Amelius - I for one appreciate the time you spent in your post. To my mind your post just adds to the overwhelming evidence that it was an inside job. Unfortunately the time's past when further discussion will do any good. Cheney and his ilk has gotten away with it. And as you're seeing in this thread, for some reason otherwise rational people can easily be swayed to think wrongly once a label of "conspiracy" is effectively applied to something. In any other scenario they'd question the official story, and think they're even being patriotic in doing so. But in this case that goes out the window. I suggest for your own sake you take this elsewhere, to a more specific forum, where there might be more open minds to discuss your material with. Oh, and to top it off, the owner of WTC7 was Jewish. Nothing wrong with that at all, except if you try to insinuate that he was involved, you'll instantly be charged with anti-Semitism.You could hardly hit a building in New York that isn't at least partly owned by a Jewish person. The WTC was owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, two state governmental entities. Even if it had been owned by a Jewish person, what would that have to do with a conspiracy to bring down the towers? In addition neither you nor anyone else has identified the so called conspirators. Who were they? I'd wager you have no more evidence for a conspiracy or who perpetrated it than you have that explosives were planted to bring the buildings down. You are living in a fantasy world. Everyone involved in a conspiracy had to know tha jets were going to run into the twin towers at the same time. Why would they think they had to risk their lives planting explosives? Wouldn't the jets do enough damage? Why would anybody want to bring down the WTC anyway? What was it supposed to accomplish? The only people who had a rationale were religious terrorists. Who else stood to gain? And what was gained? They created death, destruction and chaos in one small part of the country. Did it somehow damage the United States government or the US population? Could it have? There was absolutely no purpose in it except religious terrorism. LoisThe owner being Jewish has nothing to do with anything. You missed my point, which was - if someone were to imply that the owner was involved, charges of anti-Semitism would spring up immediately. That was a warning to the OP. As for the rest, well you'll just need to do the reading yourself. Start with the Shock Doctrine, and then imagine the same technique applied to the US, then also read up on PNAC. Just because Cheney and his ilk are evil doesn't mean they're stupid. Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman too. You'll quickly realize there ARE in fact groups of people out there working to undermine entire countries for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. In fact they use religious zealots as willing handmaidens. Do the reading. I agree "there ARE in fact groups of people out there working to undermine entire countries for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. In fact they use religious zealots as willing handmaidens." But which ones brought down the WTC? You are implying that one of these could have been WTC conspirator simply because they are known to do such things elsewhere. But you don't identify any as actually having been involved in the WTC bombing. That there are bad people "out there" doesn't prove they have caused any particular event. That's a red herring. "Could have" or "must have" is not evidence or even a valid argument. Come up with some evidence. Even you "could have" been a conspirator. Almost anybody "could have been" a conspirator. Lois
Perhaps we should start asking the conspiracy theorists to prove the Twin Towers ever really existed.
Sure, we have video footage and design plans for them, but then we have those for the Starship Enterprise as well. Doesn’t mean it was ever real.
Doesn't the whole analysis depend on him being right about the rate of the fall? Something that has been shown to NOT be free fall over and over?]Watch actual video, not this CGI crap.Yeah, facts and evidence, the #1 enemy of 9/11 truthers. lol
Doesn't the whole analysis depend on him being right about the rate of the fall? Something that has been shown to NOT be free fall over and over?]Watch actual video, not this CGI crap.That is a great link. Just the picture that shows that debris is falling much faster than the collapsing building already shows everything. But I noticed that our new truther was referring to WTC7 again. So I assume he is right: the demolition of the towers with the airplanes was al done to hide the fact that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives. It's logical isn't it, Aemilius?
The building was brought down by explosives.Oh no, not another one... Merge? Excuse me? Where have I said anything about building 7? It isn't even interesting. Yeah, most people on this site are SO SCIENTIFIC! LOL Can't even be curious about the distribution of mass in 1,000 foot skyscrapers that must hold themselves up, but can be so sure they can collapse. ROFL psik
Where have I said anything about building 7? It isn't even interesting.Well: here], here], here], here], here], etc. :-S
Where have I said anything about building 7? It isn't even interesting.Well: here], here], here], here], here], etc. :-S Busted!
It's logical isn't it, Aemilius?Aemilius. ah, Aemilius? YO, Aemilius . . . hmmm, another one bits the dust? Though I might be jumping the gun, we'll see.
Yeah, most people on this site are SO SCIENTIFIC! LOL Can't even be curious about the distribution of mass in 1,000 foot skyscrapers that must hold themselves up, but can be so sure they can collapse. psikBeen a long time psik, I hope you're doing well. It's kind of weird timing this A. comes around. You see the past bunch of weeks work has had me spending a lot of time away from home in a touristy sort of town peppered with metal art work, most (not all!) of which strikes me as imagination-less, ( by that I mean stuff I think I could produce - but lacking that emotional zing that makes real art stand out.) On my way to the grocery story I pass a small park, with more art some of which I've looked at closer, but nothing that grabs me so I walk on. Then a few days back I walked a different path that took me past one, that I'd noticed from a distance but was never inspired enough to look at closer. This time I found myself standing in front it and WTF it's no piece of art at all, but a steel spandrel roughly four feet long, by a foot wide, an inch and half thick and it came from somewhere between the 80th and 104th floor of one of the WTC tower's exterior super-structure - Well talk about emotional zing. First time I've touched a piece of that building and it brought out the meditation for sure. It got me to thinking about the "power object" thing and how we humans have a way of imbuing inanimate objects with energy that make them MORE. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0mRTe-UGNC8/VM14VXoLHNI/AAAAAAAAAkU/8o_O65r7maQ/s1600/WTC-spandrel.jpeg Now I can't walk by without taking pause and giving that world changing/destroying event a bit of reflection. So I'm more primed than usual. In any event although I had other things I should be spending today focusing on, your comment got me right back to our argument and your basic insistence that an exact accounting of the weight of everything is somehow necessary to understand what happened. A little YouTube surfing got me to a documentary that did a good job of underlining why I think your position is unrealistic. Yea, yea I'm back to WTC towers, (excuuzzee me A) Building 7 fits the same outline, getting dumped on by the collapsing towers, plus the seismic impacts, plus a day of burning HEAT, leaves no mystery to it's sudden collapse. That's the way it is with big buildings, once they are thoroughly compromised, and they start going, bam show over.
Published on Sep 2, 2014 World Trade Center - Anatomy Of The Collapse TV Documentary (2002) 33:40 office burn experiment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo1WZ9g1IJ4&t=33m40s 38:00 floor connections 39:20 brackets 39:50 dark side of steel trusses
Yea, yea I'm back to WTC towers, (excuuzzee me A) Building 7 fits the same outline, getting dumped on by the collapsing towers, plus the seismic impacts, plus a day of burning HEAT, leaves no mystery to it's sudden collapse. That's the way it is with big buildings, once they are thoroughly compromised, and they start going, bam show over.So much pseudo-scientific bullsh!t from "intelligent" people on this site. :lol: WTC7 was 47 stories. The twin towers were 110 stories. 743 feet versus 1362 feet! I have not been talking about the exact weight of EVERYTHING I have been talking about the weight and DisTriBuTions of the STEEL and CONCRETE. Of course the STEEL had to support the weight of EVERYTHING. Because of their greater height the distribution of STEEL had to be different in the towers from that of WTC7. WTC7 could have been similar to the top 55% of one of the towers. The 9/11 Affair just becomes more and more of a JOKE with people claiming to make reasonable comments about it. This is NOT an EMOTIONAL ISSUE! It is just PHYSICS!!! With 9/11 Physics is HISTORY! psik
Where have I said anything about building 7? It isn't even interesting.Well: here], here], here], here], here], etc. :-S Busted! Did you actually read the first link he posted? It contains a link I posted which has "WTC7" within the link. What did I say about the building? Typical 9/11 investigative behavior. ROFL In the 3rd link I said:
Actually I think WTC7 is so obviously a demolition that it is boring.And then proceeded to talk about JET FUEL in WTC1 & 2. WTC7 was not hit by planes. Yeah, he "busted" me real good and you verified it. :lol: psik
WTC7 was 300 feet wide. Where has anyone presented a "scientific" explanation of how fire or damage from debris caused opposite ends of a building 300 feet wide to come straight down in sync? It is ridiculous! Claiming authority from sources that people don't check and think about. 9/11 has given scientists a great opportunity to contradict their own claims of expertise. It is sure interesting that we can model meteor strikes that scientists can regard as accurate but can't do it for skyscraper collapses.
Are you saying that physics worked differently on WTC7 than it did on WTC 1 & 2? Actually I think WTC7 is so obviously a demolition that it is boring. The obvious give away is how the roof line came down so simultaneously and remained so straight all of the way across the building. How could damage from the "collapse" of WTC1 create such ideal behavior? How could fire do it? It's ridiculous to think such random phenomenon could cause such a precise result. At least airliners smashing into skyscrapers is interesting.
We are talking about four man made objects here. Two buildings and two planes. Of course there was a fifth man made object, WTC7, which was not hit by a plane and collapsed by magic.
Oh yeah! Why did WTC7 collapse if it wasn't hit by a plane?
Great computer graphic work.
Try making a few changes to match the WTC.
Your graphics have the support under the weight.
And that would be true in almost all building built. But the WTC, I have read, but could be wrong. Did not have normal support under the building, like just about every other building does. Its support was the skeleton on the outside of the building. Therefore the inside structure was able to free fall. The pictures after the destruction still had some of the skeleton standing.
Point being, the overload was not on the support beams. Only on the angle iron holding the floor beams connected to the skeleton load support beams.
Forget pseudoscience. The conspiracy theorists should show us a scintilla of objective evidence that explosives were used in any of the WTC buildings and that anyone of any description planted them. That’s all that matters.
In case anyone is not clear on the concept:
“Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation. One can examine and evaluate objective evidence.”
Lois
Nothing you have provided here, despite the pretty colors, proves your theory correct. All you have presented is a theory (and not even a scientific one).Hah! Pretty colors? Theories? Not scientific? The analysis I posted is literally made of simple, easily understood graphically represented empirically verifiable data from top to bottom, and the formatting of the animations was actually guided by a forty-five year veteran research physicist, Dr. Alan Calverd, PhD, over the course of a two month long exchange I had with him devoted exclusively to the topic (he was even impressed with them). So a well seasoned PhD research physicist had no trouble interpreting them, I have no trouble interpreting them, but all you see is pretty colors and unscientific theories.... Whose problem is that? Anyway, it's obvious now that you're not going to be able to refute or even directly address the analysis I posted, because, as you've shown here, you're completely unable to even recognize, let alone interpret or judge the veracity of the information conveyed by what's essentially nothing more than an exhaustively stated eighth grade homework assignment.
When you have shown such evidence and when you can find professional scientists connected to respected scientific organizations that back your claim, let us know.Yeah, sure Lois, I'll get right on that. It's going to be tough, but maybe I can figure out some way to garner some academic support for the Law of Conservation of Energy.... hilarious.
Aemilus,
Did you forget you already have an account, ‘Aemilius’?
I think this all hinges on what reasonably counts as justification for belief that the collapse was physically impossible without further interference (for want of a better way of putting it).No. What it all hinges on is the empirically verifiable fact that gravitational acceleration of the upper part of WTC7 for a significant well defined period shows (as indicated by the analysis) that some energetic material (often referred to as explosives) capable of quickly removing all support must have been physically introduced into the interior of the building at some point prior to its destruction in order to explain observations since there is no known natural progressive steel frame structural failure mode that can match or give rise to the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to have occurred for the observed period. It's really just as simple as that.
Any conspiracy theory on this is highly improbable and so unless the evidence for the collapse being physically impossible is really good the conspiracy theories are probably wrong.Provably incorrect. Operation Northwoods, Operation Gladio and Operation Mongoose (Cuban Project) to name just a few, precedent setting documentation of past similar conduct, including the proposed killing of American citizens on U.S. soil in furtherance of geopolitical goals of various sorts. Nothing really new there, it's been going on for decades, it's going on right now.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Project And as far as evidence for controlled demolition needing to be really good goes, it really just doesn't get any better than applying the Law of Conservation of Energy to the video evidence of the buildings (WTC7) descent.... iron clad baby.
I don't know anything like enough about physics to make any judgement on the physically impossible theory but there are lots of physicists in a better position to do so and as far as I know there is only a fringe minority who think it was physically impossible. So I'm justified in believing the consensus is right on this.No. The fact is that anyone who successfully completed the eighth grade is perfectly competent to both evaluate and judge the veracity of the analysis I posted (and by extension the conclusion it naturally arrives at).
Unless one is an expert physicist this is as much about philosophy (epistemology) as it is about physics.No. There's no epistemological stage stipulated anywhere by the traditionally accepted definition of the scientific method. It's eighth grade phsics, so if you've convinced yourself for whatever reason that only expert physicists and structural engineers can explain eighth grade physics problems.... you're lost.
Aemilus, Did you forget you already have an account, 'Aemilius'?No. I was having trouble posting and that seemed like a good way to get around it, turned out I didn't need it.... it will remain inactive or perhaps a Moderator could remove it. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Still waiting on actual evidence of any explosives.
The “I don’t know how else to explain this, therefore explosives” is not evidence, and I’m quite satisfied with the current expert explanations for all the buildings.
Well put Stephen. You balance probabilities and account for the validity of a consensus opinion among experts.Not well put. You don't do anything like that. There is no balancing of probabilities when it comes to the Law of Conservation of Energy (that's why they call it a law), and there is no possible accounting for the validity of expert opinions that can supercede it (the law) in any way, no matter who the experts are or how many of them agree. In other words.... a thousand Einsteins all agreeing that a rock will fall upward will not make it true or change the law, it will only make them look like a thousand nutty Einsteins (along with any other people who become convinced that rocks fall upward based on expert consensus).
Amelius dismisses other opinions and relies on the lack of 100% provability.No. Aemilius dismisses all opinions (including his own) and relies on the 100% provability of empirically verifiable data derived from the application of the Law of Conservation of Energy to the video evidence employing the scientific method.
This is pretty much the gap between every reasonable person and conspiracy theorists everywhere, whether it be secret governments or should you eat bacon.No, but it is pretty much the gap between people who understand that unfounded opinion (no matter the source) can have no impact on the fundamental laws of physics, except for nutty people who think expert opinion and talk of secret governments and eating bacon can somehow over rule them.
What Amelius really misses is, what's he doing here?Well, it's a Science and Technology forum. Judging by the quality of your argument (actually the complete lack of it), I might ask.... What the hell are you doing here?
If he has valid analysis, why bring it to a general discussion forum?It's the Science and Technology forum, not General Discussion.
Really, it should go to a peer reviewed journal, but let's not get far down that road.Hah! Yeah Lausten, I'll begin right away writing a paper suitable for peer review in the hopes of confirming the Law of Conservation of Energy.... hilarious.
Amelius - I for one appreciate the time you spent in your post.Thanks for that.
I suggest for your own sake you take this elsewhere, to a more specific forum, where there might be more open minds to discuss your material with.Thanks for the advice, but it's eighth grade level physics, I think I'll just continue discussing it anywhere I please.