9/11

[kuzadd]

Don't look now river, but poly is sucking you into another 9/11 conspiracy thread. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

wow!

is PN ever all powerful, that he can 'suck' riverwind into a 9/11 discussion.

How exactly is he doing that?

Or is riverwind, an unwitting victim of PN's 'powers'?

what a silly thing to say.

[kuzadd]

The wtc towers were extremely redundant structures, it is yourself, that cannot back up the claim you made that they aren't.

Wrong. The onus is on you to show that the buildings could not have collapsed symmetrically without a controlled demolition. You have not and cannot show that which means your arguments regarding the symmetric collapses are irrelevant.

That's your arguement!

please show me where I made that arguement?

You have claimed that the buildings 'should have' tipped over but you have provided nothing to support your claim. Instead you try to reverse the onus of proof and claim that others must prove that the buildings could not have tipped over. The overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence supports the hypothesis that the buildings came down as a result of structural damage and fires. If you wish to dismiss this circumstantial evidence then the onus is on you to prove your claims.

I have demonstrated that it is possible for a building to collapse symmetrically from asymmetric damage. Showing that the buildings had a lot of redundancy when compared to other skyscrapers does not prove that the buildings had enough redundancy to tip over.

No where did I claim, the buildings should have tipped over, that's why you can't back it up!

here's my quote "The wtc towers were extremely redundant structures, it is yourself, that cannot back up the claim you made that they aren't."

I am sorry, I see nowhere in the quote you used, that I said anything at all , about buildings tipping, as you are claiming, read what I wrote, not what you THINK I wrote.

I am talking about redundancy, quite frankly, your response has zero to do with what I said.

You are simply having the conversation YOU wish to have, so you can make yourself look righteous or whatever you are attempting to prove.

[PolyNewbie]

Hoffmans Video

Very instructive but Hoffman is not the best speaker. lots of examples of building collapses. He has the best and most complete scientific reasoning of this movement.

[stignasty]

The facade damage could have equally been caused by demolition charges, as Fiterman hall was very close to wtc 7 building. in a hypothetical discussion, which is all we are having.

It is much more likely that the damage to 30 West Broadway was suffered when a 47 story building fell on a 15 story building, than your scenario where you propose that explosives (that no one saw, and there is no other evidence for) damaged the structure. Your abrasive tone does not camouflage the fact that your theory holds no merit.

[kuzadd]

The facade damage could have equally been caused by demolition charges, as Fiterman hall was very close to wtc 7 building. in a hypothetical discussion, which is all we are having.

It is much more likely that the damage to 30 West Broadway was suffered when a 47 story building fell on a 15 story building, than your scenario where you propose that explosives (that no one saw, and there is no other evidence for) damaged the structure. Your abrasive tone does not camouflage the fact that your theory holds no merit.

I wasn't attempting an 'abrasive tone'. IMO the regurgitation of occams razor was nonsensical and not necessary to a hypothetical discussion.

Your claim that damage to a neighbouring building is indicative of non-useage of explosives is wrong.

when a building is demolished vis a vis controlled demolition it sends projectiles of cement etc outwards, at explosive placement.

see interview here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

it's an interview with stacey loizeaux, from controlled demolition.

read the interview, scroll down to the building wrapped on the exterior to prevent projectiles.

image here

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/images/fence.jpeg

"But we work on several upper floors to geotextile fence around building help fragment debris for the contractor, so all the debris ends up in small, manageable pieces. Other preparatory operations are covering—wrapping the columns with chain link fence and then in geotextile fabric, which is very puncture resistant and has a very high tensile strength. It allows the concrete to move, but it keeps the concrete from flying. The chain link catches the bigger material and the fabric catches the smaller material from flying up and out. We also sometimes put up a curtain around the entire floor, to catch the stuff that gets through these first two layers.That's really where your liability is. "

so, therefore in a controlled demolition in which precautions were not taken to prevent "concrete flying" you would get damage to neighbouring buildings.

Therefore damage to neighbouring buildings does NOT DISPROVE a controlled demolition.

comprende?

[stignasty]

I wasn't attempting an 'abrasive tone'

comprende?

What I'm saying, is that in order for your hypothesis to be valid you had to assume that there were explosives in the building (since none were observed). That's different from attributing the damage of the smaller building to the larger building falling on it.

"That is, when explaining observations, the conspirators often propose more complicated explanations than the commonly believed story. Their conclusions often require us to believe in additional postulated events or factors for which there is seldom any direct proof. Occam's Razor clearly requires us to eliminate candidate explanations which imply the existence of unobserved phenomenon. "

http://www.clavius.org/occam.html

[Sulaco]

Poly: Any unbalanced force about the center of mass will cause a rotation. It does not have to be comming from the top of the building. If all the supports do not collapse at the same instant then you have an unbalanced force.

Exactly what kind of engineer are you ?

Simple experiment. Stick a plate on the point of a stick so that it balances. Mark the point on which it balances. Then tape somrthing to the side of the plate and place it with the same mark on the point of the stick. How does the plate fall? Does it rotate? Does it tip away?

[sharkman]

Don't look now river, but poly is sucking you into another 9/11 conspiracy thread. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

wow!

is PN ever all powerful, that he can 'suck' riverwind into a 9/11 discussion.

How exactly is he doing that?

Or is riverwind, an unwitting victim of PN's 'powers'?

what a silly thing to say.

Please note the number of posts poly has made. Now compare them to yours. Poly has been around here as long as me, and I have noticed the poly trends. He is a conspiracy theorist nut. He has a theory for every thing. Really. Everything. He just finished a thread on 9/11 that was over 100 pages, all filled with the same old repeated engineer arguments. He could not answer some very valid points, so ignored them. Now he is starting a new thread with the same old subject matter. We are worried about Poly and the people he sucks in. As a matter of fact, some have contacted Maury to see if there is a show in there somewhere and Maury is really excited. Stay tuned.

[kuzadd]

I wasn't attempting an 'abrasive tone'

comprende?

What I'm saying, is that in order for your hypothesis to be valid you had to assume that there were explosives in the building (since none were observed). That's different from attributing the damage of the smaller building to the larger building falling on it.

my hypothesis is the official story is baloney!

it was in fact your hypothesis that, the building falling, in a non-controlled demolition was what damaged the nearby building, I merely demonstrated, this was not so.

If there were explosions pre-planted in wtc 7, do you think whomever planted them would go to the trouble of wrapping the building to prevent projectiles being ejected, at a pretty darn good speed.

I don't think so.......

do you?

[stignasty]

my hypothesis is the official story is baloney!

Yeah, I sort of got that part.

it was in fact your hypothesis that, the building falling, in a non-controlled demolition was what damaged the nearby building, I merely demonstrated, this was not so.

No, you didn't. You stated another hypothesis which requires the assumption of a series of explosions in the taller building. The problem is that there is no observation of such explosives. That's where "Occam's Razor clearly requires us to eliminate candidate explanations which imply the existence of unobserved phenomenon." comes in.

Provide an eyewitness who saw detonator cables or explosives in the building or else admit that your claim has no merit.

If there were explosions pre-planted in wtc 7, do you think whomever planted them would go to the trouble of wrapping the building to prevent projectiles being ejected, at a pretty darn good speed.

I don't think so.......

do you?

I don't think there were explosives in the building - because none were observed.

Again, the obvious answer to why Fiterman Hall was damaged was because a building five times taller than it fell down onto it. To somehow extrapolate that the damage was from invisible explosives is silly.

[ScottSA]

ScottSA:Whatever happened to the magic ray gun that the truthies were talking about? Is that old boring hat by now?

There is nothing new or magic about an energy beams. Microwave ovens, flashlights & loudspeakers all emit energy beams. One must assume that there are other types of energy beams that are weaponized that you have not seen mentioned in Popular Mechanics or on the Discovery Channel.

So Bushitler and the Jewbankers rigged a big microwave in space, designed it to make microwaves that were really really long waves and blew up the WTC? How is that a "controlled demolition?

[PolyNewbie]

ScottSA:designed it to make microwaves that were really really long waves and blew up the WTC? How is that a "controlled demolition?

No & No (as usual)

[PolyNewbie]

stignasty:Provide an eyewitness who saw detonator cables or explosives in the building or else admit that your claim has no merit.

What if you just saw the explosions but didn't see the detonator chord or the expolsives - does this make explosions impossible according to your reasoning ?

[stignasty]

stignasty:Provide an eyewitness who saw detonator cables or explosives in the building or else admit that your claim has no merit.

What if you just saw the explosions but didn't see the detonator chord or the expolsives - does this make explosions impossible according to your reasoning ?

I didn't see explosions either.

[PolyNewbie]

See Collapse videos

[PolyNewbie]

Sulaco: Simple experiment. Stick a plate on the point of a stick so that it balances. Mark the point on which it balances. Then tape somrthing to the side of the plate and place it with the same mark on the point of the stick. How does the plate fall? Does it rotate? Does it tip away?

Tipping is a rotation.

[ScottSA]

Sulaco: Simple experiment. Stick a plate on the point of a stick so that it balances. Mark the point on which it balances. Then tape somrthing to the side of the plate and place it with the same mark on the point of the stick. How does the plate fall? Does it rotate? Does it tip away?

Tipping is a rotation.

Then stick 300,000 tonnes on the plate and show great surprise when it falls into its own footprint, taking the hand holding the pencil with it.

[kuzadd]

my hypothesis is the official story is baloney!

Yeah, I sort of got that part.

it was in fact your hypothesis that, the building falling, in a non-controlled demolition was what damaged the nearby building, I merely demonstrated, this was not so.

Provide an eyewitness who saw detonator cables or explosives in the building or else admit that your claim has no merit.

If there were explosions pre-planted in wtc 7, do you think whomever planted them would go to the trouble of wrapping the building to prevent projectiles being ejected, at a pretty darn good speed.

I don't think so.......

do you?

I don't think there were explosives in the building - because none were observed.

Again, the obvious answer to why Fiterman Hall was damaged was because a building five times taller than it fell down onto it. To somehow extrapolate that the damage was from invisible explosives is silly.

why limit yourself to detonator cable and implanted explosives??

Is that all the truth you can handle??

"I don't think there were explosives in the building - because none were observed. "

observed?

in what manner?

did numerous people report explosions?

see and photograph squibs?

have foreknowledge of a building about to collapse, in enough time, to evacuate the exterior premises??

Under 7 second collapse time for wtc 7.

nice pieces , easy clean up.

well none of that sounds like a random collapse.

But then, none of that was ever investigated.

And really why bother, the government is right, and all the people who heard and saw unusual sounds are wrong, and in light of 9/11 being "the biggest alleged terrorist incident on US soil" it is only right and correct that all eye/ear witness are discounted, in place of a official narrative, set out by the government.

I mean if someone witnessed a murder and testified to that fact, then despite the dead body, it should be quickly discounted, in your world that is, In which that kind of behaviour is right and true and good, right????

rofl!!!!!

i do hope you realize bolded words are you, and your view.

You see, in an attack such as the 9/11 attacks, there should have been a complete, thorough and exhaustive INVESTIGATION, but, there wasn't. Instead their is a "narrative" a nice story, geared particularily to the gullible.

Instead of no stone, left unturned, we get.... a report, actually a few reports, that don't even call themselves investigations.

Hundreds of reports of explosions, are ignored. In an investigation??

As I said, it's like someone saying they witnessed a murder, the dead body lies there, and no one even inquires.

We get dead bodies scooped up as trash, and bones being found still today. But then, I mean, quick clean-ups do not leave time, to properly and respectfully find the remains of the dead.

Nor do quick clean ups indicate exhaustive forensic investigation.

But I digress...............no stone left unturned right??

[PolyNewbie]

ScottSA:Then stick 300,000 tonnes on the plate and show great surprise when it falls into its own footprint, taking the hand holding the pencil with it.

You should probably stay out of any discussion on science. In fact, to extend that logic I don't know why you type anything at all. 300,000 tonnes behaves the same way as a plate.

[stignasty]

rofl!!!!!

i can't be reasoned with!!!!!

you've wasted your time!!!!!

Pretty much.

[jbg]

I believe Silversteins because bin Ladens confession has been shown to be fake and Kalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession included confessions to crimes that occured when he was in jail.

Silevrsteins admission that wtc7 was "pulled" cannot in reality be misunderstood and it was not forced.

See Silversteins quote here on YouTube.

Usama confession faked

I believe this is perseveration (link to definition).

[jbg]

ScottSA:Then stick 300,000 tonnes on the plate and show great surprise when it falls into its own footprint, taking the hand holding the pencil with it.

You should probably stay out of any discussion on science. In fact, to extend that logic I don't know why you type anything at all. 300,000 tonnes behaves the same way as a plate.

Deja vu all over again. This discussion sounds familiar.

[ScottSA]

ScottSA:Then stick 300,000 tonnes on the plate and show great surprise when it falls into its own footprint, taking the hand holding the pencil with it.

You should probably stay out of any discussion on science. In fact, to extend that logic I don't know why you type anything at all. 300,000 tonnes behaves the same way as a plate.

Well perhaps, but a plate with 300,000 tons on it behaves quite differently from a plate with nothing on it when each is held up on stilts. The empty one will corkscrew off, or lever over on the stilts, but it should come as no particular surprise that a plate on stilts will collapse straight down when 300,000 tons is dropped on it.

Thanks for the advice on my career choice, but I figgered out a while ago that science wasn't my forte. Which is not to say it's your's either, because it obviously isn't, son. I did get to study logic a bit, a subject that has so far eluded you, so it's not a total loss...

[kimmy]

kimmy: No electrical storage technology known is capable of storing enough energy to bring down the Twin Towers in a size small enough to put in a satellite.

Not as of 40 or so years ago. Of course we don't know what they have today.

Battery technology is a huge industry where continuous research and advances have raised the state of the art to over 300 Watt-hours per kilogram. To store enough energy to account for Jim Hoffman's energy deficit would require ... a one billion kilogram battery.

Oops. So much for that.

Of course, kooks believe the US military has access to magic technologies. Anybody who cares to look through historical evidence of what happens when the US military tries to develop magic technology should be able to see how likely that is.

kimmy:And, physical principles regarding diffraction and dispersion known since Newton's time make it impossible for a beam weapon to have been fired from space to have delivered enough power to the twin towers without also incinerating surrounding buildings, cars, people, etc.

What about lasers ?

Do you believe lasers are immune to diffraction, Mr Applied Scientist?

Besides the beam weapon advocates don't think it was in space anyways.

ORLY? I thought Judy Woods was touting "death star satellites" or some such flatulence.

Where do the Truthies believe this mega-weapon was stationed? Hidden in Lady Liberty's torch? Concealed in the Washington Monument? Have they come up with a plausible location with a line-of-side view of the Twin Towers?

-k

[ScottSA]

Where do the Truthies believe this mega-weapon was stationed? Hidden in Lady Liberty's torch? Concealed in the Washington Monument? Have they come up with a plausible location with a line-of-side view of the Twin Towers?

-k

I sure do like you...