Guest Dale Thorn Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I would like to add an important note to the above arguments I made. My take on conspiracies and crimes of great magnitude is that they are perpetrated by governments, since individuals don't have the resources. Even so-called terror groups are rarely if ever able to affect a wide area of population, and such groups can never organize a network of prison camps or death camps as has the U.S. In the late 1800's and during WWII, or Germany during WWII. For anyone to demand proof of conspiracy from individual citizens like myself is disingenuous at best, given the government's public record in such matters as Mockingbird (infiltration of the press), Phoenix (assassinations in Vietnam), MKULTRA, and many other infamous operations. Ordinary citizens are rightful owners of this country, and they should be given the 26 volumes of evidence and testimony in 9/11, not derision for their deserved suspicions of government malfeasance. I have a simple principle: The official should be given the benefit of the doubt *as a person* if suspected or accused of wrongdoing, but the benefit of the doubt should not be equally extended to the office itself. I have every good reason to believe that a government that has manufactured tens of thousands of thermonuclear bombs, and has continuously threatened the entire human race with those bombs for 50-60 years, is fully capable of pulling off a relatively small operation like 9/11. The evidence we have is sparse *only* because most of it has been destroyed or not made available to the public. Therefore I not only suspect, I accuse them of doing the deed. Let them prove they didn't do it by demonstrating in a public and adversary forum how buildings with heavy internal steel structures can collapse as if those structures simply disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sherwood Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 The second tower was hit a glancing blow, most of the fuel dumped outside of the tower, and quite some time after the first was hit more directly, yet it collapsed first. Every argument that has been presented here flies directly in the face of common sense. It is common sense, fortunately. Neither impact was a glancing blow, both aeroplanes hit the sides of the towers close to the centre and the damage they caused caused the central core to effectively be cut in half. That core was a very important structural member and without it there was not much to support the internal floors. The skin of the towers also bore a fair bit of the vertical and torsional loads of the structure, and again there was massive damage to that structure and the aeroplane entered one side and the debris exited the other side like a shotgun blast. The reason the second tower came down first is also very easy to explain and understand; the impact was further down, the aeroplane hit when banked over and so damaged more floors than the first plane, and (I think) was travelling faster. All those reasons mean more damage and the greater mass of building above the damaged section pressing down on it harder caused an earlier failure. Pretty simple really. The comment "I'm surprised it didn't come down immediately" is completely without logic, as there is simply no precedent for such a thing. Correct in that there have been no other large building like that, that have had airliners flown into them at high speed deliberately. The logic, as explained above, is pretty obvious; massive structural damage from an impact that was like a very large bomb going off. The towers were nearly cut in half so again I have to say it's a bit surprising they did not come down far earlier. Skyscrapers don't collapse because of fire, as everyone knows, and it is completely beyond logic that such a large building struck a glancing blow would fall straight down. From the hundreds of videos widely available, it is clear that neither impact was a glancing blow. That is simply totally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Why do the two people who responded here do this debunking? I don't do debunking unless someone has a truly absurd conspiracy with no common sense evidence to back it up. Bingo - you got it in one. And even then I don't have a lot of time to waste on such things. Why would you two expend so much energy and time on this? Perhaps I can learn something from your explanations. I do it because too many people read such nonsense and take it at face value, like your Empire State Building / WTC being similar events. They don't research the subject, they don't have the expertise, they just accept the nonsense. I do have the expertise in some areas and I do have the time on occasions. The many scientists and engineers who believe as I do are not crazies, not conspiracy theorists in any general sense, and their arguments are based on their professional experience. Not all are crazies, but they are still wrong. Besides, the overwhelming majority of experts in the various fields do not subscribe to 9-11 theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sherwood Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Pt 2 I could build a small steel building and fill it with combustibles and you could knock a hole in it and set it on fire - it won't collapse. There is no evidence of hot fires over 1200 or 1500 or 2000 F. etc. raging in the central columns that would "weaken" them. Actually there's plenty of evidence. For example the plethora of videos showing the airliners impacting the buildings and a huge ball of flame erupting from the structure. Then the continued black smoke billowing from the towers until they collapsed. And if weakened (which didn't happen - the second plane didn't come anywhere near), they still don't disappear. Again hundreds of videos very clearly show that is very much not the case. The argument against freefall is specious - time the collapses - a pancake or whatever would take several times as long. You'd need to show evidence of that, rather than just guessing. Now I would like to ask a question that I think is relevant. Why do the two people who responded here do this debunking? I don't do debunking unless someone has a truly absurd conspiracy with no common sense evidence to back it up. And even then I don't have a lot of time to waste on such things. Why would you two expend so much energy and time on this? Perhaps I can learn something from your explanations. I don't waste too much time on it, I gave up trying to explain these things to people who have already made up their mind a long time ago. Because of that I'm not going to spend too much more time here, unless you are genuinely interested in what went on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dale Thorn Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Simple response to non-responses from experts. The second plane did not hit centre - it hit way off centre and did not damage any columns. The building didn't sway or show any effects. Your speculation, which is purely what it is, is simply wrong. Both debunkers are offering non-facts as facts, since they have no evidence except the videos of buildings brought down by demolition. Do I have my mind made up? Nope. But I await any evidence whatsoever that skyscrapers can collapse straight down through their path of *greatest* resistance at nearly freefall speed, with no evidence of a support structure, as though the 47 massive steel columns simply vanished. And there were no high levels of heat anywhere(!) in those buildings. I still don't see any motive for such well-educated people to spend so much time debunking 9/11. My efforts are directed at exposing government corruption, which is a very worthwhile and important citizen duty. Your efforts with your valuable time are directed at what? Arguing with me? For free? When you have free time to argue with me, and knowing that money doesn't grow on trees, I say hmmmm... looks like someone is being paid. Just my suspicion mind you. Not an accusation. Once again, where are the 26 volumes of evidence and testimony? And putting a previous question a different way, why would such people whose time is obviously valuable try to prove that the U.S. government would not commit a crime of this magnitude, when we know from the actual historical record that they've done vastly worse? Why indeed? To protect the Patriot Act and the ongoing war? Great motivations, you gotta admit that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sherwood Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Simple response to non-responses from experts. The second plane did not hit centre - it hit way off centre and did not damage any columns. The building didn't sway or show any effects. Your speculation, which is purely what it is, is simply wrong. It's not speculation, the airliner went through the middle of the building, end of story. Both debunkers are offering non-facts as facts, since they have no evidence except the videos of buildings brought down by demolition. Do I have my mind made up? Nope. But I await any evidence whatsoever that skyscrapers can collapse straight down through their path of *greatest* resistance at nearly freefall speed, with no evidence of a support structure, as though the 47 massive steel columns simply vanished. And there were no high levels of heat anywhere(!) in those buildings. You have, unfortunately, made up your mind that much is clear and hence it is pointless trying to convince you otherwise. You keep asking questions that have already been satisfactorily answered. I still don't see any motive for such well-educated people to spend so much time debunking 9/11. My efforts are directed at exposing government corruption, which is a very worthwhile and important citizen duty. Your efforts with your valuable time are directed at what? Arguing with me? For free? When you have free time to argue with me, and knowing that money doesn't grow on trees, I say hmmmm... looks like someone is being paid. Just my suspicion mind you. Not an accusation. You have no idea what my education level is, nor my experience, nor my interests, nor my hobbies, etc. Evan either. For example one of the things that you are quite incorrect about is that you seem to think Evan and I are Americans. Once again, where are the 26 volumes of evidence and testimony? And putting a previous question a different way, why would such people whose time is obviously valuable try to prove that the U.S. government would not commit a crime of this magnitude, when we know from the actual historical record that they've done vastly worse? Why indeed? To protect the Patriot Act and the ongoing war? Great motivations, you gotta admit that. I see from this you are not able to discuss the physics behind the tragedy and are going for the straw-man method. I will waste no more time on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Ditto. It's obvious you only seek confirming views so I won't bother to waste time on you; I'll make sure disinformation is countered with facts but otherwise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dale Thorn Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 My questions about debunking are more than reasonable, given that 9/11 was a world-changing event that brought us the Patriot Act, infinite torture and imprisonment without trial, and many other nasty things. That you would insist on countering my alleged disinformation as a mere "hobby" is simply dodging the issue. The responses are, from my experience, classic military-style debunking. For example, the second plane did *not* go through the centre of the building, which anyone can see for themself. I see also that the charts provided were from a government and military funded "non-profit" group in Texas who also do "biomedical" research that has a strong odor of Fort Detrick to it. You know how greatly serious of an issue the New Pearl Harbor is, and what it means for the destruction of human rights in so many countries, and how the government has avoided providing evidence a la the Warren Commission, yet you dismiss all of that with a wave of the virtual hand? I'm sorry, but all of your efforts have been evasive and not helpful at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 The second tower was hit a glancing blow, LOL AFAIK not even truthers with applicable science/engineering training back this claim which is clearly contradicted by the various videos. The claim the towers fell at free fall SPEED indicates an ignorance of the science involved, there is no such thing. Even the claim they fell at free fall ACCELERATION has been shown not to be true by TRUTHERS. I suggest Mr. Thorn read the peer-reviewed papers by structural engineering professors from Cambridge, MIT and Northwestern that discuss how resistance the structures effected the collapses. "most of the fuel dumped outside of the tower" That is quite debatable but irrelevant because the main fuel source is believed to have been the building contents not the jetfuel. "Building 7 is what I call prima facie evidence." Obviously you are unaware of the dozens of reports from FDNY personnel that they had been expecting the building to collapse for hours due the degree of structural damage, virtually uncombated fires. "It looks exactly like what it is, a classic controlled demolition falling inward on itself. That would be impossible for a building damaged in an irregular fashion, to collapse so neatly and symmetrically, exactly as seen in controlled demolitions." A notion only supported by about 0.1% of engineers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dale Thorn Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 The second tower was hit a glancing blow, LOL AFAIK not even truthers with applicable science/engineering training back this claim which is clearly contradicted by the various videos. The claim the towers fell at free fall SPEED indicates an ignorance of the science involved, there is no such thing. Even the claim they fell at free fall ACCELERATION has been shown not to be true by TRUTHERS. I suggest Mr. Thorn read the peer-reviewed papers by structural engineering professors from Cambridge, MIT and Northwestern that discuss how resistance the structures effected the collapses. "most of the fuel dumped outside of the tower" That is quite debatable but irrelevant because the main fuel source is believed to have been the building contents not the jetfuel. "Building 7 is what I call prima facie evidence." Obviously you are unaware of the dozens of reports from FDNY personnel that they had been expecting the building to collapse for hours due the degree of structural damage, virtually uncombated fires. "It looks exactly like what it is, a classic controlled demolition falling inward on itself. That would be impossible for a building damaged in an irregular fashion, to collapse so neatly and symmetrically, exactly as seen in controlled demolitions." A notion only supported by about 0.1% of engineers I'm sorry, but what I see with my eyes overrules your speculation. The second plane almost missed and struck far off centre. Near freefall speed is measured by the height of the towers and the time taken to collapse. Anyone can measure it (s=16.1*t^2, I think that's it). The absence of resistance to the fall and the peer reviews? That's hilarious. There was no demonstrable cause for the steel columns to disappear, or for the building to crumble that way. The Warren Commission had the best "peers" in the world. Dead wrong, though. Building 7 expected to collapse, in a highly visible perfect symmetry that's classic controlled demolition? Come on, let's try to be serious here. There's no need to tell people that what they see with their own eyes isn't what they see. Emperor's New Clothes is what you're describing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dale Thorn Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 A short video that can help ordinary people understand how the so-called experts got it wrong again and again, while ignoring the elephant in the room, can be found at: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-11-02/911-theories-expert-vs-expert I had to hand type that, so if the link fails just google 911blogger and look on the left column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 My questions about debunking are more than reasonable, given that 9/11 was a world-changing event that brought us the Patriot Act, infinite torture and imprisonment without trial, and many other nasty things. There is a huge difference between being responsible for an event, and taking advantage of an event. If you want to say that people within the US government took advantage of 9-11 then you'll get no argument from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dale Thorn Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 My questions about debunking are more than reasonable, given that 9/11 was a world-changing event that brought us the Patriot Act, infinite torture and imprisonment without trial, and many other nasty things. There is a huge difference between being responsible for an event, and taking advantage of an event. If you want to say that people within the US government took advantage of 9-11 then you'll get no argument from me. No, I certainly didn't want to say that, and neither would any other responsible person. The only entity who had the power to do 9/11 and then cover it up with impunity (which is precisely what they did) is the U.S. government and military. "We're the Marines. We kill people." Remember that quote? Not just a movie. I was in the Army for 3 years, and that's what we did, kill people. By the thousands. 9/11 is just another exercise. Do you seriously believe anyone is going to do anything about it? When the government and military have an army of helpers and debunkers working to deflect any serious demands for redress, that's what happens. Nothing. If any debunker (any!) were serious about truth, they would demand the 26 volumes of evidence and testimony. The fact that you haven't means you are not on the "open, accountable" team. You say you have testimony of many experts. Well, there are thousands of real engineers who dispute that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 That you would insist on countering my alleged disinformation as a mere "hobby" is simply dodging the issue. The responses are, from my experience, classic military-style debunking. LOL! You did know I am serving military, right? That was meant as a pun, right? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dale Thorn Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 That you would insist on countering my alleged disinformation as a mere "hobby" is simply dodging the issue. The responses are, from my experience, classic military-style debunking. LOL! You did know I am serving military, right? That was meant as a pun, right? LOL! Some people I know recommended this forum as a place to learn and teach. Apparently there is no one to teach, and no one from whom to learn. Just debunkers, who rank somewhere below tax collectors and pharisees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now