You see, Child--er, Head, LOTS of people have successfully challenged your nonsense, but you have to be able to read what they say.
Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It
- Thread starter R.Mackey
- Start date
You see, Child--er, Head, LOTS of people have successfully challenged your nonsense, but you have to be able to read what they say.
Ryan, if "roundhead" is not the singularly vacuous "LastChild," he is a clone. It makes little difference. He is advancing ancient arguments that have been demolished many times and he displays no capacity for processing the information posted by others. That gets to the heart of the OT. It is impossible to "settle" an issue if one side always, as a tactic, argues in bad faith. Discussing an issue with Ace Baker is futile because, with all the good intentions and patience a human can muster, inevitably you end up back at square one. The fantasy movement does not want to "settle" disputes. All of these disputes are specious anyway; the fantasists have a purely emotional commitment to their mad beliefs that can't be shaken by appeals to reason.
I started a thread that asks to see evidence that the FBI is part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. Either the case has been solved or all the evidence has been fabricated. If the conspiracy liars want to maintain the latter position, then let's see something. Why should we believe that every bit of the mountain of evidence proving that nineteen jihadists hijacked four planes is fake? We rationalists are far too willing to engage the liars piecemeal, slapping down each separate steaming load as quickly as they, er, produce it. Let them tell us why the case hasn't been solved.
Welcome to the Forum.
I discuss this briefly in my whitepaper on Page 57 -- from a minimum energy perspective, the absolute optimal placement would be to cut columns of a single floor at about the 98-100th level. The steel at this elevation requires about 300 pounds of TNT to destroy, if we could assume 100% efficiency. In practice, even with perfect access to the steel, we are more likely to see efficiencies in the 10-25% range, so to be safe, let's call it 1200 pounds of TNT.
We really cannot rely upon sympathetic effects of the aircraft impact, largely because of uncertainties in exactly where and how the impact will occur. If anything, the impact is more likely to dislodge or burn our explosives and detonation system. It is unlikely our explosives would be located close to the impact zone, and if so, would have to be very heavily shielded and with considerable redunancy. I therefore believe 1200 pounds is a reasonable lower estimate.
This is not a totally inconceivable amount, provided one had open access to the structures, and provided one does not mind leaving a completely obvious sonic, seismic, and visual signature when they go off. It is these factors -- plus the absence of any compelling need for explosives in the first place -- that rule out the idea. While these explosives could be carried, they could not be silenced.
Be that as it may, I began this thread -- and only this thread -- with the clear stipulation that I will take requests from and deal respectfully with anyone, hoping to garner better questions through a unilateral cease-fire. In for a penny, in for a pound.
There are plenty of other opportunities on this Forum to blast each other and raise issues of moderation. Just not here.
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
I'm not an OT'er, but take a look at my Open Letter to Richard Gage (on a different thread), especially the linked videos. It doesn't answer your question, but I think it convincingly shows that conventional explosives were not involved in the collapses.
The amount of explosives would be small in terms of a practical application. All they really needed to do was take out 50% of the core column capacity on one floor. My guess is 100-500 kg based on data from demolition supply companies. However, it would have been VERY LOUD!
Please understand that I don't care about the name changes in the rogue's gallery. You started your thread by asking a fair question, a gentleman's question, but you are not dealing with gentlemen who play fairly. When you receive interesting questions, your answers invariably make the highlights reel. But, as you can see, you can spend most of your time whacking old, tired moles. With very few exceptions, fantasists simply aren't interested in learning anything about the events of 9/11. They have their comforting fables and they cling to them tenaciously.
Although you regard your uninformed guesses as Very Important, you tend to dismiss the opinions of demolition professionals who insist that many tons of explosives would be necessary for a controlled demolition. Conspiracy liars are not content to pretend that the Towers were brought down in a haphazard fashion. Making a rare concession to reality, they--some of them!-- acknowledge that the Towers fell down, as opposed to being blown up. The demolition was controlled. Now, those pesky demolition professionals keep insisting that this would have been a unprecedentedly monumental job, requiring teams of explosives experts and several months of prep work. And, yes, real demolitions feature those conspicuously absent simultaneous explosions near the base of the building.
If all I get are old, repeatedly debunked questions, that in itself is a valuable result.
Regarding "not dealing with gentlemen who play fairly," sometimes all that is needed is for one to take the first step. The pain is mine to accept if I'm being too optimistic, and I do.
Now, let's please return to topic.
Well, it's a valuable result to those of us who understand already that it's a valuable result. You, of course, get my point.
My question can be answered in the thread I started, but it is certainly appropriate here:
A massive, multi-agency investigation including 7,000 agents from the FBI alone identified the hijackers. If this statement is true, the fantasy movement ceases to exist. How would a fantasist attempt to persuade a rationalist that the entire mountain of evidence has been faked? Why should we believe that, for example, the DNA testing was an elaborate fraud and the passenger manifests were fabrications? Are the fantasists calling into question the methodologies which law enforcement agencies all over the world rely on? Aren't all fantasists, not merely the subset of deranged no-planers, challenging our ability to claim to know something about the real world? Is it possible to invent a conspiracy that doesn't include the FBI and the airlines?
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,316
Mackey and I don't differ much on this issue considering that he is taking out all the columns. You say controlled, and of course the demolition guys would do it neat and clean which would take more explosives and more time. I said take it down, which only requires compromising the core, and it would probably look more like what we saw on 9/11.
I don't want to press you on the silly demolition canard as you've made it clear that you don't buy the fantasy nonsense. How about my mega-question? Your hatred of America forces you to deny that this country was the victim of an unprovoked attack on 9/11/01. Tell us why the "crime" was not solved by the massive, multi-agency investigation. Why are we wrangling about this stuff in a conspiracy forum almost seven years after the event? If the passenger manifests showed the seating positions of the hijackers, what is the rest of this crap all about? You don't think that the Towers were blown up and jihadists hijacked planes: what exactly are you arguing?
There's no disputing that Gregory has distanced himself from other fantasists on the CD myth. I'm asking why he rejects the findings of the investigation that identified the hijackers. His heart is compelling him to swallow a myth that his head can't justify. I wonder about that.
RMackey, why has there been no attacks since? Did OBL get what he wanted? (if so, what was it?) Is there a shortage of terrorists in the USA? (borders are still wide open!) Why not do some the horribly nasty things we can all imagine they are capable of, if they really want to hurt the USA?
And yes, that is my critical question. I need to know why.
And yes, that is my critical question. I need to know why.
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
There have been terrorist attacks since then. There was the anthrax attack in the weeks after 9/11, there was the Madrid bombing, and there was the 7/7 London bombing. Plenty of other attempts (most of them ludicrous in execution) have been foiled.
There have been no other attacks on this country because America is doing what al-Qaeda wanted. They meant to goad us into removing our forces from Saudi Arabia and beginning an military occupation in the Middle East that they could exploit to their advantage. They aren't doing so hot in Iraq these days but they've more than compensated for that in their regrouping in Afghanistan/Pakistan. They may even get a life-and-death struggle for Israel out of the bargain.
Why should they attack us again? You don't beat the ox when he's treading out the grain.
There have been no other attacks on this country because America is doing what al-Qaeda wanted. They meant to goad us into removing our forces from Saudi Arabia and beginning an military occupation in the Middle East that they could exploit to their advantage. They aren't doing so hot in Iraq these days but they've more than compensated for that in their regrouping in Afghanistan/Pakistan. They may even get a life-and-death struggle for Israel out of the bargain.
Why should they attack us again? You don't beat the ox when he's treading out the grain.
I am forced to take issue with your premise -- there have been numerous attacks, and known attempted attacks, since then. Most of the more successful have been overseas, such as the London Underground, the Bali bombing, Spain, etc., but this is in no way inconsistent with bin Laden's stated goals or modus operandi.
If you are asking me to speculate, I would have to guess the reason is manifold:
- bin Laden did achieve many of his stated goals, such as striking at the American heartland and embroiling the US in wars overseas
- His operations are redirected towards keeping us involved in overseas wars, rather than having to start it all over again
- Military operations and capture of confederates has limited his ability to plan, his assets, and his access to funds
- More recently, it has become increasingly clear that Islamic scholars and community leaders are visibly rejecting his techniques, even in the most embattled areas
- He also might simply be retooling -- either focusing energy on an even bigger score (though I have no evidence of this) or suffering the usual middle-management revolt that inevitably strikes any organization after enough time
Could you be more specific? What do you think it means? I don't see anything out of the ordinary at all.
Thank you for your response.
Is it OBL's belief then that the USA's weakness can be exploited by involving the USA in a mid-east war?
Did OBL foresee that the 9/11 attacks would lead to war in Iraq?
How does attacking all over the world help him? Wouldn't that just add support to the USA cause?
If everything is going according to plan, then what is the next step?
If everything is not going according to plan, then why doesn't OBL make corrections?
Yes. He stated as much: "America appeared so mighty ... but it was actually weak and cowardly. Look at Vietnam, look at Lebanon. Whenever soldiers start coming home in body bags, Americans panic and retreat."
I don't believe so. His stratagem appeared to be to force a war in Afghanistan, which has broken armies for centuries.
It doesn't appear to. Instead, the attacks in Spain may have precipitated their change of government and withdrawal from the coalition in Iraq. Also, by attacking all over the world, he gains enormous prestige among other militant groups. It's a gamble, but one that doesn't seem to have hurt him.
I'm not sure what the "plan" is in detail. There is more than a hint of takfiri mysticism and fatalism in bin Laden, such as the legends of being bulletproof during jihad against the Soviets, etc. He may actually court martyrdom.
I'm also quite certain he is and has been making corrections continuously, within his resources, which are more limited than many believe. The simple fact is that terrorist attacks are not all that difficult to carry out. Our militaries are simply not designed to counter them.
1. I fear, the terrorist are better pilots than you are at being knowledgeable on 9/11 or flying. First point failed.
2. The pilots did not expect to get throats cut; number 2 failed.
3. Anyone can turn off the transponder, the terrorist had the books. failed
4. The largest office building in the world? failed. (btw, the terrorist had training in navigation, they had a VOR tuned in to DCA, it is right next to the Pentagon, they could have found the Pentagon with only 3 miles visibility! You need to study this stuff before making up junk ideas.)
5. Failed again, the dive was messy; you should cheat and look at the evidence. Gee, the G force was ugly, the stick was not steady. But even a kid with no training can hit the Pentagon or the WTC. Failed again.
6. Clipped light posts, going over 700 feet per second, fall away lamppost? Failed again. What does a lamppost do to the wing? Did you know in Italy, a Navy jet cut a cable supporting a ski-lift! The Navy jet made it back! Get some facts before you make up lies.
7. Sorry, the plane was in a descent right into the Pentagon. You should see the area before you make up lies.
The terrorist all had FAA tickets to fly, if you need help, please learn about 9/11 before making failed ideas up out of ignorance. I suspect you are not a pilot.
Is this the best you have?