9/11

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:You have a theory which you claim is supported by the evidence yet you have no evidence that someone actually planted the bombs. You haven't proved what type of explosives were used.

I don't personally have the evidence but its very well documented. Read Stephen Jones papers on it it or watch 911 Mysteries or read the FEMA report - sect 8 talks about bomb evidence - sulfidization which shows thermate or thermite was used. - At least according to a Phd physisist but I'm sure you will say its from drywall or something but FEMA doesn't think its drywall - they don't have an explanation for it that fits in with the official version. S. Jones has given conclusive evidence of explosives and this evidence is shown on most 911 videos.

Thats all the questions of your post linked. The remaining paragraph is just a stupid comment.

So tell me, just out of curiosity, why do you want to stick up for war criminals ? Are you with the secret police ? Do you think they will let you rape a little kid in return for defending against 911 conspiracy theories ?

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Rediculous analogies. The design of a boat is not affected by what might happen to at the bottom of the ocean - the design of a building is very much affected by what may cause it to collapse. A nutrionist would be expected to know how to treat people with lack of nutrition.

I'm not talking about cause of the collapse, I am talking about the nature of the actual collapse. You don't treat people with sickness due to lack of nutrition just by giving them nutrition - did you see Band Of Brothers when they went to the concentration camp ? I've had lack of nutrition from working too hard and not eating right, believe me a nutritionist is not who you go see.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Half strength steel in combination with severe structural damage caused by the plane impact is more than enough to trigger a collapse.

Not if the impact wrecks less than half of the supports and the remained of the supports are at half strength and the builkding is built with a six times overbuild in the center and 20 at the edges. Simple math shows that.

[Riverwind]

sect 8 talks about bomb evidence - sulfidization which shows thermate or thermite was used.

No it does not - the evidence is inconclusive because sulfidization could have many different causes. You have no way to prove that any sulfidization was caused by a deliberate use of thermite on the beams. Claiming that there is a proven causal link is junk science.

Thats all the questions of your post linked. The remaining paragraph is just a stupid comment.

Hardly, it lists some of the gaping holes in the truthie theories. You have no business claiming that you have a proof of controlled demolition unless you can provide answers to all of those questions. Furthermore, since you are insisting that NIST provide irrefutable proof for their theories you have to come up with irrefutable proof for you answer to each of those questions. If you can't then your demolition theory is nothing but an unsubstanstantiated hypothesis.

So the things you need to prove are:

You need evidence that someone actually planted the bombs.

You have to prove (not guess) what type of explosives were used.

You have to explain why the buildings were demolished in the middle instead of from the base.

You have to find at least one of the collaborators that planted the bombs.

You have to show exactly how the buildings could have been wired in advance without anyone noticing

You have to explain how the bombers could have still detonated the towers once the planes crashed into them and started massive fires.

All of these questions relate directly to the plausibility of the truthie hypothesis and cannot be dismissed or ignored.

So tell me, just out of curiosity, why do you want to stick up for war criminals ? Are you with the secret police ? Do you think they will let you rape a little kid in return for defending against 911 conspiracy theories ?

Gawd, you are even more pathetic than Bush when he claimed that opposition to the Iraq war is anti-American. Opposing truthies theories does not imply support for Bush and his policies.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:So the things you need to prove are:

You need evidence that someone actually planted the bombs.

You have to prove (not guess) what type of explosives were used.

You have to explain why the buildings were demolished in the middle instead of from the base.

You have to find at least one of the collaborators that planted the bombs.

You have to show exactly how the buildings could have been wired in advance without anyone noticing

You have to explain how the bombers could have still detonated the towers once the planes crashed into them and started massive fires.

All of these questions relate directly to the plausibility of the truthie hypothesis and cannot be dismissed or ignored.

Not true. All that needs to be shown is that the energy involved in the collapse is greater than that supplied by the potential energy of the buildings, which has been done in many different ways by many different people.

`Riverwind: No it does not - the evidence is inconclusive because sulfidization could have many different causes. You have no way to prove that any sulfidization was caused by a deliberate use of thermite on the beams. Claiming that there is a proven causal link is junk science.

Tell Stephen Jones (Phd) that. He thinks that proves explosives were used. FEMA could not explain the existence of sulfidization and they knew there was drywall in the buildings.

[Canadian Blue]

Stephen Jones is a hack!!!

A dumbass with a Phd is still a dumbass

People, isn't it obvious that Polynewbie has lost his senses.

I've known about the camps and mass executions since 1990. It wasn't supposed to happen until 2020 - 2040 but the neocons (Harper/Bush/Martin/Clinton) wanted to speed it up. People that I haven't seen in years know about all of this too. I wonder why some people don't.

They want to kill everyone and all past knowledge which is why they are going after religion as well.

Members of the CFR according to Alex Jones have been calling for 100 % eradication of everyone over 12 years old. Then all the knowledge of the past is gone and they can reshape society in entirety to suit their needs. You have heard the term "useless eater" haven't you ? Thats what most people are to them. They do not need such a large population to do what they want because of technology.

This is going on all over the world. All the countries have concentration camps except the ones we are at war with.

[Riverwind]

Not true. All that needs to be shown is that the energy involved in the collapse is greater than that supplied by the potential energy of the buildings, which has been done in many different ways by many different people.

What you have is a theory - not a proof. It is very difficult to prove things in science. That is why we have the "Theory of Gravity", "Quantum Theory" or the "Theory of Evolution". In each of those examples scientists mostly agree that the theories are correct even though they have never been proven. Theories get accepted as fact when there is enough supporting evidence and there is a concensus amoung scientists that theory is correct.

That is why I agree that NIST has not proven why the towers collapsed. NIST will never be able to prove why that towers collapsed because it impossible to prove such things. Truthies seem to think that eliminating all known alternative explanations proves their theory. That is pure hogwash and bad science because there is always the possibility that another theory could come along and explain all observed evidence and invalidate both the truthie and the current NIST theory. It is impossible to prove that this 'unknown theory' does not exist which means it is impossible to prove that any existing theory is true.

So we have a situation where there are three theories: the NIST theory, the truthie theory and the 'unknown theory'. None of the theories explain all observed evidence so scientists must choose the most credible theory. The NIST theory is by far the most credible since it explains the physics of how the buildings collapsed and does not rely on a complex and improbable conspiracy storyline for which there is no evidence.

That is why truthies must answer those questions if they want their theory to be taken seriously. It is not sufficient to play around with mathematical equations and claim that you have 'proven' that controlled demolition brought down the building. Real scientists know that such things cannot be proven therefore the onus is on the truthies to provide evidence for the storyline that accompanies their theory.

Which brings me back to my original point: Your theory is rubblish if you cannot/will not answer those questions.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:What you have is a theory - not a proof. It is very difficult to prove things in science.

There was a lot more energy involved in the collapse than the potential energy of the building, it doesn't matter how much more just that there was more and that is obvious from simple physics.

A safe assumption due to this energy deficit is that bombs did it. Of course it could be something else - martians, the "other side", dwarfs that live under the earths crust.. I think bombs are the most reasonable explanation. The explanation of it collapsing under its own weight has been disproven.

Your questions that you have have been answered by the truth movement as hypothesis but no one will ever know how the explosives were planted.

Riverwind:The NIST theory is by far the most credible since it explains the physics of how the buildings collapsed

No, it does not explain this at all. It only explains the fires and gives an unlikely explanation as to how the collapse initiated. It does not explain how the whole building collapsed. It stops short of explaining the collapses.

[jbg]

No, it does not explain this at all. It only explains the fires and gives an unlikely explanation as to how the collapse initiated. It does not explain how the whole building collapsed. It stops short of explaining the collapses.

Are you saying that slamming fuel-laden planes into buildings is good for the buildings or the people inside?

[Black Dog]

No, it does not explain this at all. It only explains the fires and gives an unlikely explanation as to how the collapse initiated. It does not explain how the whole building collapsed. It stops short of explaining the collapses.

So it explains how the collapse started, but not how the collapse proceeded. I guess that makes sense in the same way that saying structural engineers don't think about building collpases when trying to prevent buildingh collapses makes sense. That is: none at all.

[PolyNewbie]

JBG:Are you saying that slamming fuel-laden planes into buildings is good for the buildings or the people inside?

No, I'm not saying that. Can't you look at any details or is the world black and white ? Jets did crash into the buildings but that alone was not enough to bring the buildings down the way they fell.

Black Dog:So it explains how the collapse started, but not how the collapse proceeded. I guess that makes sense in the same way that saying structural engineers don't think about building collpases when trying to prevent buildingh collapses makes sense. That is: none at all.

It would be very rare for a civil engineer to study the actual mechanics of a collapse. Their idea is to prevent it from happening. Its like going to a car manufacterer to fix your head after it slammed into the windshield due to a failed seat belt. The seat belts prevent your head from hitting the windshield but if it does you have to go to the doctor.

Any engineers or physisists that speak out about this lose their jobs. They are very dependent on government contracts.

Besides, you don't have to be an engineer to understand the simple physics that shows 911 was an inside job any more than you need to be a mathemetician to know that 2+2 doesn't equal 5.

Watch 911 Mysteries Part1: Demolition. Its a free video on google. 911 Mysteries. Its the best of the approximately ten documentaries done on 911 so far.

[Black Dog]

It would be very rare for a civil engineer to study the actual mechanics of a collapse. Their idea is to prevent it from happening. Its like going to a car manufacterer to fix your head after it slammed into the windshield due to a failed seat belt. The seat belts prevent your head from hitting the windshield but if it does you have to go to the doctor.

I swear, your analogies are geting dumber by the minute. If one is designing a building in order to ensure it does not collpase, then one would very likely examine how a collapse would occur in order to determine the best way to prevent it. You think brain surgeons learn how to operate on stroke victims without knowing what causes a stroke?

Besides, you don't have to be an engineer to understand the simple physics that shows 911 was an inside job any more than you need to be a mathemetician to know that 2+2 doesn't equal 5.

As I said before, even if your hocus-pocus baloney about extraneous aircraft and mysterious explosives were actually true, that's not evidence of an inside job. Your evidence chain is missing an important link: the one that connects a controlled demolition of the WTC with the U.S. government. Until you show some proof of government complicity, I'm going to assme the towers were brought down by an alliance of the Morlocks and the Mole Man.

[PolyNewbie]

Black Dog:I swear, your analogies are geting dumber by the minute. If one is designing a building in order to ensure it does not collpase, then one would very likely examine how a collapse would occur in order to determine the best way to prevent it.

Nope, try:If one is designing a building in order to ensure it does not collpase, then one would very likely examine how a collapse would occurstart in order to determine the best way to prevent it.

You would not analyze a whole collapse. Once it starts you are already fired. An engineer would never model a collapse.

Black Dog:As I said before, even if your hocus-pocus baloney about extraneous aircraft and mysterious explosives were actually true, that's not evidence of an inside job. Your evidence chain is missing an important link: the one that connects a controlled demolition of the WTC with the U.S. government. Until you show some proof of government complicity, I'm going to assme the towers were brought down by an alliance of the Morlocks and the Mole Man.

The proof is that the building was bombed, it didn't just fall down. The assumption is that the government would be the only ones capable of doing it.

I'm not sure what you are talking about wrt extraneous aircraft but I would guess that you are just trying to put words in my mouth to help win your arguement because you know that your arguements don't stand on their own merit.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:It is impossible to prove that this 'unknown theory' does not exist which means it is impossible to prove that any existing theory is true.

So you are now at the point where you suggest that science is wrong because it shows that 911 was an inside job.

All the science wrt mechanics of a building is already known. There will be no more "new" Newtonian physics.

It would be impossible to absolutely prove what did happen, fortunately, it is easy to prove what didn't happen and this leaves what did happen very obvious. There is a lot of both circumstantial and hard evidence that supports the conclusion of what is obvious.

[Canadian Blue]

I'm reading a book called American Fascist's, and it seem's that in order to refute evolution some on the Christian right make reference to a few scientists who are nothing but quacks. It seem's to me that no matter what you will always have a few dumbasses in every profession.

[Riverwind]

It would be impossible to absolutely prove what did happen, fortunately, it is easy to prove what didn't happen and this leaves what did happen very obvious. There is a lot of both circumstantial and hard evidence that supports the conclusion of what is obvious.

Once again you are abusing the term 'proof'. You cannot prove a negative anymore than you can prove a positive. Finding a few inconsistences in the official explaination does not 'prove' that the the basic premise is wrong.

Real scientists look at 9/11 and consider _all_ of the evidence. They then assess the plausibility of a theory based on the evidence available and, more importantly, they look for critical gaps in the available evidence. There are simply too many gaps in the evidence required for the controlled demolition theory (I have listed these gaps many times). These gaps make the controlled demolition theory extremely implausible. That said, a good scientist would consider the possibility of the a controlled demolition if these gaps were filled in the future. However, until that happens good scientists will assume that the plane and fire triggered collapse theory is the correct explaination.

This brings us back to my original point: your theory means nothing if you cannot provide answers to the questions I listed. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this demonstrates that you really don't understand how the scientific process works.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:These gaps make the controlled demolition theory extremely implausible. That said, a good scientist would consider the possibility of the a controlled demolition if these gaps were filled in the future.

Your only arguement against controlled demolition is that you cannot figure out how they would wire the building. Big deal !! Are you an intelligence expert now too ? Many intelligence people have said that would be easy. I can't imagine how it would be difficult to secretly wire a building over a period of a few years for controlled demolition.

The physics shows the official explanation is impossible, therefore we are left with the only other viable possibility of controlled demolition. Buildings have only completely collapsed into their own footprint as a result of controlled demolition.

Only bombs could explain how building parts were ejected upwards and away from the building the way they were during the collapse.

[Riverwind]

Your only arguement against controlled demolition is that you cannot figure out how they would wire the building.

Not just that. The biggest issue the fact that the collapse started at the point of plane impact. You have no explanation for how the so-called bombers could have precisely timed a demolition in a building with raging fires. Furthermore, the so-called energy deficit analysis that truthies try to rely on would require a huge quantity of explosives (i.e. > 1 tonne of TNT equivalents) to make up that deficit. How could that quantity of explosives be placed? You have no explanation or evidence to back up that explanation.

Furthermore, you are proving that you are an appalling hypocrite. On one hand you criticize the NIST analysis because it does not explain exactly how the progressive collapse happened yet you seem to think that you can support your pet theory by waving your hands and saying 'they could have wired the building over many years'. You can't have it both ways. If you expect to NIST to live up to a certain standard regarding scientific explainations/evidence then truthies must live up to the same standard.

The physics shows the official explanation is impossible, therefore we are left with the only other viable possibility of controlled demolition.

Wrong! There is always at least one other possibility: something we have not thought of yet. That is why you only have a _theory_ - a theory that is extremely implausible because of critical gaps in the evidence.

[Black Dog]

Nope, try:If one is designing a building in order to ensure it does not collpase, then one would very likely examine how a collapse would occurstart in order to determine the best way to prevent it.

You would not analyze a whole collapse. Once it starts you are already fired. An engineer would never model a collapse.

That's one of the dumbest things I've read in my entire life. I feel stupider for having read it.

The proof is that the building was bombed, it didn't just fall down. The assumption is that the government would be the only ones capable of doing it.

An assumption is not proof.

[PolyNewbie]

The buildings could not have fallen the way they did due to their own potential energy. There isn't enough potential energy in a building to pulverize it. Therefore another energy source must have been present, which means the buildings didn't collapse because of terrorists.

The fact is that very few civil engineers would ever model a building collapse, same as few nuitritionists study how to treat someone for lack of nutrition. Nutritionists keep you eating right so you don't get sick from lack of nutrition. Civil engineers build buildings that do not callapse therefore do not spend much time modelling actual collapses when they do occur.

I can't help you any more than that Black Dog. If you do not understand I suggest watching less TV and doing more reading.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Furthermore, the so-called energy deficit analysis that truthies try to rely on would require a huge quantity of explosives (i.e. > 1 tonne of TNT equivalents) to make up that deficit. How could that quantity of explosives be placed? You have no explanation or evidence to back up that explanation.

The energy deficit proves the official version wrong. Stephen Jones as well as many other people from the intelligence community have provided realistic scenarios as to how the explosives could be planted. Just because you think its impossible doesn't mean it is impossible.

Riverwind:Furthermore, you are proving that you are an appalling hypocrite. On one hand you criticize the NIST analysis because it does not explain exactly how the progressive collapse happened yet you seem to think that you can support your pet theory by waving your hands and saying 'they could have wired the building over many years'. You can't have it both ways.

An investigation is an investigation and the NIST report was not an investigation it was a white wash.

I do not have to explain exactly how 911 was carried out to show that the official version is a great big fat lie and a white wash. Once that is shown a most reasonable conclusion is that it was an inside job because of the coverup and the fact that gov would be the only ones to have the kind of access needed to set of a demolition without being busted for it.

Scott Forbes as well as others have pointed out mysterious shut downs of the world trade center buildings and shut downs of all security cameras and such plus the removal of bomb sniffing dogs.

See 911 Mysteries Part1: demolition to learn about 911.

[Riverwind]

The buildings could not have fallen the way they did due to their own potential energy. There isn't enough potential energy in a building to pulverize it. Therefore another energy source must have been present, which means the buildings didn't collapse because of terrorists.

This statement is complete BS because the potential energy is the building is the equivalent to 200,000 tonnes of TNT. Explosives could not have possibly added enough energy to make a difference.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:This statement is complete BS because the potential energy is the building is the equivalent to 200,000 tonnes of TNT. Explosives could not have possibly added enough energy to make a difference.

In a controlled demolition, concentrated explosive enrgy is used on critical supports and the building collapses under gravity due to the missing supports.

There are pictures of the remains of wtc1 & wtc2 that show the pictures of these perfectly cut beams using CD explosives. You don't need 200,000 tons of TNT to demolish a building using CD, as anyone who knows anything about CD can attest to. A comparitively small amount of explosives is used.

[Black Dog]

The buildings could not have fallen the way they did due to their own potential energy. There isn't enough potential energy in a building to pulverize it. Therefore another energy source must have been present, which means the buildings didn't collapse because of terrorists.

Neatly skewered here.

We already know that Hoffman's article treats 4 x 10^11 joules as the amount of energy available for release in the towers from a gravitational collapse. And according to his conclusion this is less than one tenth of the energy required. Therefore we need to multiply this figure by at least 9, giving 36 x 10^11 joules of energy required from some other source. (And as Hoffman keeps saying the effects need more than ten times this amount of energy, and he’s being conservative, then this is an absolute minimum).

Now if this was to be provided by explosives, then how much might be required?

Well, a metric ton (1,000 KG) of TNT has 4.184 * 10^9 joules ( http://www.answers.com/topic/megaton ). A ton is a lot of explosives, but not enough for us: we have to get to 36 x 10^11 joules. Which suggests we would need 860.420 tons (aka 860,420 kilogrammes, or 1,896,901 pounds) of TNT to produce the WTC collapse and its observed results.

Nearly 1.9 million pounds of explosives placed without noticing? Per tower? How many detonators do you think might be required for that? How much cabling? Is this sounding just a tiny bit unlikely to anyone?

There are more powerful explosives, of course: C4 will offer 34% more energy, for instance, reducing out requirements to 642,104 kilogrammes. Let's assume the conspirators used something ten times more powerful still: now we're down to 64,210 kg, or 141,558 pounds of this mystery explosive. Per tower. We're being generous here, but this still isn't sounding very plausible.

So tell us: what kind of explosives were used, where were they placed and when were they placed.

The fact is that very few civil engineers would ever model a building collapse, same as few nuitritionists study how to treat someone for lack of nutrition. Nutritionists keep you eating right so you don't get sick from lack of nutrition. Civil engineers build buildings that do not callapse therefore do not spend much time modelling actual collapses when they do occur.

So, if they don't waste time figuring out how a building migtht collapse, how do they know how to prevent collpases from occurring?

I can't help you any more than that Black Dog. If you do not understand I suggest watching less TV and doing more reading.

Ah yes, like you, I should spend my time reading crackpots on the internet. No thanks: your posts more than adequately fill that niche for me.

Honestly though: how old are you: 14? 15?

[PolyNewbie]

Black Dog:So, if they don't waste time figuring out how a building migtht collapse, how do they know how to prevent collpases from occurring?

Knowing the cause of a building collapse is not the same as modelling one. I can tell you that if you cut some main supports on any structure that it will collapse - but exactly what would the mess look like when its over - I don't know. You have a hard time understanding this.

Black Dog:So tell us: what kind of explosives were used, where were they placed and when were they placed.

My guess is that thermate was used to cut critical beams and a nuclear device was dropped from the top of the building and fell through the core vapourizing all the center core steel. Nuclear technology in the formn of mini nukes used for building demolition were developed in the 50's. This would explain the radioactive dust. Fortunately someone figured out how to do CD's and nukes are not commonly used.

Judy Wood, a Phd civil engineer and materials engineer supports the nuke theory with Morgan Reynolds, an ex economist for the Bush Jr. White House.

I think wtc7 was demolished using conventional explosives but the energy deficit associated with wtc1 & wtc2 may not be explained by conventional explosives. Prof Stephen Jones thinks it could have all been done with a ton of thermate. Obviosly he doesn't agree with Hoffmans energy calculations.

Hoffman says that he cannot explain the incredible energy required to bring down those buildings and he has worked on a few theories.

Your site that you quote doesn't use good arguements and its not obvious who created the site. Likely the CIA. Most of its arguements can be shown to be misleading by misrepresenting the facts or just "carefully worded" like the link you supplied.

911 Myths can always be neatly dissected and shown to be a shill for the establishment. I wonder why somne establishemnt engineers don't get on borad that site and explain their views a little more carefully.