Jump to content

Whos confession is most valid  

13 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... how do you not grow tired of kicking this can?

I get frustrated after a handful of posts, yet here you are, weeks later, still trying to talk sense into someone who does not want to come to sense.

I don't know if I commend you or feel bad for you....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Riverwind:For example, the Bush administration has failed miserably in Iraq because of sheer incompetence. It does not make sense to claim that this same group of people would be able to pull off a hoax of this magnitude.

Thats what the TV set tells you but if you read you learn that Iraq has gone perfectly according to plan. The Federal Reserve and the Standard Oil cartel are in and the country is being broken up into pieces through sectarian violence largely initiated and encouraged by the Americans. This was the goal. Who cares if American soldiers get chewed up in the process - certainly not Henry Kissinger.

You should really throw that TV out the window and get yourself a book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are seven great reasons not to believe the official version:

(1) The people that are saying it are known liars

(2) The people that are saying it are known thives (well over one trillion so far since 9/11 directly admitted stolen)

(3) They have said they want to undermine the United States and destroy it in their own writings (Rockefellers authorized biography states it)

(4) The people saying it are war criminals - that is a fact

(5) It sounds rediculous

(6) The people they said did 9/11 have absolutely nothing to gain by it.

(7) Its physically impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) The people that are saying it are known liars

I once applied for a job (with a large multinational financial institution - gasp!) where they had me complete a questionnaire after the first interview. One of the questions was "Do you ever lie?" I of course answered "no." I got the job too. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kimmy Apr 30 2007, 09:14 PM Post #67

There certainly should be a differential in the forces from the damaged side to the non-damaged sides. However: it's not at all clear, despite Truthie claims to the contrary, that this difference would be sufficient to cause the top 25 or so floors to rotate with any appreciable speed.

The question is, how much speed would be needed to create an assymetrical effect?

If there's an assymetrical effect, it's got to provide enough net force to move the center of mass of a 100,000 ton section of building a significant distance in a short span of time in order for it to fall to the side rather than downwards. Where's this colossal amount of force going to come from?

Consider the following:

-the main load-bearing columns are in the center of the tower, not the perimeter. The perimeter columns weren't designed to provide primary load-bearing capacity, therefore the differential in load-bearing capacity resulting from the damage to perimeter columns on one side would not be as significant as Truthies wish to claim.

Two problems with that:

1-Indications are that the preponderance of support was in the perimeter, not the core, by a 20:6 ratio.

If you're referring to PolyNewbie's frequent references to overbuild factors of 20 for the perimeter and 6 for the core, then you've misinterpreted what he's saying.

He's saying the perimeter was designed 20 times stronger than it needed to be, and the core was built 6 times stronger than it needs to be. He made no claims at all regarding the relative sharing of the load between the two different zones.

I think there are a number of places on the web where you can read about the design philosophy of the twin towers which had the massive central core doing the heavy lifting while the perimeter was designed to resist the immense lateral forces (ie, wind) applied against the building. While they carried some of the vertical load as well, I've read nothing to suggest that the "preponderance" of support was in the perimeter columns.

2-Official story has damage to WTC7 coming from debris from the neighboring building, which would affect the perimeter supports on that side, not the core.

Are we talking about the same thing? I've read nothing to suggest that WTC7 had the kind of tube-frame construction that WTC1 and WTC2 had, so I'm not sure that discussions about perimeters and cores are at all applicable to the collapse of WTC7.

-the twin towers were designed with load-distributing trusses that share the load from the damaged columns to undamaged columns. This would act to reduce any differential between the sides of the twin towers, and therefore reduce the force available to cause tipping or rotation.

-the perimeter columns were designed to resist torsion and flexion, particularly that resulting from wind. The remaining perimeter columns, particularly on the sides that were not struck by the jetliners, would act to *resist* the tipping that the Truthies think should occur.

It seems to me that for these two points to apply they also require the assumption of impossibly rigid roof and floors. Otherwise the trussing and intact columns would also experience differential forces.

Not "impossibly" rigid. Just significantly more rigid than the perimeter columns. Since trusses and spaceframes are designed with the explicit goal of creating structures that are significantly more rigid than single beams or girders.

The point is, that it's *not* obvious that the towers should have fallen over to one side rather than straight down.

-even if the tower had a preference to lean one way as a result of damage to perimeter columns on one side, perimeter pillars on the remaining sides act to resist this by applying tension. Remember how strong the perimeter columns are in resisting lateral force? "20 times overbuild! 20 times overbuild!" This strong structure, largely undamaged by the impact and far less damaged by fire than the central core, wouldn't have let the tower fall sideways anyway.

-it's a moot point anyway, because damage to the perimeter on one side isn't what caused the collapse. Heat and damage to the central core resulted in the floors sagging in the impact area. The loss of strength in the central column and the stress resulting from the sagging floor are quite *symmetrical* sources of stress on the remaining structure. The trusses and load-sharing design make sure that the stress from the sagging floor is distributed pretty much symmetrically and minimize the net force in any direction except for DOWN.

Trying to create hypothetical "what if" scenarios involving tables to guestimate how things "should" have happened is a ridiculous exercise.

* are the legs of your table welded to the ground?

* does your table depend on a powerful central core to carry a large portion of the weight?

* is your table under such load that all of the components are to some degree flexible?

* has your table been subject to fire so that the central support and the tabletop are sagging in the middle?

Maybe you guys should step back for a moment and think about whether your tables, Jungo-Stix, Lego blocks, Keebler Elf infested trees, and so-on, are a good frame of reference from which to make assertions about what "should" have happened to the twin towers.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(5) It sounds rediculous
Compared to a inside job theory that is so irrational and contradictory that its proponents cannot agree on the details?
(6) The people they said did 9/11 have absolutely nothing to gain by it.
They doing into for their egos. They like the idea of being bizarre cult heros and will say anything to get the adoration of fans like you.
(7) Its physically impossible.
A hypothesis that has not been proven. More importantly - it is a hypothesis that _cannot_ be proven given the data available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you guys should step back for a moment and think about whether your tables, Jungo-Stix, Lego blocks, Keebler Elf infested trees, and so-on, are a good frame of reference from which to make assertions about what "should" have happened to the twin towers.
Truthies make the claim that it is 'impossible' for structures to collapse symmetrically from asymmetric damage. The table example is simply one way to demonstrate that this claim is false.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having only studied electromagnetics at the university level and having a practical knowledge of directional radiation devices as well as modeled phased arrays I perhaps do not know as much as a high school grad who apparently knows everything. I think maybe part of the value of an education is that you learn how little you actually do know after studying. I know that there are still fundamental questions that cannot be answered regarding the seemingly simplest of scientific experiments.

I can certainly answer your concerns about diffraction, etc but I really don't have to to make any kind of a point and unlike ScottSA, I don't like you. You give better arguement than most but your ego is too big.

Translation: you can't actually argue with anything I wrote so you dodge the issue by attacking my lack of credentials.

Kimmy: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.

That would appear to be the case, some people think a micro nuke may have been used on the order of 0.01 kiloton. I'm not privy to the science of the US military which in some ways is quite far beyond what Ray Bardbury could imagine IMO. You may think they could not afford a secret science budget but I think they could.

I'm sure they do have a budget for science.

The Blackbird you keep mentioning wasn't developed by the US military. It was developed by Lockheed Aviation. Anything else the US military has that's really advance wasn't developed by them, it was developed by the top engineering companies in the field.

In the batteries field, the top engineering companies are in Europe and Japan and they all have huge commercial interests riding on developing batteries with higher energy densities. And the best they've come up with to date are a few hundred Watt-hours per kilogram.

Do you really believe that the US military knows so much more about batteries than the top companies in the industry? Do you believe that they've managed to beat the best batteries produced in Europe and Japan by a factor of a million?

Its easy to have a huge ego as an annonymous poster on the internet but the perils of having a huge ego is that you may have to back the ego up with some substance - its a bad habit even if you are protected from that reality on a message board because it could spill over to real life and make a bit of a mess.

Substance? If you disagree with the *substance* of anything I've written, feel free to call me on it.

Do you disagree with my calcultion of how much an electrical power-source capable of storing enough energy to solve Hoffman's "energy deficit" would have to weigh? Feel free to prove me wrong.

Do you don't agree that well-known laws regarding diffraction, refraction, and scattering of waves are sufficient scientific reason to discredit the idea of space-based beam weapons? Feel free to argue otherwise.

I notice you've not attempted to do either. You've simply attempted to appeal to your qualifications (ooh! he's a DSP programmer!) and discount what I've said because I only have a highschool education.

Ignoring the facts I've mentioned to scoff at my qualifications is just a big fat dodge.

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

No, she does not and was not. She is theorizing on how the buildings came down, so are others. Most of them will be wrong. I'm sure all of them know more about it than you do.

I have seen writings from the SKOLLERZ for 9/11 Trooth advocating space-based weaponry as a possible cause. I suspect your angry denial of this is because you realize that it undermines their credibility.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kimmy: I suspect your angry denial of this is because you realize that it undermines their credibility.

Its not an angry denial. They really haven't figured it out yet and are listing possible hypothesis. Most of these will of course be wrong but not likely for the reasons you suggest. Its the nature of an investigation or scientific discovery that you will usually be wrong. I'm not a 9/11 investigator so I don't hypothesise.

How about you list the verifiable factual reasons why we should believe the official version ? We could compare it to my list of verifiable facts and add up a score.

kimmy:lifting while the perimeter was designed to resist the immense lateral forces (ie, wind) applied against the building. While they carried some of the vertical load as well, I've read nothing to suggest that the "preponderance" of support was in the perimeter columns.

The wind load does become a vertical compressive or tensile load on the outside columns - same thing as gravity as far as force is concerned. The outside perimeter was built to 20 times gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:Truthies make the claim that it is 'impossible' for structures to collapse symmetrically from asymmetric damage. The table example is simply one way to demonstrate that this claim is false.

Every single thing that you have said about the table collapse has been shown to be wrong. Everything that you have said about science has been shown to be 100 % wrong. I don't know what you are trying to pull here. You won't tell us what kind of engineer you are, why not ? You say you are an engineer.

Anyone can verfiy for themselves that your table example is wrong using a variety of methods. I explained why it was wrong and the example worked in favour of my arguement when you first posted it.

You can keep saying 2 + 2 = 5 but there have been enough people rip your table example besides me to cause a complete loss of credibility on your part. Ignore that if you wish.

A Phd in physics plus several other science people have said that a symmetrical collapse violates the second law of thermodynamics. That should be proof enough for anyone.

kimmy: Ignoring the facts I've mentioned to scoff at my qualifications is just a big fat dodge.

You stating facts wrt diffraction as a high school grad sounds foolish. I have a working understanding of diffraction and know how it works. I know how difficult it can be to model and I know how systems behave in this regard. I do not believe you when you say the laws of diffraction prevent something from being possible. I think Judy Wood (Phd in engineering) would have considered this. I don't think you will be able to show her to be wrong with your background.

kimmy:Do you disagree with my calcultion of how much an electrical power-source capable of storing enough energy to solve Hoffman's "energy deficit" would have to weigh? Feel free to prove me wrong.

I don't agree or dissagree with it. I just do not know and I am unwilling to take your word for it. I don't think your word on matters like this is worth anything. There could be a way top store and deliver energy that they discovered 20 years prior to 9/11 that we are unaware of. Trying to explain a black military op in the context of what we know about science doesn't seem realistic because they have secret science.

kimmy:Do you believe that they've managed to beat the best batteries produced in Europe and Japan by a factor of a million?

Yes. I think they may have a nuclear power source the size of a pop can that could demolish those buildings with the energy available. How that energy would get converted to the wave beam I have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every single thing that you have said about the table collapse has been shown to be wrong.
By who? Not you for certain. All of your counter arguments assume that the leg would remain standing long enough to cause the top to rotate significantly. That is not a valid assumption.
A Phd in physics plus several other science people have said that a symmetrical collapse violates the second law of thermodynamics. That should be proof enough for anyone.
I went back and looked over Steven E Jones paper again. He makes no mention of thermodynamics in his arguments (probably because he realizes it is a silly argument).

He does claim that:

The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely.
Why don't you read that a few times and think about what he is saying. He says a 'non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely'. That clearly indicates that he knows a symmetrical failure is possible. If he believed that a symmetric failure was impossible he would have said so.

It appears that Dr Jones and I only differ on our opinion regarding the likelyhood of a symmetric collapse and that you are completely wrong to claim that it is 'physically impossible'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:Why don't you read that a few times and think about what he is saying. He says a 'non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely'. That clearly indicates that he knows a symmetrical failure is possible. If he believed that a symmetric failure was impossible he would have said so.

I have linked where he has said the collapses appear to violate the second law. Other links I have posted say the same thing.

Otherwise known as 'Black Magic'

No, otherwise known as "non public domain"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's the only basis you draw upon, I don't find it thoroughly convincing. People implicated in the worst terrorist attack in US history would have a pretty strong self-interest in not exposing themselves.
We are talking about mass murder by the US government - most people do have a conscious and participating in a such a plot would haunt some of them enough to overcome concerns about incriminating themselves. We are talking about 100s - if not thousands of people who could potentially provide conclusive evidence of such a plot yet not one has come forward.

I think it could be done with about 25-50 of the right people.

ould say they haven't pulled it off

I don't think you can credibly argue that self-interest is enough to keep everyone of them silent (look at George Tenet - that fact that he was complicit in the botched intelligence has not stopped him from coming forward).

So his 'partial confession' strategy is working on you.

There are many other things that make it improbable. For example, the Bush administration has failed miserably in Iraq because of sheer incompetence. It does not make sense to claim that this same group of people would be able to pull off a hoax of this magnitude.

I would say they actually have not pulled it off.

The actual details of the plot are incoherent and inconsistent. For example, Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 yet Iraq was never directly implicated with the attacks. It is irrational to claim that Bush would plan a elaborate hoax to justify the invasion of Iraq yet forget to forge evidence implicating Iraq.

Well, we've already agreed they are incompetent.

But anyway, you work with what you have ... the CIA and the BushCF had bin Laden and the former mujahedin they had trained in Afghanistan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it could be done with about 25-50 of the right people.
Then you must agree that 4 planes were hijacked on 9/11 by Arabs which crashed them into the buildings. Any plot that involved faking hijackings would require hundreds of people in the planes on the ground cleaning up the mess.
So his 'partial confession' strategy is working on you.
Not really. His example demonstrates that the desire to avoid self incrimination is not as strong as you would like to believe. We are talking about mass murder on a grand scale planned by people who are proven incompetents. If there was a plot there would have been concrete evidence provided by insiders available today. The fact that none exists strongly suggests there was no plot.
I would shay they actually have not pulled it off.
Hardly. The overwhelming majority of people think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are a bunch of BS. There is not one shred of conclusive evidence that would stand up in a court of law that supports the theory. There is zero chance that Bush or anyone would ever be prosecuted for their alleged 'crimes'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly. The overwhelming majority of people think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are a bunch of BS. There is not one shred of conclusive evidence that would stand up in a court of law that supports the theory. There is zero chance that Bush or anyone would ever be prosecuted for their alleged 'crimes'.

I am not even sure the Official story would stand up in a court of law.

Truthies make the claim that it is 'impossible' for structures to collapse symmetrically from asymmetric damage. The table example is simply one way to demonstrate that this claim is false.

Nothing is impossible. Now it comes down to what is more probable/plausable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:planned by people who are proven incompetents

Proven incompetents ? You really need to start reading books and stop watching so miuch television. Is there anything you have ever seen on TV that you do not believe?. Iraq is going perfectly according to plan. I have explained to you that the plan for Iraq is to break it up into three parts and have the Standard Oil and Federal Reserve cartels get in plus privatize all of their infrastructure. This plan is well known and I have linked a book written by Brzezinsky and explained that it is part of PNAC which is also available online.

What is wrong with you ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not even sure the Official story would stand up in a court of law.
I am pretty sure it would - it is supported by a lot of circumstantial evidence and it is quite plausible. The inside job theory is completely implausible because it lacks a coherent story arc and any conclusive evidence.
Nothing is impossible. Now it comes down to what is more probable/plausable.
Agreed - that is why you should be sceptical when anyone claims to have 'proof' or that something is 'impossible'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ghost Hacked:Nothing is impossible. Now it comes down to what is more probable/plausable.

Lots of things are actually impossible. A building collapsing down through itself is only one of them. The building should have collapsed down through the air, not the building - unless the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.

Some other examples are: Kennedy being shot from that distance with that many shots fired in such a short time from Oswalds rifle, the damage that was done to the OK Murrah building from the truck bomb and the FBI not having any involvement in the wtc'93 "terrorist" attack. Its impossible for anyone on the group to show me a single scientific statement made by Riverwind wrt this table example that is actually correct.

Its impossible for the USA to ever have enough total money in circulation to pay off its own debt.

Its impossible for the government to know how much money is actually in circulation because the Fed won't tell them.

Its unlikely that the detention centers being built around the country will not be filled with prisoners. Its unlikely that North America has ever been the victim of a Moslem terrorist attack.

If nothing is impossible then no one can ever be wrong and we live in a nice warm fuzzy world but we don't live in a nice warm fuzzy world. Lots of things are wrong and lots of things that the governments claim are actually impossible.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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 - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...