Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[Kevin_Lowe]

No thats not what I am claiming...I am saying that when they are timed they fall at nearly free fall speeds...

This has to be deliberate, you were capable of reading a minute ago.

You have no evidence for the claim that the buildings would not fall at "near" free fall speeds if the official story were true.

empty claims my arse.

Empty claims indeed.

Look, one last try before I write you off completely.

Suppose we agreed the buildings fell in whatever time you want them to have fallen. Suppose we don't care. What would it prove?

You keep claiming that the buildings could only have fallen at "near" free fall speeds if they were demolished with pre-placed charges. However you have absolutely no evidence that the buildings could not fall at "near" free fall speeds without pre-placed charges. That particular claim is one you and your fellow kooks have just helped yourselves to, without bothering with evidence.

 

[thesyntaxera]

This has to be deliberate, you were capable of reading a minute ago.

You have no evidence for the claim that the buildings would not fall at "near" free fall speeds if the official story were true.



Empty claims indeed.

Look, one last try before I write you off completely.

Suppose we agreed the buildings fell in whatever time you want them to have fallen. Suppose we don't care. What would it prove?

You keep claiming that the buildings could only have fallen at "near" free fall speeds if they were demolished with pre-placed charges. However you have absolutely no evidence that the buildings could not fall at "near" free fall speeds without pre-placed charges. That particular claim is one you and your fellow kooks have just helped yourselves to, without bothering with evidence.

Write off whatever you want...you have been written off already as it is. I can't believe the best answer to any of the questions I have asked is that I am a kook who is trying to prove a conspiracy...

If the building falls at 6.6 seconds as stated in the Jones paper, then it is falling with virtually no resistance. If there is no resistance, than there is no building underneath of it in a sense. The building falls to pieces and you don't think this is relevant...your stated reason is that there is nothing to indicate that this doesn't fall in line with the official report....if it does than the official report is mistaken...there were 80 floors of steel reinforced resistance, not to mention 80+ layers of concrete all bound together...these things just don't fly apart at the seams just because a plane weakens steel in one section of the building...you know this, but because your so in love with the washed and pressed version of events this doesn't penetrate...

You still have no proof verifying the official accounts outside the fact that planes hit the buildings..

You still didn't answer my questions...and you obviously can't...so I think were done.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Which is funny. CTers use this kind of "discrepancy" to prove their point, completely forgetting that, IF someone really HAD decided to bomb the WTC, they'd have toppled the tower that got hit first, FIRST, and second tower LAST.

They bring it up because it's valid. If someone had bombed them how are we to know how they would do it, and by what rational process they undertook to decide this.

Perhaps they wanted to confuse the situation....who knows...it's pointless to guess...maybe somebody got confused at the controls...why is there a need for a conspirator to be flawless in planning? People make mistakes.

that is niether here nor there....so why even bring it up...

 

[thesyntaxera]

I just got an email review of the book The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin. The reviewer, Richard Morrock, says:

So Syntax, are you David Griffin?

Maybe...but i doubt it...I am curious...since you guys still haven't answered...what are these widely known facts that Morrock is talking about? That there were planes there? Okay, attacking the fringe theories of missles and the like is one thing...so what about everything else? What does the ole infallible Morrock have to say?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Write off whatever you want...you have been written off already as it is. I can't believe the best answer to any of the questions I have asked is that I am a kook who is trying to prove a conspiracy...

Nobody else believes that to be the case either, so you are in good company.

If the building falls at 6.6 seconds as stated in the Jones paper, then it is falling with virtually no resistance. If there is no resistance, than there is no building underneath of it in a sense. The building falls to pieces and you don't think this is relevant...your stated reason is that there is nothing to indicate that this doesn't fall in line with the official report....if it does than the official report is mistaken...there were 80 floors of steel reinforced resistance, not to mention 80+ layers of concrete all bound together...these things just don't fly apart at the seams just because a plane weakens steel in one section of the building...you know this, but because your so in love with the washed and pressed version of events this doesn't penetrate...

But you don't know how long it "should" have taken, do you? You have no idea how long it's "supposed" to take for a chunk of skyscraper to smash its way through the rest of the structure. You haven't got any physics to back this claim up, just a guess by ignorant laypeople that it should have taken longer.

If Joe Sixpack could model these kinds of events in his head, we wouldn't need engineers. However he can't, so we do.

You still have no proof verifying the official accounts outside the fact that planes hit the buildings..

Except that the relevant experts, both in the USA and internationally, agree on the official story and disagree with the various kook ideas you prefer. So either the laws of physics were specially suspended just for 9/11, or every structural engineer in the world has been got at by evil conspirators, or you're just plain wrong.

You still didn't answer my questions...and you obviously can't...so I think were done.

What questions are you referring to? You haven't addressed any questions to me in some time.

 

[Belz...]

If the building falls at 6.6 seconds as stated in the Jones paper, then it is falling with virtually no resistance. If there is no resistance, than there is no building underneath of it in a sense. The building falls to pieces and you don't think this is relevant...

How did you arrive at the conclusion that, had explosives NOT been used, the building would have fallen any slower ? The only "evidence" you have so far is the assertion that the buildings "seemed" to collapse as though in a controlled demolition.

They bring it up because it's valid. If someone had bombed them how are we to know how they would do it, and by what rational process they undertook to decide this.

Perhaps they wanted to confuse the situation....who knows...it's pointless to guess...maybe somebody got confused at the controls...why is there a need for a conspirator to be flawless in planning? People make mistakes.

Indeed they do, but the level of competence you people assign to the alleged conspirators in hiding their involvement appears to be pretty damn high. Why would we assume that, otherwise, they are blundering idiots who can't demolish a building in a way that doesn't seem suspicious ?

 

[thesyntaxera]

How did you arrive at the conclusion that, had explosives NOT been used, the building would have fallen any slower ? The only "evidence" you have so far is the assertion that the buildings "seemed" to collapse as though in a controlled demolition.

Very easily...like i said..there are 80+ floors of interlaced steel and concrete supported by an ever widening central section of 40+ columns...It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning...further more there isn't a single official explanation that looks at this...the explanation is that there was some insubstantial fire, and that the planes impact weakened the structure in those key areas...if anything the top stories could have crumbled and fell to the ground...but there is nothing that says the bottom 80 had to fall as well.

Indeed they do, but the level of competence you people assign to the alleged conspirators in hiding their involvement appears to be pretty damn high. Why would we assume that, otherwise, they are blundering idiots who can't demolish a building in a way that doesn't seem suspicious ?

I never said they were competent at all....are who are "you people"??? The level of competence you put in the government researchers, and analyst is astounding as well...

 

[kookbreaker]

If the building falls at 6.6 seconds as stated in the Jones paper, then it is falling with virtually no resistance.

Keep in mind that such measurements are taken from the very visible portion of the collapse until they are no longer visible, not the actual point where the roof hits the ground. That makes such measurements suspect, at best.

It should also be noted that there was evidence of collapse more than half-a minute before the collapse shown in the WTC video. FEMA report chapter 5.5.4.

WTC7 had parts of two World Trade Centers fall on it and burned for 7 hours. Its visible collapse.

Structural Engineers around the world are not surprised by this collapse. Why are you?

 

[kookbreaker]

I never said they were competent at all....are who are "you people"??? The level of competence you put in the government researchers, and analyst is astounding as well...

Yet, it is funny how skilled structural engineers around the world, even in countries not friendly to the United States have pretty much agreed with the collapse models described by the government researchers.

Oh, but you must know better than all of them, right?

 

[Belz...]

Very easily...like i said..there are 80+ floors of interlaced steel and concrete supported by an ever widening central section of 40+ columns...It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning

So, what you are saying is that you are just guessing ?

...further more there isn't a single official explanation that looks at this...the explanation is that there was some insubstantial fire, and that the planes impact weakened the structure in those key areas...if anything the top stories could have crumbled and fell to the ground...but there is nothing that says the bottom 80 had to fall as well.

That's ridiculous. The sheer mass of the top block would be, IMHO, more than enough to shatter the underlying floors in rapid succession. You GUESS that they couldn't, I GUESS that they could. Only evidence could break this deadlock, but all you've provided is opinions, either yours or otherwise.

I never said they were competent at all....are who are "you people"??? The level of competence you put in the government researchers, and analyst is astounding as well...

I don't do anything. All I'm saying is that experts and researchers are certainly more knowledgeable in their specialty than laypeople.

So what do you say about competence ? If they were smart enough to plan such a thing, and if, for some reason, the order in which the WTC toppled is suspicious, wouldn't you expect them NOT to make such a basic, stupid mistake ? Or, perhaps, the order of the collapse ISN'T suspicious.

 

[CurtC]

It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning...[bolding mine]

Do you actually have evidence that there is no way, or are you sticking with your Joe Sixpack assertion? The evidence we've seen seems to indicate that it can happen that way. You do realize that you have the burden of coming up with evidence, right?

if anything the top stories could have crumbled and fell to the ground...but there is nothing that says the bottom 80 had to fall as well.

So if the top 30-story section of a building falls and slams down onto the 75th floor, you think the 75th floor is just going to stop its fall?

 

[Hellbound]

It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning...

Yes, but it takes a complex, in-depth understanding of force, gravity, and material properties to realize why the "simple" understanding is incomplete.

This is why we prefer the opinions and explanations of experts (such as the vast majority of structural engineers), rather than lay people or those whose expertise is in a differing area.

 

[Belz...]

It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning

And by the way, it only takes a simple understanding of physics to know that, obviously, the world is flat: otherwise you'd notice a "curve" at the horizon, and people on the other "side" of the world would fall off.

Then again, "simple" understandings are rarely sufficient.

 

[PixyMisa]

It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning

The entire structure doesn't need to fail for part of the building to collapse. But part of the building collapsing can cause the entire structure to fail.

...further more there isn't a single official explanation that looks at this...the explanation is that there was some insubstantial fire, and that the planes impact weakened the structure in those key areas...if anything the top stories could have crumbled and fell to the ground...but there is nothing that says the bottom 80 had to fall as well.

The top stories did crumble and fall to the ground - through the rest of the building. With that much weight coming down on them, the remaining floors might as well have been made of tissue paper.

 

[study-the-facts]

thesyntaxera: as a fellow 911 truth researcher, I had to say bravo to you for your attempts at opening the eyes of this ridiculous group of know-it-alls. But I've learned in other forums that past a certain point, it becomes fruitless to continue responding to their uneducated replies.

As I wrote in one other thread in this forum:

Most of you egotistical know-nothings will never bother to put in the time necessary to uncover the truth of 911 - you'll simply sit at your typewriters and fire off your vapid responses, hoping to impress your equally clueless comrades.

To those of you who have ANY ability to see beyond your precious preconceived notions and actually study this subject, here's the latest article about Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones, a proponant of the WTC demolition theory. He's formed a group of 50 other scholars, all who agree with his assertions:
h t t p :/ / deseretnews.c o m /dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00. h t m l (remove spaces).

If even one of you pulls your over-sized head out of your posterior long enough to read this article (and the site it links to) it will be worth signing up to this forum just to post this reply.

That's it for me. Best of success in your pursuit of the facts, thesyntaxera.

 

[PixyMisa]

I can see that you're going to be a big success on these forums.

So what is it in Jones' latest paper that makes it less completely worthless than the previous one?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think I'll open a window. It smells like socks in here.

 

[Belz...]

thesyntaxera: as a fellow 911 truth researcher, I had to say bravo to you for your attempts at opening the eyes of this ridiculous group of know-it-alls. But I've learned in other forums that past a certain point, it becomes fruitless to continue responding to their uneducated replies.

Funny how people who are convinced of their own ideas accuse others of doing the same.

"When you're sure, question everything." - The Book of Cataclysm

Most of you egotistical know-nothings will never bother to put in the time necessary to uncover the truth of 911 - you'll simply sit at your typewriters and fire off your vapid responses, hoping to impress your equally clueless comrades.

Yeah. Insults. That'll work.

To those of you who have ANY ability to see beyond your precious preconceived notions and actually study this subject, here's the latest article about Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones, a proponant of the WTC demolition theory. He's formed a group of 50 other scholars, all who agree with his assertions:
h t t p :/ / deseretnews.c o m /dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00. h t m l (remove spaces).

All specialists in architecture, demolition, fire and explosives, I take it.

If even one of you pulls your over-sized head out of your posterior long enough to read this article (and the site it links to) it will be worth signing up to this forum just to post this reply.

That's it for me. Best of success in your pursuit of the facts, thesyntaxera.

Actually, all you guys are doing is chasing your own tails. That's not truth-searching.

 

[CurtC]

To those of you who have ANY ability to see beyond your precious preconceived notions and actually study this subject, here's the latest article about Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones, a proponant of the WTC demolition theory. He's formed a group of 50 other scholars, all who agree with his assertions:
h t t p :/ / deseretnews.c o m /dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00. h t m l (remove spaces).

Here's a direct link to your article: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html

But it's just a newspaper article, and one from Utah.

As an aside, it's telling that this Fetzer guy also believes in grand conspiracies in the JFK assassination, including the idea that the Zapruder film was doctored/faked. I guess critical thinking skills aren't his strong points.

I read some on the group's web page, and it looks like the same discredited arguments we've seen already. So Mr Facts, I'll ask you what we've been patiently asking of Syntax - what things in your opinion make the best case against the standard model? We just want a few, which Syntax had a problem with, he would post either none or 100.

 

[Belz...]

... It's pretty windy in here.

Seems like the woo have left the area.

bump.