Loose Change

[RandFan]

So the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE),
the state of New York,
the New York City Department of Design and Construction,
the Structural Engineers Association of New York,
the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations,
the National Fire Protection Association,
the Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
the American Concrete Institute,
the American Institute of Steel Construction,
the Masonry Society,
the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
the Federal Advisory Committee,
the NYPD,
the FBI,
the Secret Service,
the CIA,
the New York Port Authority,
the NYFD,
the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute,
United Airlines,
the US Department of Defense,
the US Department of Justice,
the US Department of State,
North American Aerospace Defense Command,
the National Military Command Center,
the Federal Aviation Administration,
the Pentegon,
the Counterterrorism and Security Group,
the US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command,
Otis Air National Guard Base,
Langley Air Force Base,
Andrews Air Force Base,
Offutt Air Force Base,
the Air National Guard,
three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes,
the New York flight control center,
the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington,
the La Guardia Airport control tower,
the New York Times,
the Boston Globe,
the Wall Street Journal,
the Washington Post,
Newsday,
United Press International,
Associated Press,
CNN,
ABC,
NBC,
CBS,
and Emma E. Booker Elementary School were all cooperating in a widespread conspiracy to conduct a controlled demolition, thereby reducing the WTC to a pile of rubble, provide misinformation to the American public, and divert attention from the REAL culprits -- the government?

Holy bat crap Robin...

RayG

Yup, but you are a troll if you don't buy that. Go do some research you coward.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

And to that list the tiger that killed JFK. I'm certain he was in on the 9/11 deal too.

 

[Curnir]

I didn't "intimate you claimed that", I'm merely using sarcasm to ridicule you.

Oh no! Sarcasm whatever shall I do?

The problem here is that it is you who are being dishonest (not very sly, however). You're trying to capitalize on the fact that the term "conspiracy theorist" has a negative connotation in popular culture, and that people who identify as such are typically nutty, eccentric, or are otherwise not credible.

Dishonest? Oh my...

Now, after I exposed your subtle attack,

Ha ha ha ha ha.

you attempt to redefine the term by distinguishing between legitimate conspiracy theorists, such as law enforcement,

Only after you implied that I claimed that there were no such thing as a conspiracies...

and illegitimate conspiracy theorists, such as people who believe governments have lied and gotten away with murder, but either can't prove it or don't have the resources to expose the truth.

Which is the normal definition of 'conspiracy theorist'...

Then you use the method of bracketing, or what I like to call "negative association" in an attempt to discredit me by associating every ridiculous and impossible theory dreamed up by television producers and/or imaginative people, with very real criminal conspiracies populated by conspirators who have thus far eluded justice.

No I was merely decribing what I thought of when I heard/read 'conspiracy theory'

In summary, conspiracies exist, and occur all of the time.

I never claimed otherwise

Conspirators are typically brought to justice by conspiracy theorists, usually in the form of law enforcement.

I never claimed that Law Enforment never caught criminals.

Conspiracies vary in the number of conspirators, and the scope of the crimes.

Aye.

Conspiracy theorists are a diverse group of skeptics with no presumption of a consensus on anything, let alone far-fetched, implausible, and irrelevant theories.

By your definition of the word...

The fact that you resort to these subtle and deceptive methods of attempting to discredit me is just evidence of your own ignorance, and lack of facts with respect to the specific discussion at hand.

Then educate me, show me the evidence. Not just conjecture, speculation,cherrypicked photos and false assumptions

You repeating the words "conspiracy" and "theory" ad nauseum may discredit me in the eyes of some here.

What other words should I use when trying to defend myself against your implications (you know where you implied that I claimed that there were no such thing as conspiracies...). And I have not tried to discredit you, there's no need for that you do such and admirable job of it yourself.

Fortunately, these aren't the type of people I'm trying to convince.

So you admit that you are here to troll the board?

 

[Alek]

Not unusual when he comes from a forum that is very willnig to ban and censor dissenting opinions.

Uh, I registered on this forum before the LC forum, genius.

 

[Ducky]

Uh, I registered on this forum before the LC forum, genius.

Registration to a forum that can be viewed anonymously does not establish how long you lurked, but regardless, it is clear to which forum you feel more attached.

 

[Shrinker]

Hey! Thanks for at least linking to my post after you took me out of context. I do appreciate that.

You're welcome, but these statements of yours (quoted below) are perfectly self contained. Please show how the context makes them look any less hypocritical and pompous. The debate has moved on so I'm going to let you have the last word on this. Knock yourself out. Hell, rewrite the context if you want. Write anything that makes the guy who stands by these four statements sound logical and rational....

It doesn't make sense to argue with people who refuse to entertain the possibility that your argument may be correct, does it? That pretty much sums up my experience at the JREF forum.

Personally, it isn't likely that anyone, whether they're considered to be an "expert", or whether they have a PhD behind their name is going to convince me that the WTC 7 building wasn't a controlled demolition. My own intelligence and intuition are paramount on this matter.

 

[Indolent Wretch]

Reason can collapse just as easily

Well sometimes you can just mooch around the net and then come across the site of a train wreck of a thread, and it hurts that you missed it unfurl.

But my lord what a glorious wreck of reasoning Alek has laid out before us. I'll just pick one.

It sounds like they're putting the cart before the horse here. Have they already assumed a significant reduction in structural strength due to fire occured?

Well shucks I don't know, they're civil and structural engineers who have experience in matters not necessarily of this scale but certainly of this type. The buildings WERE ON FIRE after being hit BY TWO FREAKING 1000KPH JETLINERS. What in Satans Portion would you have them check for, GREMLINS REMOVING ALL THE RIVETS!


Do yourself a favour Alek, stop listening to other people, and stop letting them do your thinking for you. Not them, Them or us.

Think about what happened, actually think about it, don't be someone elses mouthpiece.

look up the maths and work out the energy involved when a 120,000KG Jet at 950KPH hits another object.

Work our how much fuel and other combustibles were involved.

Look up the details on the structure of the building, how the pillars were protected, the fragility of the material used to do so and the way the floors were supported.

Look up all the information on how steel loses 50% of it's strength at a moderately low temperature and think about how that would have reduced the load bearing capabilities of an already damaged floor.

Think about how the collapse of one floor would increase the load on the one below.

Think about the torque and torsion acting against weakened steel pillars.

Think about all of these things yourself and try and do it without any massively preconceived notions. Think about how likely is one thing above another, think about how hard it must be to keep a 'conspiracy' like this a secret.

Close you eyes and imagine the poor building and play out the events in your head and just go with the flow.

Do something.

But don't just keep believing what you read or see, it just leaves you as a follower of the deluded or the corrupt. If after everything you still can't believe the buildings fell the way they did because of their design and because they were hit by a 950KPH 120Kt missile then tell us what you think did it not what other people have told you to think.

 

[Indolent Wretch]

Ooohh the reply of the beast

I'm the 666th reply to the original thread.... Just more fuel for the conspiracy fire.

 

[Alek]

It was requested you start a new thread on that, not continue here. DO you read english?

Uh, the fact that I don't take orders doesn't have anything to do with my ability to read english.

How about addressing the points made since that?

Edited by Darat: 

Rule 8 breach removed.

Alex removed the previous edit I made of his breach of Rule 8 therefore he has been suspended for 7 days. Any similar behaviour once the suspension is lifted will result in a ban.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: darat

 

[Alek]

That analysis makes a calculation of the total heat released when the gasoline undergoes combustion. It's conclusions would be correct if the plane had spread the fuel through the building, and then someone lit a match. An explosion is quite different in terms of the amount of energy dumped into the surroundings. Compare what an exploding gastank would do to a car, with what would happen if the gas were dumped on the car and set on fire.

That analysis has lots of impressive numbers but starts with a false assumption.

The explosive energy of the jet fuel was only destructive enough to blow out the windows, this according to the ASCE report that was linked earlier. Do you have evidence that indicates otherwise?

 

[Alek]

Well sometimes you can just mooch around the net and then come across the site of a train wreck of a thread, and it hurts that you missed it unfurl.

But my lord what a glorious wreck of reasoning Alek has laid out before us. I'll just pick one.





Well shucks I don't know, they're civil and structural engineers who have experience in matters not necessarily of this scale but certainly of this type. The buildings WERE ON FIRE after being hit BY TWO FREAKING 1000KPH JETLINERS. What in Satans Portion would you have them check for, GREMLINS REMOVING ALL THE RIVETS!

I would have them do a forensic investigation, as if it were the biggest crime scene on earth. Or, is Bush and the FBI's word that Osama Bin Laden did it enough to simply call off an investigation?

Do yourself a favour Alek, stop listening to other people, and stop letting them do your thinking for you. Not them, Them or us.

I'm not the lapdog being spoon fed lies here. If I let other people do my thinking for me, then I would be like you.

Think about what happened, actually think about it, don't be someone elses mouthpiece.

I've thought about it ever since it happend.

look up the maths and work out the energy involved when a 120,000KG Jet at 950KPH hits another object.

How many jets hit the World Trade Center 7 building?

Work our how much fuel and other combustibles were involved.

Already been done, read the fire analysis I linked earlier. The jet-fuel weakening steel theory is bunk.

Look up the details on the structure of the building, how the pillars were protected, the fragility of the material used to do so and the way the floors were supported.

Now the building is fragile, because you say it is?

Look up all the information on how steel loses 50% of it's strength at a moderately low temperature and think about how that would have reduced the load bearing capabilities of an already damaged floor.

It's 600C. I've thought about it. Still not convinced.

Think about how the collapse of one floor would increase the load on the one below.

Think about the torque and torsion acting against weakened steel pillars.

Yeah. Thanks for the sage advice. Maybe if I "think" some more, I'll be as enlightened as you are. I can only hope.

Think about all of these things yourself and try and do it without any massively preconceived notions. Think about how likely is one thing above another, think about how hard it must be to keep a 'conspiracy' like this a secret.

It doesn't have to be a secret. Hardly anyone is capable of believing it could be true anyway.

Close you eyes and imagine the poor building and play out the events in your head and just go with the flow.

Go with the flow. Indeed. Follow the lemmings off of the cliff.

Do something.

But don't just keep believing what you read or see, it just leaves you as a follower of the deluded or the corrupt. If after everything you still can't believe the buildings fell the way they did because of their design and because they were hit by a 950KPH 120Kt missile then tell us what you think did it not what other people have told you to think.

I already have. You just aren't listening.

 

[Alek]

You're welcome, but these statements of yours (quoted below) are perfectly self contained. Please show how the context makes them look any less hypocritical and pompous. The debate has moved on so I'm going to let you have the last word on this. Knock yourself out. Hell, rewrite the context if you want. Write anything that makes the guy who stands by these four statements sound logical and rational....

It's pretty straightforward for those who can read english. Nothing I said was either hypocritical or pompous. All of what I said is reasonable. Why should one bother to argue with those who aren't willing to accept the possibility that they're wrong? It amounts to nothing more than mutual masturbation.

As for the WTC 7, I made a specific statement concerning what I know about how it collapsed. The video evidence is overwhelming. I'm not going to be lied to and led around by "experts", or ignorant, patronizing, so-called skeptics. My own intelligence and intuition have served me well. The NIST has no viable hypothesis for why this building fell. The burden is on the government apologists, like you, to explain why it fell. If you put me in context, it means I accept the possibility that I'm wrong about it, but there had damn well better be extraordinary proof. I don't see that coming from the likes of you or your pals here anytime soon, frankly.

 

[Gravy]

I'm the 666th reply to the original thread.... Just more fuel for the conspiracy fire.

I don't have a reference for it, and a brief Google hasn't helped, but I've read that due to a mistranslation in the Book of Revelations, the number of the Beast is actually 653. I AM feeling beastly this morning.

 

[Euromutt]

I'd rather not talk about motive, or politics. I'd rather concentrate on the facts about 9/11.

As any reader of detective novels knows, the three cardinal elements of identifying a suspect in a criminal investigation are establishing means, opportunity and motive. The only reason I can surmise for your being unwilling to discuss motive is because you can't come up with a plausible motive which fits your predetermined conclusion. Which means you don't actually have a case. You can go on about the combustion temperature of jet fuel and the tensile strength of steel all day, but if you can't provide a plausible argument why the US government, or certain elements within it, would have orchestrated the events of 9/11, it's all so much hot air.

 

[Alek]

Stop editing my posts, or ban me. I've had enough of the patronizing ignorance here anyway.

 

[Alek]

I did it again. Ban me.

Have fun in the camps after the government sponsored biological weapons attack.

 

[Belz...]

In summary, conspiracies exist, and occur all of the time. Conspirators are typically brought to justice by conspiracy theorists, usually in the form of law enforcement.

Yeah. Don't they usually involve 2-3 people ?

 

[Z]

Stop editing my posts, or ban me. I've had enough of the patronizing ignorance here anyway.

The only person acting truly ignorant on this thread, Alek, is you. You'd take the word of a few college videos, and a couple of whack-job websites, over actual detailed analysis of the physics and chemical reactions involved. Evidence has been offered to you, multiple times, as to how a common house fire can reach sufficient temperatures to soften steel in under three minutes. You choose to ignore that evidence, because that evidence indicates that a basic fire could have brought down all three buildings with ease. That they stayed standing as long as they did is amazing.

And on top of that, you honestly believe - against all evidence and the admission of the two guilty parties and their collaberators - that the government was behind the OKC bombing. You also honestly believe that JFK was assassinated as part of a government plot, and that our government has weather-control technology beyond cloud-seeding.

In short, you're not a skeptic at all.. you're a creduloid who blindly and mutely accepts what you're told, if it makes the government seem more evil and underhanded to you, while stubbornly denying any evidence at all, if it weakens your precious theories. For example, you keep begging for people to watch the Alex Jones video, yet I highly doubt you've looked into the claims of that video for yourself.

OK, keep it relevant to 9/11 - how much actual fact-checking have you done on that front? What research have you done on the resulting temperatures of office fires over extended periods, on the weakening points and buckling points of steel during stress, or on what actually happened to the buildings themselves - or the resulting steel debris, some of which is STILL being studied by qualified engineers?

Or do you just watch conspiracy videos and read conspiracy web-sites, and think you're getting the whole truth?

You're a willfully ignorant troll, a creduloid, and a total idiot for blindly believing what you've been told by the C-T crowd. I'm not saying you should blindly accept the government theory, either - I don't. But I think the facts point to the truth lying somewhere more moderate on both sides. I also think we don't have enough facts to make a qualified judgement as to what's REALLY going on.

I do think that two airplanes crashing into the two towers caused sufficient fire and structural damage to lead to the collapse of both towers, and that the collateral damage from the collapse was sufficient to cause WTC-7 to burn sufficiently long enough to collapse as well - given the additional damage caused to the south side of the building.

It's the facts around Osama and Bush that I'm cynical of... and the resulting use of 9/11 as an excuse for Bush to go after Saddam that I question.

Alek, I bid you farewell. If you continue on your current course, you will undoubtably be banned. Only because you're being incivil, abusive, and foul-mouthed. Willful ignorance and stubborn refusal to consider evidence is never a cause for banning here - just ask Ignorant Ian!

 

[Belz...]

Are you serious? Your reading comprehension is poor.

You know, Alek. If you don't want people to insult you, perhaps you should return the favor.

The point is, evidence contradicts the official theory and supports a controlled demolition. Neither is the top-down near free-fall collapse of the buildings evidence against a controlled demolition.

Not against, but not in favor of.

What is speculation is the notion that kerosene caused hydrocarbon fires in excess of 280 Celsius in the towers, and that the 47 core columns of the towers were damaged by the airplanes, and that cellulosic fires in the 47 story WTC 7 were responsible for its spectacular collapse.

Like WildCat said, 1400 degrees in a HOUSE fire. No Kerosene there.

Wow. So a group of so-called skeptics here thinks Oswald was the lone gunman, and that the magic bullet theory on which this all depends, is true.

Ooohhh... you believe in THAT CT too ? Tell me, Alek. Wouldn't it be MUCH easier for the instigators of this conspiracy to ONLY send Oswald for the murder ? Wouldn't a single person with a gun be enough to kill another person ? Get your facts straight.

 

[Z]

My guess is, he believes in every Evil Gub'ment conspiracy.

He might even think the Evil Gub'ment faked the lunar landings, too.

I bet 1984 would be one of his favorite books - if he ever learned to read books.