• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

Hello Cowboy,

I see a lot of, 'may' or 'may haves' which signal a conjecture if I've ever seen one...and yet I still don't see an explanation as to what took down the core columns.
.
The greater strength of Floors 5 and 7 relative to the other floors
and the transfer trusses between these floors suggests that this region of the building played a key role in
destabilizing the remaining core columns, and the global collapse occurred with few external signs prior
to the system failure.

This is also from the NIST WTC 7 interm report.

They didn't have sensors located on every beam/connection to measure tensile forces, temperature and behavior of the steel at the time of the collapse so this and a metallurgical analysis of samples taken from the steel will be all the investigators have to go on.

Now I have a question (or two).

Do you believe that the NIST investigators are conspiring to missrepresent the collected data?

What would convince you that a controlled demolision did not occur?
 
Question 2: Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell according to NIST's report.

Red herring, loaded question, embedded assumptions, and the usual canard about "official story" but I'll answer. I only refer to WTC 1 and 2, as I don't care that much about WTC 7, and haven't followed the discussion on it as closely.

1. The Towers fell. There is ample visual evidence of that in both still and moving film. What does NIST have to do with that fact? Nothing.

2. Aircraft hit the towers, recorded on film and by eyewitnesses, the towers burned, and they then fell. Seismic recordings showed NO evidence of demolitions, which leave a particular signature. That isn't in NIST, but researchers here and elsewhere have found that out from the people who run those seismic sensors.

3. The enormous pile of twisted metal, and all that other stuff, that still burned internally for weeks after the collapse. A CD doesn't generally do that, while perhaps that is due to CD's usually being done by abandoned buildings whose office material/flammable matter is removed before they spend the weeks it takes to place charges. No evidence of placed charges, nor of cuting charges as erroneously described by Jones, was uncovered, despite his claims of residual thermat reactions. The FDNY documented fire fighting efforts for days and weeks after the collapse.

DR
 
Dang, I was WRONG! You guys we're right. Ahhhhhh. I can't deny this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Dangety dang dang. An invisible fire, with invisible exterior damage, collapsing all 47 steel structured stories at once...starting with the very top you might notice...that's just text book. You win. My bad for intruding.
 
and yet I still don't see an explanation as to what took down the core columns.

A tower divided will not stand. Also the fact that a plane cut through them compromised their structural integrity. Remember all but one stairwell being blocked? In both towers? except for the fact one stairwell took a detour from the typical floor plan to navigate around equipment. No one above the impact zones would have survived.
 
The explanation is there, but at this point it's still a working hypothesis so they have to use qualifiers.

Once the draft version of the final report is published in the spring we'll have more definite answers. This report will also test the plausibility of various hypothetical blast scenarios. I predict that they will find that controlled demolition couldn't have been the cause.
Exactly.

I wonder how the ct crowd is going to react when the final report on WTC 7 is released. Does anyone here think they will accept the findings?

Will socks ever go out of style?
 
Dang, I was WRONG! You guys we're right. Ahhhhhh. I can't deny this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Dangety dang dang. An invisible fire, with invisible exterior damage, collapsing all 47 steel structured stories at once...starting with the very top you might notice...that's just text book. You win. My bad for intruding.


Sockboy, we have answered your question. Please proceed.

-Gumboot
 
An invisible fire, with invisible exterior damage, collapsing all 47 steel structured stories at once...starting with the very top you might notice...that's just text book.

I'll reiterate (by paraphrasing) my reply from another thread on this handicapped sentence.

Simply not being able to see something doesn't make it invisible. Please tell me you understand this concept. When you were a kid, did you ever see a family member walk through a door and out of your line of sight? Did you think they all of the sudden became invisible? Is this what you still think? Please say it isn't so.
 
Last edited:
Question 2: Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell according to NIST's report.

Ok I’ll play along with this.

1. Not a single institute of professional engineers in any disciple from any where on the planet disagrees with NIST and openly support the controlled demolition theory. Equally so there is not a single scientific journal on the planet that will entertain any of these theories.

2. There is not a shred of evidence to support the theory that the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

3. The Towers started to collapse at the exact point the planes hit and collapsed from the top down. The collapse of WTC 7 was broadcast live, I saw it, and I heard no explosions. There are no audio recordings of the alleged explosions inside WTC 7.
 
Dang, I was WRONG! You guys we're right. Ahhhhhh. I can't deny this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Dangety dang dang. An invisible fire, with invisible exterior damage, collapsing all 47 steel structured stories at once...starting with the very top you might notice...that's just text book. You win. My bad for intruding.

The Common Conspiracy Nut (Paranoidus Simplicitus) When confronted by its primary foe: Logic and Critical Thought, will often revert to a weak form of sarcasm and unoriginal, falt satire as a desperate technique to sooth itself and attempt to save itself. However, Critical Thought is a mean little elf, and will cut right through the poor attempt at satire and sarcasm, thus not saving the Common Conspriacy Nut.

But you can save with Mutual of Omaha! Contact your agent today!
 
Question 2: Name the top three pieces of hard evidence that absolutely convinces you that the towers all fell according to NIST's report.

1. No audio of explosives in any of the 3 collapses.

2. CDs don't start from the top and go down.

3. The people who worked on the NIST report show their work.
 
28 K,

We have answered question two with a myriad of options. Please proceed.

-Gumboot
 
Hello Cowboy,

I see a lot of, 'may' or 'may haves' which signal a conjecture if I've ever seen one...and yet I still don't see an explanation as to what took down the core columns.

Okay, this annoys me.

Everyone who's ever studied science knows that you basically never make strong absolute statements, as all analysis is potentially falsifiable. We never have perfect knowledge of anything, let alone an unexpected disaster like the building collapses on 9/11, and this means we can never be 100% convinced of our findings. Hence the use of words like "may", "probably" and "it is likely that".

This willingness to admit the possibility of error is the greated strength of science, not a weakness. It really galls me when uneducated ignoramuses continue to harp on this as if it proves something other than we know we're not perfect.

In fact, a good guideline to knowing if you should trust someone's opinions is how often they make assertions of complete knowledge or understanding. The more they make, the less you can rely on them.

Now, how many times have you made absolutist type statements, just in this thread alone? Quite a few. Therefore, I conclude that your opinion is most likely utterly worthless.

ETA:

9490457867329d6d2.jpg
94904574d8b0e3f1c.jpg
 
Last edited:
[long-rambling-excursion]

When I was a child, I was a member of the Churches of Christ. We had all the marks of fundamentalism except for the end-time beliefs - we were more of the "Jesus shows up, that's the end" type. There won't be many members of the CoC buying copies of "Left Behind," shall we say.

We had some other peculiar beliefs for Christians - we were what's called water regenerationalists. That means we believed the Bible taught that you had to be baptized (fully submerged under water) for the express purpose of God forgiving your sins at that moment, in order for God to actually remove your sins. Also, no instruments of music in worship except for voices, and communion every Sunday. Christmas and Easter were secular holidays only - we put the Santa into Christmas, but I only knew it was Easter because the preacher's sermon that day was invariably "Why We Don't Celebrate Easter." (it was the communion every Sunday thing, plus Jesus didn't tell us to, or Paul, same thing).

Yes, we thought we were the only ones going to heaven. That wasn't our fault - we were doing what the Bible said! People standing on the beach are not standing in the ocean. You know, typical Christian stuff.

We were also big on the door knocking thing. The best method I'd ever seen our community produce for getting people to understand our peculiar beliefs was a series of brightly colored four page pamphets. Each pamphlet had a series of questions connected to a passage of Scripture. We would turn to the passage in the willing person's own Bible and they would read the passage. Then we would ask the question. They were simple questions - where does Paul say to make melody? (in your heart).

It was a progressive thing. If a person had a problem with a question, you stopped and you talked out that question. You didn't let them bring up lots of other things, you dealt only with the question at hand. And at the end, the person could see completely that we were the only ones going to heaven!

"What does the Bible say, Eric? In your heart. Let me hear you say it."

I never could make it work well. I wasn't enough of a salesman. I expected the product to sell itself. And the reactions of people bothered me. Once they realized the nature of the study guide, they'd look at it like a knife. It was fundamentally unfair. Of course, we didn't look at it that way. We thought it was a clear way of showing people the Light, the Truth. How that little tract judged us without our knowing it. If somebody couldn't see the Truth after this clear exhibition of it, then where are their hearts?

It was more for our benefits than our converts-to-be. It gave us comfort in our exclusion of the world. Sure, people would bite - people who bite are always among us, and each conversion was celebrated like slot machine mavens crowing over three cherries. I realize that now. Perhaps I doubted even then that we had it oh, so right, and everyone else had it oh, so wrong. But no. I believed.

True believers don't just need an echo chamber to reinforce their own beliefs. They need to get out in the fray. The belief system that survives skeptical inquiry becomes the stronger for it. And belief systems have more weapons in their arsenal than the facts properly interpreted and emphasized.

Especially if the battle is more for the fighter's benefit than the victory's.

[/long-rambling-excursion]
 

Back
Top Bottom