9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

DeFecToR wrote:
Why is it that you people, when faced with an arguement you cannot match, you wheel out this excuse instead?
I feel certain that if one of us were to put these same arguements to a member of this army of structural engineers they themselves, when backed up against a corner, would use the exact same arguement.
For god sake, saying that there are a billion or so christians in the world does not prove the existance of god.

It doesn't require years of intensive training to be a Christian, nor are the claims of Christians regarding their beliefs testable. Engineers, on the other hand, put their beliefs in practice every day, and the fact that what they do works is evidence that they know what they're talking about.

gordon wrote: How many structural engineers do you know?

Three. My brother is one.

What did they say in particular regarding the survival of the perimeter structure corners till a late stage of the collapse?
How did they explain the bending of the upper section and particularly the flashes of light and the colour and character changes of smoke emisions which were coincident in time and space?
Do they agree that the early disintegration of the upper section totally over-rules Dr. Bazant's "crush down - crush up" theory?
How do they explain the disassociation of the core's horizontal bracing?
Do they agree that early movement of the antennae was indicative of a pre-collapse core failure?
How do they explain the angle cut columns?

Gordon.

I'm not going to get drawn into pointless quibbling over small details when the central issue is so untenable. It's like arguing about whether the hair in Santa's beard is wavy or straight, while ignoring the fact that THERE IS NO SANTA CLAUS!

Let me issue you a challenge: Can you state in logical, succinct terms what you believe happened on Sept. 11, without sounding like a complete loon? Please include how you believe tons of explosives were put in place without drawing the attention of anyone working in the building.

It should soon become evident to you, as it long has been to me, that the reason conspiracy theorists like to focus on peripheral issues like how the buildings collapsed is that they can sound educated and reasonable about their beliefs. Not so when they attempt to sum up their beliefs in any coherent way -- only then is the sheer lunacy of their conspiracy theories revealed.

blackcat wrote: That's because experts are always honest and correct. Now back to sleep everyone. You don't know anything so listen to your betters and hush now. Impossible things do happen because the laws of physics can be made to vanish by experts. Have you all got that? Stop asking questions and get in your place. Do as you are told! Experts have got it all in hand and your best interests at heart. You are feeling sleepy.... sleepy....

Individual experts can be dishonest, but structural engineering is a science. As such, it has self-correcting mechanisms. When someone in their ranks puts forward a theory, it has to be studied and accepted by other engineers before it is taken seriously. That's why I trust the community of structural engineers.

Let me ask you something, blackcat: Do you pay your electric bill? I'm assuming you have an electric bill, and are not still living with your parents.

If so, why? Do you just blindly accept everything the utility companies tell you? How do you know the meter hasn't been tampered with? How do you know the people who are supposed to calibrate the meters aren't being paid off? How do you know you're not paying someone else's electric bill?

If you call the utility company to protest the bill each month, as you should according to your own beliefs, how can you trust what they tell you? Is it just because they have all the power (no pun intended)? That they are the experts on electrical usage?

Paranoia can begin to be a lot of trouble, don't you agree?

Small details?
I doubt you'd be complaining about focusing on those 'small details' if they proved your case.

conspiracy theorists like to focus on peripheral issues like how the buildings collapsed

Ha ha.

So would the three structural engineers you know.

Please include how you believe tons of explosives were put in place without drawing the attention of anyone working in the building.

You cant win the arguement so you resort to the ONE fall back i've heard countless times from you people.
If you want to debate that question, first clear up the question of how the buildings fell.
Actually, dont bother. Your above comments betray your attitude to critical reasoning.

aggle-rithm wrote:
Let me ask you something, blackcat: Do you pay your electric bill? I'm assuming you have an electric bill, and are not still living with your parents.

If so, why? Do you just blindly accept everything the utility companies tell you? How do you know the meter hasn't been tampered with? How do you know the people who are supposed to calibrate the meters aren't being paid off? How do you know you're not paying someone else's electric bill?

If you call the utility company to protest the bill each month, as you should according to your own beliefs, how can you trust what they tell you? Is it just because they have all the power (no pun intended)? That they are the experts on electrical usage?

Paranoia can begin to be a lot of trouble, don't you agree?

OHHHH!!
I SEE!!!
Right, well that puts that to rest then.


What planet do you come from by the way? Are you sure they dont miss you?

chipmunk stew wrote:

gordon wrote:How do they explain the angle cut columns?

Gordon.

You keep mentioning these "angle cut columns". What are you talking about?

Are you referring to this picture?

Let me ask you something, blackcat: Do you pay your electric bill? I'm assuming you have an electric bill, and are not still living with your parents.

Yes I do

If so, why? Do you just blindly accept everything the utility companies tell you? How do you know the meter hasn't been tampered with? How do you know the people who are supposed to calibrate the meters aren't being paid off? How do you know you're not paying someone else's electric bill?

No I do not accept everything they say and once I had them come to check the meter as I thought I was being overcharged. I do not trust them automatically but there is no reason to doubt that my meter has been tampered with currently or that anyone is using my electricity. I most certainly would NOT believe the utility company if they said the bill was accurate if it suddenly went through the roof or if the meter exploded and they told me it was working fine. They could tell me how expert they were till the cows come home but NO I would NOT accept any obvious nonsense and not being an electrical engineer would have nothing to do with it.

If you call the utility company to protest the bill each month, as you should according to your own beliefs

That is a non sequitor. As long as the utility company do not try to tell me rubbish I have no reason to contact them.

how can you trust what they tell you? Is it just because they have all the power (no pun intended)? That they are the experts on electrical usage?

I can't. I rely on a range of laws to stop the b****** from ripping me off. That's what commerce is all about dontcha know.

Paranoia can begin to be a lot of trouble, don't you agree?

I would not know. Ask the relatives of Dr Shipman's victims - he was an expert.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_kill ... ead_1.html

chipmunk stew wrote: Are you referring to this picture?

Thats not evidence of thermate its actually birdsh*t apparently. You can see more of it on that guys hat. Lots and lots of birds around crapping on stuff.
The angle is nothing unusual either, its just the angle the camera is being held at. An optical illusion of sorts. Either that or its been photoshopped. There are other explanations as well, whatever ya need. All equally valid...

scar wrote:

chipmunk stew wrote: Are you referring to this picture?

Thats not evidence of thermate its actually birdsh*t apparently. You can see more of it on that guys hat. Lots and lots of birds around crapping on stuff.
The angle is nothing unusual either, its just the angle the camera is being held at. An optical illusion of sorts. Either that or its been photoshopped. There are other explanations as well, whatever ya need. All equally valid...

Must've been Big Bird...

I had something a bit different in mind.

Look at the "'Demo Dave' Griffin" video here starting at about the 1:08 mark:
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/vide ... index.html









Ask one of these guys what made that cut:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chipmunk stew wrote:

gordon wrote:How do they explain the angle cut columns?

Gordon.

You keep mentioning these "angle cut columns". What are you talking about?

Are you referring to this picture?

Of course Gordon is talking about this photograph.

Here is his web site where he talks all about it.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

However if a 45 degree cut is made in the core columns, there will also be a horizontal component to the movement of the bottom of the upper core section and a consequent tilt in the upper core section.
The floors will only transmit an inward pulling action through the floors to one wall, with a compressive action on the opposite floors and a twisting action on the floors on the adjacent sides.

It was the reaction created by a, say, 45 degree cut through the core columns which began, both the tilting action of the upper sections, and the bowing of one perimeter wall in each Tower.

Gordon casts his expert eye over many areas of the colapse of the towers here.

I notice you aren’t actually a qualified civil or structure engineer Gordon, nor a trained demolition expert.
Tell you what here’s what you should do. Send an email and link it to your site to some real experts, you know the guys who dismiss you and get their opinion. After all what is the point of having put so much hard work into all when the experts are never going to read it or point out your mistakes?

So here you go. Maybe these guys could help you out.

http://wtc.nist.gov/contacts/
http://www.asce.org/asce.cfm
http://www.seinstitute.org/
http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/d ... pt_id=3105

After all if it is all true I’m sure these guys will back you up and peer review it for you.

Until then, it is simply another website making the same claims and not worth spending another minute of my time on.

You have come in useful after all, soggy. You have supplied a link to my site which gives a detailed analysis of the controlled demolition of the collapse. Exactly what your buddy, aggle, was asking for. Not quite finished yet, but its getting there. It does include lots of that irrelevent Santa Claus Beard stuff, that I prefer to call evidence. I know that you are not used to dealing with it but don't let that put you off.

Now can you give me a detailed analysis of your version of the collapse.
Full details mind you. None of this "the massive weight of the upper section.....far more than floor can take......build up in kinetic energy....blah, blah" What hit what, where did load transfer to, initiation, causes of failures, etc. Take full account of the geometry of the structure.

Some criticism of my site would be good too. I'd prefer it to be on a slightly higher level than whether you like the background colour or fonts, but that would be ok.

Incidentally, aggle, why do you think that tonnes of explosives would be needed, but at the same time say that it fell naturally without any explosives? You're trying to have your cake and eat it.

I also noticed that there seem to be a lot of questions down here, but very few answers in response to my questions. Is this going to change or do I have to now think of this place as Clueless Corner?

Gordon.

What, one steel girder with a 45 degree angle on the end. Well there is only one possible explantion. That it was cut with hi tech thermite expolsives!

Or, lets just go out on a limb here..

Two of the worlds largets buidling collapse, thousands if not millions of tons of metal come crashing to the ground, maybe, one gider, hey lets go crazy, snaped at a 45 degree angle.

Maybe that girder was cut on the ground to let another peice of debri be freed from on top, all we have is one picture.


and the final peice. How could you achive that prescion cut with expolisives? There is no way you could attain that result with thermite expolsives.
________
Honda CR125M

gordon wrote: You have supplied a link to my site which gives a detailed analysis of the controlled demolition of the collapse. Exactly what your buddy, aggle, was asking for.

No, I was asking for a brief but coherent summary of what you believe happened on 9/11 -- who was involved, how they did it, why they did it, etc. Not an analysis of an isolated phenomenon that you think supports your belief, but a short description of the belief itself. As I said before, I don't believe you can do this without sounding like a lunatic, which is exactly why you focus on technical details.

Not quite finished yet, but its getting there. It does include lots of that irrelevent Santa Claus Beard stuff, that I prefer to call evidence. I know that you are not used to dealing with it but don't let that put you off.

I recognize that this is indeed evidence. I just don't think it's relevant.

Incidentally, aggle, why do you think that tonnes of explosives would be needed, but at the same time say that it fell naturally without any explosives? You're trying to have your cake and eat it.

I'm going by what it would take for a standard demolition of two buildings that size, which is what many CTer's claim happened. Of course, I could be way off, but I doubt it. If you believe that only a very small amount of explosives were needed, then by all means, include that in your summary.

(Of course, I really don't expect you to produce such a summary. Only one CTer has ever taken me up on this, and it came out, predictably, as a rant against the Joooos and their globalist overlords...)

blackcat wrote:

I can't. I rely on a range of laws to stop the * from ripping me off. That's what commerce is all about dontcha know.

And I rely on a range of laws that prevent our leaders from killing thousands of their own citizens just as an excuse to start a war. Before I would believe otherwise, there had better be damned good evidence, and there isn't.

We have had leaders that have broken the law -- though not to this insane degree -- and they were quickly caught and dealt with. There has never been a shred of evidence that such a massive conspiracy that you guys posit is even plausible.

And I rely on a range of laws that prevent our leaders from killing thousands of their own citizens just as an excuse to start a war. Before I would believe otherwise, there had better be damned good evidence, and there isn't.

Well that is a matter of opinion. Following a rigged election and a highly suspicious attack on NYC then a war with Iraq based on a pack of lies, I think those laws are not working. You may believe there is no "damned good evidence" that 9/11 was an inside job. I believe it is so overwhelming and blatant that anyone who says what you say is a * liar and a traitor.

We have had leaders that have broken the law -- though not to this insane degree -- and they were quickly caught and dealt with. There has never been a shred of evidence that such a massive conspiracy that you guys posit is even plausible.

Quickly caught? Who? When? How were they dealt with?

Saying there is not a shred of evidence does not make it true that it is the case. Let me guess - you believe that 19 Arabs with box cutters, receiving orders from an organisation based in a cave in Afghanistan, beat the entire Armed defences in the heart of the USA. That is what you consider plausible is it?!! This "massive conspiracy" was not massive when it involves Arabs? Arabs are so efficient that the equivalent American conspiracy would have to involve thousands of people but just a few dozen of these Arab supermen could pull it off. Talk about being in denial! Who the * are you trying to kid?!

Quickly caught? Who? When? How were they dealt with?

http://www.watergate.info/

also keep in mind, five guys with box cutters, who had also undergone martial arts training in knife fighting and unarmed combat, i watched a documentary with the instructor who had actually trained the guys but had never realised what they had planned to do. he thought he was just teaching them how to to defend themselves. A box cutter, sounds harmless enough, its still a two inch sharp blade, easily capable of killing someone. I dont see whats so unplausable about.
________
iolite vaporizer

blackcat wrote:
Well that is a matter of opinion. Following a rigged election

If Gore had won, don't you think people would still be saying it was rigged?

and a highly suspicious attack on NYC

Your opinion. True, you share that opinion with a lot of other people, but most of them are pimply-faced teenagers or clinically insane college professors who somehow received tenure.

then a war with Iraq based on a pack of lies,

If they were lies, rather than bungled intelligence, then why didn't they plant the WMD in Iraq? If they would kill thousands of their own people, why would they have scruples about this?

I think those laws are not working. You may believe there is no "damned good evidence" that 9/11 was an inside job. I believe it is so overwhelming and blatant that anyone who says what you say is a * liar and a traitor.

That was my point earlier about Ockham's razor and the addition of unnecessary assumptions to a theory. Most of what you call evidence is either illusory or irrelevant. It was selected because it supported something that you were already prepared to believe.

The only thing overwhelming about the evidence is that each new piece of "evidence" requires a whole new set of unnecessary assumptions, such as explosives being inexplicably wired to go off in stages to simulate the random progressive collapse of a building. Why not just say that the building collapsed in a random fashion, after being hit by airliners and catching fire?

Quickly caught? Who? When? How were they dealt with?

Nixon was caught over the Watergate scandal and forced to leave office. Clinton was caught lying about Monica Lewinsky and was impeached. Neither one suffered grievous consequences, of course, but the point is, even a minor infraction by an American president doesn't stay secret for long.

Saying there is not a shred of evidence does not make it true that it is the case.

True. There is evidence, it's just that none of it is very convincing.

Let me guess - you believe that 19 Arabs with box cutters, receiving orders from an organisation based in a cave in Afghanistan,

They're in a cave NOW. We forced them to flee there! (By the way, these same "savages" forced the Soviet Red Army out of Afganistan.)

beat the entire Armed defences in the heart of the USA.

No. The terrorists didn't attack armed defenses. They attacked civilians and a military office building. There's a very good reason they didn't take on the military head-on. And since they had no intention of returning home after the attack, they only needed to complete their mission before the military could react.

That is what you consider plausible is it?!! This "massive conspiracy" was not massive when it involves Arabs? Arabs are so efficient that the equivalent American conspiracy would have to involve thousands of people but just a few dozen of these Arab supermen could pull it off. Talk about being in denial! Who the * are you trying to kid?!

A small group of people IS more efficient than a huge beauracracy. They studied their enemy closely, they found a weakness, and they exploited it. They took advantage of our lax security and our openness to foreigners. They did something totally unexpected that we were completely unprepared for. Now that we are prepared for such an attack, the next one will undoubtedly be something totally different.

Remember, al Qaeda is an organization that is BASED on secrecy! It's easy for them to keep something like this under wraps until the time is right, and unnecessary for them to cover it up afterwards. The same is not true of the US government, which is huge, very much in the public eye, made up of sharply divided factions, and whose leadership is constantly changing.

Over here soggy. Better to stay here rather than fill the rest of the board with your nothingness.
I've submitted it to the world - how much more do you want.

I'm told that when you stick your head above the parapet you get shot at.

But you have no ammunition.

Who can take the challenge?

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/index.html

Gordon.

Now, now Gordon, you are staring to foam at the mouth and sound like a loony. I'm sure you are a rational individual and full of good intend, so all you have to do is run it by the entire scientific community and hey I’ll back you.

I notice you didn't actually put forward your scenario on how or who planted all these explosives in the Towers, but don't worry too much about that.

All you have to do is not convince me but convince the entire scientific community, oops sorry they dismissed you years ago.

Keep going Gordon; you socked it to me again