what scientists say about how the second law of therodynamics applies to this problem, st911.org. You do not need it to prove 911 was an inside job.

If you do not believe that the application of the second law is correct, I suggest you email these people that have Phd's in physics and inform them, or do a paper for the physics society. You would be doing the science a great favour and probably receive international recognition for showing that someone of Steven Jones caliber is actually wrong. You would likely get research grants and be able to participate in the weapons development for imperial hedgemony the war on terror.

There are too many ways of showing 911 was an inside job. You have demonstrated that you do not know the difference between relativistic physics and newtonian physics. Your physics as a product of your own imagination and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It does not matter how things appear to a human observer. There you go, going relativistic again. Once a rotation starts it doesn't stop and thats called conservation of momentum.
I am not going bother repeating an explaination I already provided regarding the rotation and momentum - you can go find it if you are interested. The short answer is the rotational momentum was lost when the top crashed into the floors below.

I find it amusing that you cannot seem to understand the simple English statement: "from the point of view of a human observer". This statement has nothing to do with relativity and I suspect you know it. Your are just jumping on it because you have no other arguments left so you decided to create a straw man out of nothing and attack it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You include the fact that something would only take a few ms and a human observer would not notice it as if human observation has some kind of implication. You are talking about special relativity but do not realize it because you cannot talk the talk. If you can't talk the talk you can't walk the walk.

If you think that the application of the second law of thermodynamics to this problem is wrong, then the world is your oyster. You will acheive a certain degree of fame because you will have managed to discredit some big people in science in a fundamental way - people that have published in very impressive journals. You will be doing the Bush administration a big favour by discrediting this movement in a very profound way. You could maybe join Van Romero and become a lobbyist for the weapons manufacterers.

Why waste your time argueing with me ? I'm no one special - I've just got a degree in engineering - I will never make waves in the scientific community and will never be recognised for a theoretical contribution to science.

Or just give it up. You are a Bool Schitter and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The buildings both fell in less than 10 seconds.
Shown to be false: http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
Large chunks of rubble, which are in free fall, are clearly falling faster than the rest of the building. The base of the massive chunk lower left is, what, 20 storeys lower than the top of the right-hand corner of the building?
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall__video_evidence.html
Most footage of the WTC collapses was taken from a distance, for obvious reasons, and the clouds of dust make it difficult to determine the precise collapse times. But there are videos taken from closer to the disaster which can at least point us in the right direction.
The cameraman bravely films what’s happening for a few seconds, before realising this may be a good time to run. We then lose sight of the building until roughly the 11 to almost 12 second point, where a considerable number of storeys of the building are clearly still standing. 25? It could be more as falling debris obscures the upper levels, but what’s clear is that the collapse didn’t end until some time after the 12 second point, putting the overall collapse time from this video as “more than 12.5 seconds”.
Bottom line: it is impossible to measure the precise time of collapse so the time of collapse is proof of nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lot of debate about this, however, the initial rate of collapse is free fall and that is all you need to show there were bombs.

By the way, both Oklahoma and 911 were both investigated by the same group of 4 engineers, Gene Corely being one of them. In the case of 911, the investigation was directed by the same group of engineers.

In both cases experts have come forward to say the buildings were demolished. Neither of these cases show that as being considered a possibility by the investigators. Both investigations have come under fire for conflict of interest.

In both cases- 911 & Oklahoma the government decided to hire Gene Corely instead of the fire marshall and/or the FAA. Curious isn't it ?

Do you think Van Romeros first statement about 911 having to be a controlled demolition, then retracting his statement two weeks later, then getting big promotions is just another one of these strange coincidences ?

You would think that if he was wrong when he shot his mouth off he would get reprimended rather than promoted. Strange how being utterly incompetent in the eyes of the official version supporters leads directly to promotions as was also abserved with varous FAA officials as well.

Being a total phuck-up has its benefits in the Bush administration, doesn't it ?

Oh well, strange things happen I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FRom 911Myths:

"We’d suggest it’s realistic to assume the collapse started at 0.5 seconds before the clip begins, and perhaps a little earlier.

"

False statement. The clip starts long before the collapse begins. The actual clip is in 911Mysteries: Part1 demolition (free on google video)

Strange how they don't show the video :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That clip does show that the explosion does start before the collapse. the video 911 Mysteries leaves no doubt. This means an explosion initiated the collapse.
The clip shows the building after the collapse started so the time for the collapse was at least twelve seconds - the exact amount of time before the video was irrelevant. The 'explosion' is just the dust from several floors being crushed together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

911 Eyewitness (free on google) does sthe same sort of examination from a different angle and applies this method to more video evidence to show explosions occured before the collapse.

Watch 911 Mysteries starting at 14 minutes into the movie. The camera man hears the explosion then points the camera upward and then we see the collapse initiation. 911Myths is lying about this (and a lot of other things).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poly, I truly pity you. I pity the spouse who has to defend him/herself from your accusations over things like the 'squeezing the toothpaste in the middle' conspiracy.

Just bloody well let it go for God's sake. You ARE NOT GOING TO CONVINCE ANYONE THAT 9/11 WAS A CONSPIRACY!!!!! Stop wasting your own freakin' time over this. I can't believe after 18 pages of this thread you are still wasting your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Sharkman, I appreciate your advice. But you are too late, there are many ways of showing that bombs were used to demolish the buildings and if bombs were used then 911 was an inside job.

I know it makes you uncomfortable and your gut reaction is to say the government would never do this but that is not proof.

Consider the points:

(1)The fact that explosions occured before the buildings began to collapse is one way of showing 911 was an inside job

(2)The evidence showing sulfidization on beams is another way of showing 911 was an inside job

(3)The fact that the building collapses looked exactly like controlled demolitions according to witnesses and on camera strongly suggest 911 was an inside job

(4)The expedient and orderly collapse of the buildings proves 911 was an inside job, this explained by various demolition experts as well as scientists.

(5)The fact that evidence was removed and/or destroyed suggests 911 was an inside job

(6)Congressional testimony showing that Cheney repeatedly gave a stand down order in response to providing defense for the attacks suggest the government at least let it happen on purpose.

(7)The fact that Philip Zelikow directed most of the investigation suggests 911 was an inside job. Zelikows specialty is the maintainance of public myths, not engineering or fire investigations.

(8)The fact that the FAA and fire marshal was restricted from the investigation suggests 911 was an inside job.

(9)The fact that multiple main stream sources reoported the elleged terrorists still alive after 911 suggests that 911 was an inside job.

(10) The sites and sources that attempt to debunk this conspiracy theory can be shown to be lying or misleading all the time suggests that the conspiracy theories around 911 are likely true and this in itself suggests that 911 was an inside job.

So what is your evidence to suggest that Osama did it alone ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poly, I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't inviting you to debate me on this issue. You've been proven wrong on several counts. You simply ignore it and keep on spouting your conspiracy. There's no point in debating someone like that.

Personally, I think everyone should just ignore Poly's threads when he gets like this. I mean, what's the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sharkman:Poly, I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't inviting you to debate me on this issue. You've been proven wrong on several counts. You simply ignore it and keep on spouting your conspiracy. There's no point in debating someone like that.

There is nothing you have posted that I have ignored - at least if something is said. Your last two posts haven't said anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear PolyNewbie,

(4)The expedient and orderly collapse of the buildings proves 911 was an inside job, this explained by various demolition experts as well as scientists.
I have seen many controlled demolitions, and only WTC7 looked like one. Your use of the word 'proves' in every sentence does not actually consitute actual (and especially 'legal') proof.

The man who masterminded 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was caught in 2003. Even Bin Laden himself would have been all over the 'inside job' bit if he wasn't responsible, for it would have been deeply troubling for the US had he issued a statement like: "We had nothing to do with 9/11, it was staged by the US gov't, who stooped to the mass murder of it's own people, to rally support among the US populace for another war". Instead, he praised the heroic 'glorious martyrs' who carried out the operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Flea,

The man who masterminded 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was caught in 2003. Even Bin Laden himself would have been all over the 'inside job' bit if he wasn't responsible,
Not necessarily.

Bin Laden has stated that his strategy is to bankrupt America. Maintaining the terror-alert boogey-man persona may be part of his strategy.

What could be more amusing to watch than sending your enemy off to fight something that does not exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The loiusfleabag:I have seen many controlled demolitions, and only WTC7 looked like one. Your use of the word 'proves' in every sentence does not actually consitute actual (and especially 'legal') proof.

The man who masterminded 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was caught in 2003. Even Bin Laden himself would have been all over the 'inside job' bit if he wasn't responsible, for it would have been deeply troubling for the US had he issued a statement like: "We had nothing to do with 9/11, it was staged by the US gov't, who stooped to the mass murder of it's own people, to rally support among the US populace for another war". Instead, he praised the heroic 'glorious martyrs' who carried out the operation.

wtc7 looked like a conventional controlled demolition - exactly like one. There was no characteristic of the collapse of wtc7 that did not look like a conventional controlled demolition.

wtc1 & wtc2 also look just like a controlled demolition, but not a conventional controlled demolition.

How do you know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed masterminded 911 ? Did the corporate news & neocons tell you that ? Are they the same ones that keep talking about weapons of mass destruction ? They said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there was thousands of Americans that died defending us from them - but they didn't really exist. Now they are saying that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction and they are going to invade based on this even though it has been reported be independents that Iran is nowhere close to developing weapons of mass destruction.

Did you know that Russia wanted to make peace and end the cold war but the USA said no because Rumsfeld & Cheney said that they had hidden weapons of mass destruction even though the CIA and intelligence said there was no danger of this ?

These guys might lie all the time about weapons of mass destruction to start wars or maintain wars but they would never kill Americans on their own soil to start a war.

How many times do these guys get to lie to you before you wake up ?

Three card monte anyone ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

theloniusfleabag:Your use of the word 'proves' in every sentence does not actually consitute actual (and especially 'legal') proof

You said yourself that wtc7 looked like a controlled demolition, are you maintaining that it wasn't and that the building collapsed because of fires ?

If that is the case, why have controlled demolition ? Why not just light a few fires and let buildings collapse just like controlled demolitions ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wtc7 looked like a conventional controlled demolition - exactly like one. There was no characteristic of the collapse of wtc7 that did not look like a conventional controlled demolition.
You need to take a course in logic. The collapse of WTC7 make have looked like a demolition, however, that does not prove that it was one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poly, seems like you're wasting your time on these close minded skeptics. They obviously will believe nothing but the official version of events, much like the sheep on the right side of the equation. And it's funny; they are the ones most likely to quote the famous line: "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They obviously will believe nothing but the official version of events, much like the sheep on the right side of the equation.
I will never understand why some people are so obsessed with lunatic fringe conspiracy theories that they seem to lose their ability to think rationally. I suspect believing in conspiracy theories satisfies some deep seated emotional need. I am curious if conspiracy theory obsessions are a uniquely Anglo-American phenomena or if people from other cultures experience the same paranoid delusions.

Here is a good article on the topic (dated Sept 24, 2001). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1561199.stm

It makes an eeriely accurate prediction:

Professor Cooper predicts that, in the weeks ahead, US terror attack theories will expand and become attributed to an ever larger group of culprits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never understand why some people are so obsessed with lunatic fringe conspiracy theories that they seem to lose their ability to think rationally. I suspect believing in conspiracy theories satisfies some deep seated emotional need.

Well, I think it's quite obvious to mistrust the establishment after you've been lied to continuosly. Look at Iraq for example: no imminent threat, no WMD, no Al-Queda connection, and on and on. Bin laden has "bin forgotten." But believe what you will. There are just some of us folks who don't buy into everything the Government and media feeds us. Guess that's how we're wired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...