Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Helicopter Punt said:
How is this relevant to what I posted?


Was less of a direct response to you and more of a general observation of conspiracy theorists in this thread.

Evidence is provided by someone to back up their story if they want it accepted as fact. I don't have a story despite your insistence I manufacture one. I just don't believe someone elses.

Not at all. Explain why. I don't think you can.
Until you can explain why it remains your belief. I certainly have no obligation to conform to your beliefs, regardless of how much it would tilt the table in your favour. Especially when that belief is incorrect.
I have already said I don't know what occurred. How can making shit up make my point of view more credible?

Explain how this statement is incorrect or illogical. You clearly contend that it is.

I don't need to have a story to believe. I don't know what occurred on the day but I'm ok with that. Why is that not ok with you?
You need me, for some inexplicable reason, to believe a story - any story - yours, mine, someone elses, official or otherwise or else your logic is divided by zero.
To not believe a story doesn't create any further conditions or obligations. These were invented by yourself and others. They exist only in your head.
Click to expand...


Ok. You. Might be misunderstanding me here...

Why don't you believe the null hypothesis?

What is wrong with the explanation?

I am now assuming (please correct me if I am wrong) you will talk about repeatedly debunked claimed like free fall speed, neatly into footprints, "pull it", missiles into the pentagon, stand down orders, melting steel, no debris, terrorists passport on roofs, squibs, money made in the aftermath and so on and so on and so on.

All stuff that is a complete fabrication, an exaggeration, irrelevant or has a perfectly logical explanation.

I'm saying "a" happened. I am also SHOWING the rational, scientific. Evidence for "a".

You're saying "a" didn't happen. But anything you put forward as evidence for "a" NOT happening has been debunked. MANY times.

Another option, when faced with this scenario of all arguments being shown to be incorrect, would be to put forward a perfectly plausible and logical ALTERNATIVE version of events that explains what everyone saw.

Essentially saying something along the lines of "sure, 'a' could have happened, but it's more likely to have been 'b''"

But you say that's not necessary. You say you can claim "a" didn't happen, provide no proof or alternative plausible explanation, and still have your opinion taken seriously.

And yes, before you begin, if you start sprouting conspiracy theories, like the ones mentioned above, you are 1. Nominating an alternative version of events (one of government conspiracy), in other words, you DO think you know, and 2. Using evidence that's been ridiculed for years.

If you TRULY take the position that you don't know what happened, then you must also admit, that in the absence of any other plausible explanation, the OS is the most likely and most plausible one.

You can believe whatever you want to believe. But without providing evidence to support your beliefs, don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
 
BustedWing said:
Ok. You. Might be misunderstanding me here...

Why don't you believe the null hypothesis?

What is wrong with the explanation?

I am now assuming (please correct me if I am wrong) you will talk about repeatedly debunked claimed like free fall speed, neatly into footprints, "pull it", missiles into the pentagon, stand down orders, melting steel, no debris, terrorists passport on roofs, squibs, money made in the aftermath and so on and so on and so on.

All stuff that is a complete fabrication, an exaggeration, irrelevant or has a perfectly logical explanation.
Click to expand...
I currently have neither intention nor time to get involved in circular argument. In order to mitigate getting sucked into the vortex you can file the reason I don't believe as 'I got a feeling'.

But please understand I'm not trying to convince anyone what I believe is right. I saw the futility of that when this thread/topic was young. Simply pointing out flawed logic which if accepted would give your side of the argument an ongoing unfair and undeserved advantage.

BustedWing said:
I'm saying "a" happened. I am also SHOWING the rational, scientific. Evidence for "a".
Click to expand...
Not quite. Your repeating 'a' happened. The conclusion however was arrived at by those equipped with resources and powers to do so (granted they spent more investigating the events surrounding Clintons polished knob than they did 9/11).

BustedWing said:
Another option, when faced with this scenario of all arguments being shown to be incorrect, would be to put forward a perfectly plausible and logical ALTERNATIVE version of events that explains what everyone saw.

Essentially saying something along the lines of "sure, 'a' could have happened, but it's more likely to have been 'b''
Click to expand...
Of course that is an option when an alternative is readily apparent. And I agree it would lend credibility. This makes sense. We agree.
The issue here though is that you have extrapolated from this that to not have an alternative removes credibility in and of itself. This, not so much sense.

BustedWing said:
But you say that's not necessary. You say you can claim "a" didn't happen, provide no proof or alternative plausible explanation, and still have your opinion taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Correct.

BustedWing said:
...if you start sprouting conspiracy theories, like the ones mentioned above, you are 1. Nominating an alternative version of events (one of government conspiracy), in other words, you DO think you know, and 2. Using evidence that's been ridiculed for years.
Click to expand...
Point to my post where any of this happened.
Alternative to what? I'm yet to see any credible explanation. I would need to operate under your assumptions and premise for the above to be correct. I'm not though.

BustedWing said:
If you TRULY take the position that you don't know what happened, then you must also admit, that in the absence of any other plausible explanation, the OS is the most likely and most plausible one.
Click to expand...
No. As above, if I were to operate using your assumptions and premise then I agree this would be the only option open to me.

BustedWing said:
You can believe whatever you want to believe. But without providing evidence to support your beliefs, don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
Click to expand...
I rarely do.
 
Some great points above Helicopter Punt

Ok so seeing as this thread needs a bit of something different, and above all is entitled prove the official version of 9/11, I will lay down a challenge for those who vehemently believe the official version to be true
That means you Kellythatsit and you BustedWing, because I think that you would both relish and be capable of doing a great job
So this is your challenge, no snide remarks, no petty squabbles, no crap
Convince me
Step by step, event by event, convince me that the official story is legit
This means don't give me any crap about this being debunked and that being debunked because really nothing has
Start at the beginning, whatever point you need to or want to start at
It's a big undertaking, but both of you fine posters surely have it in you if you have a go at it
I will give you points along the way that may question what you say, whether it be testimony or reports from media etc, and these will be referenced to the best of my ability
Do you take my challenge ??
Convince me
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Glacier said:
Some great points above Helicopter Punt

Ok so seeing as this thread needs a bit of something different, and above all is entitled prove the official version of 9/11, I will lay down a challenge for those who vehemently believe the official version to be true
That means you Kellythatsit and you BustedWing, because I think that you would both relish and be capable of doing a great job
So this is your challenge, no snide remarks, no petty squabbles, no crap
Convince me
Step by step, event by event, convince me that the official story is legit
This means don't give me any crap about this being debunked and that being debunked because really nothing has
Start at the beginning, whatever point you need to or want to start at
It's a big undertaking, but both of you fine posters surely have it in you if you have a go at it
I will give you points along the way that may question what you say, whether it be testimony or reports from media etc, and these will be referenced to the best of my ability
Do you take my challenge ??Convince me
Click to expand...
:eek:Holy shit. Again? Where do you guys get the time and energy?
 
I currently have neither intention nor time to get involved in circular argument. In order to mitigate getting sucked into the vortex you can file the reason I don’t believe as ‘I got a feeling’.

But please understand I’m not trying to convince anyone what I believe is right. I saw the futility of that when this thread/topic was young. Simply pointing out flawed logic which if accepted would give your side of the argument an ongoing unfair and undeserved advantage.

Apparently it is flawed logic to back up your claims with evidence and heaven forbid an actual hypothesis. Basically, the way I am reading this is that because the evidence as it currently exists backs up our side of the argument and the theory we promote, this gives us an unfair advantage. Is that what you are saying?

Not quite. Your repeating ‘a’ happened. The conclusion however was arrived at by those equipped with resources and powers to do so (granted they spent more investigating the events surrounding Clintons polished knob than they did 9/11).

So again, are you claiming that because we believe an explanation arrived at by people with the resources and powers to conduct an investigation we are unfairly advantaged? I really don’t understand your reasoning here. Lets not forget also that the findings of these investigations have all been thoroughly peer reviewed and assessed.

Then just for kicks (and actually proving BW’s argument) you ‘repeat’ a completely untrue and long debunked assertion to try to again push an argument you say you are not making. And this is how you approach critical thinking?

Point to my post where any of this happened.
Alternative to what? I’m yet to see any credible explanation. I would need to operate under your assumptions and premise for the above to be correct. I’m not though.

LOL . . . can I point to your last post again?
BW is right though - you obviously have a hypothesis as to what happened, whether it be MIHOP, LIHOP or some mixture of both. However, you don’t want to put your cards on the table because it allows you to change the goal posts and not get pinned down to any particular theory which you know can’t be backed up.

I rarely do.

Hahaha - I am going to like this post just because of this response!

At least you are committed to something
 
Glacier said:
Some great points above Helicopter Punt

Ok so seeing as this thread needs a bit of something different, and above all is entitled prove the official version of 9/11, I will lay down a challenge for those who vehemently believe the official version to be true
That means you Kellythatsit and you BustedWing, because I think that you would both relish and be capable of doing a great job
So this is your challenge, no snide remarks, no petty squabbles, no crap
Convince me
Step by step, event by event, convince me that the official story is legit
This means don't give me any crap about this being debunked and that being debunked because really nothing has
Start at the beginning, whatever point you need to or want to start at
It's a big undertaking, but both of you fine posters surely have it in you if you have a go at it
I will give you points along the way that may question what you say, whether it be testimony or reports from media etc, and these will be referenced to the best of my ability
Do you take my challenge ??
Convince me
Click to expand...

Great Scott Glacier, between this thread, JFK and now I see people have begun posting rubbish about the moon landings too . . . I have a family that I would occasionally like to interact with : )

Ok, I accept your challenge. However, you may have to wait a few days . . . I should really start doing some work, the boss keeps giving me evils . . .
 
Kellythatsit said:
I currently have neither intention nor time to get involved in circular argument. In order to mitigate getting sucked into the vortex you can file the reason I don’t believe as ‘I got a feeling’.

But please understand I’m not trying to convince anyone what I believe is right. I saw the futility of that when this thread/topic was young. Simply pointing out flawed logic which if accepted would give your side of the argument an ongoing unfair and undeserved advantage.

Apparently it is flawed logic to back up your claims with evidence and heaven forbid an actual hypothesis. Basically, the way I am reading this is that because the evidence as it currently exists backs up our side of the argument and the theory we promote, this gives us an unfair advantage. Is that what you are saying?

Not quite. Your repeating ‘a’ happened. The conclusion however was arrived at by those equipped with resources and powers to do so (granted they spent more investigating the events surrounding Clintons polished knob than they did 9/11).

So again, are you claiming that because we believe an explanation arrived at by people with the resources and powers to conduct an investigation we are unfairly advantaged? I really don’t understand your reasoning here. Lets not forget also that the findings of these investigations have all been thoroughly peer reviewed and assessed.

Then just for kicks (and actually proving BW’s argument) you ‘repeat’ a completely untrue and long debunked assertion to try to again push an argument you say you are not making. And this is how you approach critical thinking?

Point to my post where any of this happened.
Alternative to what? I’m yet to see any credible explanation. I would need to operate under your assumptions and premise for the above to be correct. I’m not though.

LOL . . . can I point to your last post again?
BW is right though - you obviously have a hypothesis as to what happened, whether it be MIHOP, LIHOP or some mixture of both. However, you don’t want to put your cards on the table because it allows you to change the goal posts and not get pinned down to any particular theory which you know can’t be backed up.
Click to expand...
KTI it appears that the official explanation satisfies you. Bully for you. Seriously, I mean it. It must be nice to have it all packaged up neatly.

I don't. You gotta accept it, it's time to move on.

If I had an alternative take that would explain events coherently and disprove official version I would table it in an instant. I don't.

What's dishonest, cheap or cowardly about admitting to not knowing?

I understand you're aching for an alternative point of view so you can attack it. I hope you get over it sooner rather than later. If you could type chicken sounds perhaps I could be sufficiently goaded.
Debating minutiae is not for me. Been there done that. How many people have you converted?
If you have the time perhaps you could just make one up for me? I'll post it.
Kellythatsit said:
Hahaha - I am going to like this post just because of this response!
Click to expand...
Your a sport:)
 
Kellythatsit said:
Apologies. Arrogant and out of line. I agree.

Comment withdrawn

: )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Fair play to you then...that's good manners by internet standards.

One glaring fault of the official story that stares us all in the face but not often recognized is the impossibility (without energetic help) of the twin towers falling through themselves the way they did.
The North tower was struck between floors 92 and 98 and was 110 stories all up. Dropping those 19 floors onto the remaining undamaged 91 floors absolutely should not pulverize those undamaged floors (again without energetic help.) I would like to see anyone construct a scale model of the buildings (from whatever materials you like as long as they're the same for all 110 floors) and drop the model 19 floors on the rest from a crane...You can start at whatever height you like but it will still never repeat what we saw that day.
 
People respond that "oh but those top 19 floors were really heavy!" Yeah well they're heavy compared to you and me...heavy compared to a blue whale...not heavy compared to the planet Jupiter. All adjectives are comparative - what is the proper thing to compare the heaviness of these 19 floors with? Well...obviously they should be compared to the undamaged 91 stories that had happily held them up for 30 years. Not especially heavy then.
 
lenny&carl said:
Fair play to you then...that's good manners by internet standards.

One glaring fault of the official story that stares us all in the face but not often recognized is the impossibility (without energetic help) of the twin towers falling through themselves the way they did.
The North tower was struck between floors 92 and 98 and was 110 stories all up. Dropping those 19 floors onto the remaining undamaged 91 floors absolutely should not pulverize those undamaged floors (again without energetic help.) I would like to see anyone construct a scale model of the buildings (from whatever materials you like as long as they're the same for all 110 floors) and drop the model 19 floors on the rest from a crane...You can start at whatever height you like but it will still never repeat what we saw that day.
Click to expand...


you know it makes sense. ;)
 
lenny&carl said:
you know it makes sense. ;)
Click to expand...
Yeshua H. Christos ... sigh

The reason I hadn't responded to your post was not because I felt I'd been bested and there was no response. It was simply that your argument is flawed from the beginning and didn't really have the time or the desire to point out the fundamental absurdity of your assertions.

I will say this though, your argument completely misrepresents not only the design of the buildings but also the physics involved in their collapse.

I wonder if you even know how?

Glad people are still suitably impressed with Gage's "box" demonstration though. I know I get a laugh out of it every time I see it : )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Well to start with, it wasn't the weight or mass of the upper stories bearing down on the lower stories that caused the collapse. It was the bowing and snapping of the exterior columns followed by the weight of the failing floor crashing into the floor below, then those two floors crashing into the floor below, then those three floors crashing into the floor below etc etc ...

The upper stories came with it. So, while the weight of the upper floors (and your much loved hat truss) did contribute to the initiation of the collapse, they were certainly not this pile driver that you are trying to claim NIST says drove the destruction down. And no where in any of their reports does NIST ever claim this.

Simply didn't happen that way - despite it being easier for you to debunk.

Now show me where I'm wrong (as I'm sure you will) but remember to give me a rundown of why I'm wrong and what should have happened instead. Also, given that it didn't happen that way please explain what this would indicate to you.

Furthermore, are we going to hear more than a general uneasiness over the destruction of the hat truss and it's relevance to the debate or should we just chalk that one up as answered? Ditto WTC 7 free fall?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Kellythatsit said:
Well to start with, it wasn't the weight or mass of the upper stories bearing down on the lower stories that caused the collapse. It was the bowing and snapping of the exterior columns followed by the weight of the failing floor crashing into the floor below, then those two floors crashing into the floor below, then those three floors crashing into the floor below etc etc ...

The upper stories came with it. So, while the weight of the upper floors (and your much loved hat truss) did contribute to the initiation of the collapse, they were certainly not this pile driver that you are trying to claim NIST says drove the destruction down. And no where in any of their reports does NIST ever claim this.

Simply didn't happen that way - despite it being easier for you to debunk.

Now show me where I'm wrong (as I'm sure you will) but remember to give me a rundown of why I'm wrong and what should have happened instead. Also, given that it didn't happen that way please explain what this would indicate to you.

Furthermore, are we going to hear more than a general uneasiness over the destruction of the hat truss and it's relevance to the debate or should we just chalk that one up as answered? Ditto WTC 7 free fall?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


SO it wasn't the weight above that saw the floors crashing down through each other? I would like you to expand on your theory here...because the govt reports never saw fit to explain the progressive collapse...they all (inexplicably) stopped short at the moment of the initiation of the collapse. So you're somewhat on your own there. When asked about this Sham Sunder of NIST replied (in his usual not-very-good-at-lying-on-his-feet style) that "errr um yeah you can see from the videos that the whole thing just collapsed in on itself...so err um why would we need to explain that when you can see what happened....errrm next question."

I'm not sure your explanation offered above says much...so if you could expand on it I await enlightenment.
 
I mean...surely you're not saying that one floor collapsed onto the next...leading to two floors collapsing onto the next...then three floors onto the next ad absurdum...all the while accelerating ???? This leaves out the core columns entirely...and ignores the inherent strength of each previously undamaged floor that shoulda offered a lot of resistance? The whole process should've stopped half a mile up...not in the basement.

Surely you've got a lot more ooomph to play with in my model where you're dropping 20 stories from 10000 hypothetical feet onto the remaining 90 stories. (which I still insist couldn't do what we saw.)
 
Phillip Marshall, a former airplane pilot and author whose works included the 2003 novel “Lakefront Airport,” - “False Flag 911: How Bush, Cheney and the Saudis Created the Post-911 World (08)” and “The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror,” a 2012 publication in which Marshall theorized it wasn’t al-Qaida but rather U.S. and Saudi government officials who orchestrated 9/11, was found dead along with his two children in their Murphrys-area home in California. Reports indicate all 3 died of gunshot wounds.
Friends of Marshall’s kids, Alex 17 and Macaila 14, discovered the gruesome scene after showing up to check on them on Saturday after not having heard from them for numerous days.
The Calaveras County Sheriff’s Office reported that both children as well as the family dog were shot once in the head with a handgun.
]
Click to expand...
http://topinfopost.com/2013/10/16/9...-marshall-his-2-kids-found-dead-in-california

Guy had credentials...
Not your run of the mill nutter. but someone with expertise and experience to back up his theory..
Philip Marshall, a veteran airline captain and former government “special activities” contract pilot, has authored three books on Top Secret America, a group presently conducting business as the United States Intelligence Community. Beginning with his role in the 1980s as a Learjet captain first as part of a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) sting on Pablo Escobar, and later in the covert arming of the Nicaraguan Contras, Marshall has studied and written 30-years worth of covert government special activities and the revolving door of Wall Street tricksters, media moguls, and their well funded politicians. Marshall is the leading aviation expert on the September 11th attack, as well as a masterful storyteller. The Big Bamboozle (2012) is his second work to focus on the flight training and preparation of 9/11 hijackers’ after False Flag 911 was published in 2008. His first book, Lakefront Airport (2003) was a novel based on his experience as a government contract pilot during the Iran-Contra operation. Philip Marshall began his 20-year career as an airline pilot in 1985, flying first with Eastern Airlines and then with United. He holds captain ratings on the Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757 and 767. Born and raised in New Orleans, Marshall currently resides in California.
Click to expand...
 
lenny&carl said:
I mean...surely you're not saying that one floor collapsed onto the next...leading to two floors collapsing onto the next...then three floors onto the next ad absurdum...all the while accelerating ???? This leaves out the core columns entirely...and ignores the inherent strength of each previously undamaged floor that shoulda offered a lot of resistance? The whole process should've stopped half a mile up...not in the basement.

Surely you've got a lot more ooomph to play with in my model where you're dropping 20 stories from 10000 hypothetical feet onto the remaining 90 stories. (which I still insist couldn't do what we saw.)
Click to expand...

The failure mechanism is pretty straightforward.

Bit of background first. A high rise is classified as a framed tube in tube structure. The outer tube consists of the columns just set in from the facade which support the floors along with the curtain walls which make up the facade, the inner tube consists of the elevator/stair shafts, in addition to supporting the floors it provides rigidity and structural stability, the two tubes are tied together by beams transferring wind loads from the outer tube to the inner core. If the internal shaft isnt rigid enough you might introduce shear walls to resist wind loading, likewise if the span is too great for the floor slabs ie greater than say 6-7m you might introduce internal columns. Typically the floor systems are flat plates or slabs on beams, but sometimes there are transfer beams when columns don't line up, but that impacts the flexibility of the net floor area and services so is typically avoided. Now the floor systems themselves have two functions, firstly support the loading on that floor only (each floor supports itself only and not the one above it), secondly they provide horizontal bracing to the vertical elements so that their not too slender. The floors are designed for their own weight, dead load (1.25 factor of safety) and a superimposed live load (1.5 factor of safety), for a typical office the live load is 4-6kpa (higher loading for storage areas), think 4-6 fat ladies per square metre.

In Australia we typically use reinforced concrete for the superstructure (post tensioning in beams), this comes down to the economics of steel. In America they use steel for the superstructure (as was the case with the twin towers), the steel is concrete encased to provide a 180-240 minute fire rating typically for an office. This is a very critical point as it is the primary weakness that allowed the collapse we saw.

When the planes hit the resultant blast blew off much of the concrete encasement leaving the steel exposed to the extreme heat, much hotter than your typical office fire. The columns on that floor effectively melted causing that level to collapse on itself. Now the connections from the floor system to the columns aren't designed to withstand dynamic loads like that kind of impact so in turn those connections sheared falling on the floor below and so on. Now you have columns spanning two possibly more levels, very slender now that the horizontal bracing has been removed. An experiment for yourself get a thin rod and push at each end, it will buckle, push hard enough and it will stay bent ie plastic deformation, keep pushing and it will eventually snap ie limit state failure.

Now that's basically what happened at the towers, with the first collapse due to the initial blast and fire it knocked out subsequent floors, with the vertical elements not being braced they buckle and ultimately fail causing a further collapse and the process repeats. If the impact happened higher up, might not have had the collapse we saw, but if it was lower down might have happened more quickly.

Hope that helps.
 
Chameleon75 said:
The failure mechanism is pretty straightforward.

When the planes hit the resultant blast blew off much of the concrete encasement leaving the steel exposed to the extreme heat, much hotter than your typical office fire. The columns on that floor effectively melted causing that level to collapse on itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, looks like it got pretty hot!


wtc-woman-impact-area-jpg.2366
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top