No Explosives Here?

bump for "I was there" atavisms

Could you please symmetrically answer this piece of debris?
carlitos said:
atavisms said:
Many of us who were there on 9/11 believe it.
...
I was there ...
Click to expand...
Where were you exactly on the morning of 11-September, 2001? What were you doing that morning that gave you more exposure to this event than the rest of us?
Click to expand...
 
atavisms said:
I appreciate your reply..and wish it was correct..but I'll tell you why I believe you are not correct... (mistruths, misconceptions, and distortions of reality snipped)
Click to expand...

Oh, my goodness, your post is so choked full of misconceptions and lack of understanding that it's amazing. I will have to deal with this in multiple posts. This first one will just deal with the most general concepts; I may a point by point later. That depends on how I feel. But: Atavism. You do not understand the construction of the towers, nor the failure modes that occurred, nor the collapse scenario or the evidence supporting such. You need to learn those. It is vital that you undertand the basic details of the collapse in order to understand what we're telling you. Start here:

Construction of the Towers:
Start with the FEMA "403" report (aka the "Building Performance Study"). Yes, ignore their information about the collapse itself, that has been superceded by the NIST report. Instead, concentrate on their description of the towers construction:
Articles in journals, such as the one listed below, are also good starting points.
When you read those, look for and digest others. Eventually work your way up to the relevant subreport of the NIST Study. Specifically, for details of the towers construction, you want to read NCSTAR 1-1A.

Critical point - If you take away nothing else from those links, understand the following. They are BASIC and CRITICAL concepts you NEED to internalize before you continue discussing the collapses with us:
  • The vertical load bearing structures - the columns - were totally dependent on the horizontal elements (the floor trusses? Someone clarify that for me, please) - to stay upright. Columns bore gravity loads alone.
  • Those horizontal elements braced the columns, and it was the construction as a whole that was able to resist stresses like wind loads, weight of the floors and contents, etc.
  • Because of this interdependence of structural elements, the takeaway lesson is that the strength of the towers depended on the structures' integrity.
Once you're exposed to the basics of the towers construction, learn the basics of the failure.
And then the penultimate analyses of the collapses: The relevant subreports of the NIST study:
This is the difficult thing to comprehend from all that information, and will take some time to internalize (it's taken me 2 years so far, and I'm still going at it) but the bottom line is this:
  • Impact of Flights 11 and 175 severed structural elements, forcing a transfer of gravity loads onto other elements in the towers. At this point, the structures are already compromised, but neither has failed yet. The remaining elements of the structure are bearing the additional load, but at this point are stressed in directions they're not designed to handle stresses in.
  • The impact of the jets also dislodged the fire resistant material from parts of the remaining steel components.
  • The fires that were started by the impacts were widespread and encompassed multiple floors all at once. These fires affected the now exposed steel elements.
  • The now exposed elements lost their load bearing capabilities. At a mere 500 to 600 oC, the sort of steel used in the towers lost around half of their load bearing capacity.
  • Furthermore, heated steel expands. Do a forum search for "steel", "Viscoelastic creep" (or just creep), "expansion", and read the posts. The architects and engineers here in the forum can go into more detail on this.
  • A combination of the steel losing its load bearing capacity and expanding as well led to further distortion of the structure, resulting in both the inward bowing that was noticed and recorded in photos and videos (that was due to the floor trusses sagging and pulling the columns inward) as well as stressing of the connection points. This was a dynamic, evolving situation: As the fires continued, the steel continued to creep and lose load bearing capacity. As elements expanded and sagged, more load got transferred in more axes than what the individual components were designed to take, and those elements got stressed even further, deformed even further, and contributed to a continually deteriorating situation.
  • After a certain point, the capacity of the unsevered components in the fire and impact zones were reduced far enough for the weight of the floors above to fall. Once the upper floor masses were moving, the forces were amplified because they were now moving.
  • The first intact floor below the collaps initiation zone might or might not have been barely able to resist the nonmoving mass of the segments above (consensus is that it still would not have), but it was unquestioningly unable to resist or even significantly slow down the moving mass. The next floor below then faced an even bigger mass (the upper section plus the newly failed floor immediately above) that was continually accelerating, the combination of the two resulting in greater force being applied. This continued until the falling mass encountered an element finally able to stop it's fall: The ground.
The above amounts to a basic understanding of the towers collapse. If you are not working from that point, you are not describing or discussing the Twin Towers collapse. Anything you state that is outside of the parameters constitutes a failure to understand reality. Please grasp the above before proceeding with any other claims regarding the towers. I shall deal with the specific errors of your post when I can.

Note to engineers and architects in this forum: If you see any errors in the above, please feel free to correct them. Getting points right is far more important than personal ego involvement, and I'll need correction if anything has been screwed up.
 
Last edited:
atavisms said:
... On 9/11: Keep it simple & factual. ...
Click to expand...
Your moronic posts prove you can't do factual analysis of anything to do with 911. Is this simple enough to explain your idiotic delusions?

Simple and factual; if your delusions were rational facts you would have a Pulitzer Prize.

You are right, keeping it simple proves you have only delusions to offer on 911.
 
atavisms said:
"No evidence of explosives"? Unless you're completely ignoring reality!!

The photographic and video evidence clearly reveal the towers being systematically blown outward with high explosive forces. This refutes any possibility of it being gravity (impact damage, jet fuel, fires and gravity) alone acting on the structures. Fires cause gradual deformations and could not possibly account for the observed and resulting events.

On 9/11: Keep it simple & factual.
.

No one has refuted (how could they?!) the basic facts revealed in Harrit et.s paper; that the elemental composition confirms a hightech, nanoengineered aluminothermic explosive. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/... Isn't that simple & factual enough for you?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Point by point rebuttal, part I

There is a lot of nonsense to be dealt with here, all forwarded by one poster: Atavisms. Let me just tackle the big ones for now. This is the first part of a multipost refutation:

atavisms said:
re: "Impact damage" The impacts did not cause the collapse of these 'highly redundant buildings' -Thomas Eager, MIT) Thomas Eager wrote what is essentially an article pretending to be a paper explaining the OCT (or how the twin towers turned to dust from only fire and gravity in 56 & 102 minutes) **all you have to do is see his photo of "Resulting Fires" -he shows the fireballs, heh..whaddahdik! its incredible nonsense anyone can see through (sorry I will not link it, findit urself).
Click to expand...

The only substantial elements of that paragraph are the following:

  • "'highly redundant buildings'":
    You do not understand what he's talking about here. The "redundancy" as was clearly stated in that article was based on the interconnectiveness. It was clearly stated in the sentence where he mentions the shifting of the loads to unsevered columns. Once again, the structures capacities depended on load paths remaining intact. Once they were compromised - as they were by the jet impacts, and further compromised by the fires - the buildings ability to resist collapse was terribly weakened.

    Using a statement highlighting one of the main design elements that lead to the collapse as an argument against collapse is illogical in the extreme. Refer back to my previous post and read the articles I linked. "Redundancy" became irrelevent because the redundancy depended on integrity, which was taken away by the impacts and reduced by the fires.

  • "turned to dust from only fire and gravity in 56 & 102 minutes":
    Being "turned to dust" did not happen. That is a truther talking point only, and is contradicted by 1. Images from Ground Zero, 2. The fact that construction subcontractors were needed to disassemble the debris, and 3. The presence of much heavy machinery. Here is a small image repository I built:

    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/album.php?albumid=280

    Any single one of those pictures by themselves refute the "turned to dust" misrepresentation you forward. And they do so well before you consider either of the other two points I raised.

    Furthermore, you leave out the impact damage. And when the structure fails, you cannot deny the incredibly large release of energy that occurs. That's more than enough to destroy the structure, especially considering that you don't need to overcome the strength of all the materials as a whole, you need only overcome the strength of the connection points.
The rest of that paragraph is some odd, nonsensical diatribe against Eager that doesn't merit any response whatsoever.

atavisms said:
Consider:
110 storey WTC 1/2 were leveled in 15-17 seconds
47 storey WTC 7 in 6-7 seconds.
Both in well documented, and extremely revealing ways.
Click to expand...

There is nothing unusual about the main towers collapse times, nor of 7 World Trade's. Basic reading:

atavisms said:
"No evidence of explosives"? Unless you're completely ignoring reality!!
Click to expand...
Correct, there are no remains. Zero. Furthermore, what evidence that does exist contradicts the use of explosives. I told you this back on September 25th and on September 29th in two different posts covering different topics of evidence; you seem to have allowed yourself to forget. One more time:

  • The recovered structural elements - columns as well as floor trusses, etc. - showed ZERO signs of having been severed due to explosive forces. As a matter of fact, the only sorts of stresses they show signs of having experienced are mechanical ones induced by overload. Again, refer to NCSTAR 1-3C and examine the data gathered about those pieces as well as the images of them yourself. They show absolutely no signs whatsoever of having separated from each other due to explosives. Repeat: No signs whatsoever. This evidence is incontrovertible.
  • Explain why Winter Garden had panes of glass still remaining if explosives had been used. Furthermore, explain the patterns of barotraumatic injuries. There were literally more cases with the Madrid and each individual Israeli bus bombing than there was on 9/11, and they were severe injuries.

    The bottom line here is that two independent lines of fact - the lack of complete damage to a structure that was nearly completely glass, as well as the lack of pneumatically induced traumas, as well as specific types of such - are lines of fact that contradict any possibility of explosives use whatsoever. This, too, is incontrovertible.
The reality is more than that there were zero remains of explosives left over. The reality is that the totality of the evidence contradicts the proposal.

(to be continued)
 
Point by point rebuttal, part II

(continued)
atavisms said:
U'r talking about "accelerating mass continuing to mostly hit floors" and ignoring the cores. Floors crashing down one atop the next would not only experience conservation of momentum and be much slower than the observed explosive collapses.. but this also completely ignores the disappearance (and utter destruction!) of the massive steel coreS.
Click to expand...

No, I did not ignore the cores. What you're ignoring is that the way the structure failed negated any chance of the cores continuing to support their own weight, let alone the force of the falling upper floors. I refer you back to my "basics" post because you are badly deficient in your knowledge. You do not understand how the towers were constructed, and you do not understand the details of the collapse event. You need to learn all that before you can claim any knowledge of the event.

To review the concepts in that post:
  • Basic structural knowledge: The construction of the towers is that the cores have no lateral bracing other than what the floor trusses provide. The floor trusses connect the perimeter and the core columns in a structure that can stand. Remove any component of that system - the perimeter columns, the floor trusses, etc. - and the other two cannot remain in place. Period.

    In simple language: Once the floors go, the cores cannot stand, let alone support their own weight as a structure, let alone stop or even significantly slow the falling mass of the upper segment. Understanding this point is critical.

  • As I said before, the impacts severed some columns and caused others to take more strain. Fires set off by the impacts weakened the steel in the affected areas. After a time, they gave way. They had to. The entire impact and fire zone, as well as all the floors above it impacted the first floor underneath. This resulted in:
    • That first floor having no lateral support at the tops of the columns in that area.
    • That first floor only having the connections between the floor trusses and columns as the means to stopping the falling upper segment.
    • The columns in the area immediately below the fire/impact/collapse initiation zone being further compromised by the loss of this first floor to the falling upper mass, as well as debris impacting those columns in all sorts of directions. Recall: The columns could only bear loads in one direction, and that was straight down, and that's while the tower is intact. It wasn't, and the collisions came from nearly every other direction.
    • This "unzipping" of columns released more floors to the descending mass. This continued until the ground was reached.
To wrap up: You cite "conservation of momentum" as if the upper section had to overcome the inertia of the floors. No. The only things that had to be overcome were the connections between the floor (horizontal) elements and the columns. The falling upper sections never, ever had to confront the inertia of the floors. All it had to do was sever the connections between the floor trusses and the columns, and gravity moved the floors. If you calculate the momentum of the falling mass and simply compare it to the inertia of the lower section, then you fail in your understanding of the collapse dynamics because you fail to understand where the energy of the collisions went. There was never, ever any need to overcome the inertia of a single floor, let alone the collective inertia of the lower segments.


atavisms said:
Your main argument is refuted by the fact that the Towers were designed to do just that; support many times their real world weight, even in gale force winds.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Click to expand...

This is a total nonsequitor. Not only are "gale force winds" not in the direction the collapses were, but again, the ability to bear loads was completely dependent on the structure remaining intact. Since it did not, nothing you say about multiples of its own weight matter.
 
Point by point rebuttal, part III

(continued)

atavisms said:
Both buildings were hit high above.., in the case of the north tower, 15 floors from the roof.. How can we imagine that the lightest parts (the top) could (like a "pile driver" we are asked to believe) pulverize itself ( I mean, 'themselves') in midair, to ground level with such powerful lateral energies? (800 foot debris field, tens of thousands of body parts etc)

The towers' cores alone could hold up several times the weight of each building, and then there were all those perimeter columns. All of them got thicker and stronger as they went lower down, the larger WTC (1&2's 47 massive) box columns in the cores were 53" wide and "almost solid steel at the bottom." http://911research.com/wtc/arch/core.html
Click to expand...

This was already explained. Once any columns - whether core or perimeter - lost lateral bracing, they could not stand on their own, let alone support static weight, let alone significantly slow the falling upper floors. Once again: The columns ability to bear loads depended on them standing and only receiving the vertical loads. Remove their ability to stand, and they can't bear loads. This happened when the structure in the fire zone fell onto the floors below. Subject them to forces other than in the completely vertical, and they require the rest of the structure to stay standing. When that "rest of the structure" is what's hitting them, they fail. They separate at their splice points and fail to support any weight.

You cannot keep citing arguments about what the cores and perimeter columns load bearing capacity is. That capacity depended on the tower remaining intact! That went away as soon as the jets hit. The capacity was reduced by the impact and then used up by the shifting of loads to the remaining columns. And then guess what? The fires then further compromised elements in the impact zones.

atavisms said:
There were approx 5 storey holes punched into the 2 Towers, near the tops, and localized fires. With a commercial plane hitting skyscraper, (a study showed) the greatest impacts are seen being made by the liquids (fuel) and the engines.. so, the wing span. (bc the fuel tanks are in the wings) Now think how massive the towers were.
Click to expand...

Think about the connection points between the floor trusses and the vertical columns. That's what matters. When you continue to pull a Heiwa and only compare relative sizes, you betray a complete and total misunderstanding of the collapse.

11 to 27 stories of mass can indeed overwhelm the connectivity points between a single floor and the columns. And that is what happened. The falling mass never, ever had to overcome whatever energy is required to move an entire floor. It only needed to provide enough force to sever connectoins.

atavisms said:
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
]The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Click to expand...


With all due respect to Mr. DeMartini, a screen door's mesh does not depend on its interconnectivity for the rest of the mesh to resist gravity. The towers did. Furthermore, he was operating under the same presumptions that the designers were: That a 707 would be lost in the fog, low on fuel, and flying at landing speeds. Not half fueled and ramming at nearly top speed. There is a tremendous difference in energy between the two scenarios.

On top of that, remember that the towers did indeed resist the impacts. After all, they didn't collapse when hit. But the damage from the impacts rendered the buildings vulnerable to damage from the fires. And Leslie Robertson - lead designer on the towers - himself noted that they did not take fires such as the ones seen on 9/11 into account. Indeed, given their operating assumptions and the state of computer modeling back in that time, they couldn't have.

atavisms said:
The fires, when compared to the size of the towers were small and the time they burned was 56 & 102min; not very long at all http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/fires.html#north
Click to expand...

No. You state the length of the fires, but misstate the severity. There was nothing small about those fires whatsoever.

Understand that the fires didn't need to be "big" or burn for a long period of time to have the effect that they did, even though they did indeed burn hot and long. Recall that the jets impacts exposed some steel to the fires by forcibly knocking off the fireproofing. Once exposed, the only thing that mattered is that they heated enough to lose load bearing capacity, expand, and sag. They did all three. Steel loses 40 to 60 percent of it's load bearing capacity at 500oC, and that temperature was well exceeded in the fires. Refer to NCSTAR 1-5 ("Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers") and 1-6 ("Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers") for more informatoin, but hte point is this: The fires were not small. They covered 6 floors in the North Tower and 5 in the South. Those floors were nearly an acre in area. 50 to 60 feet tall, acre-wide fires are not small by any measure, and by the one that counted - their ability to weaken steel in the fire zones - they were more than adequate.

By the way: The link you provide is to pictures of the fires; that page makes no claims about the fires sizes. Again, for that, you need to refer to NCSTAR 1-5.
 
EMH...

He won't understand what you posted.

Here, may I sum it up in twoof speak?

Jets move fast
jets hit towers
boom
towers burn
big fires, hot fires
fire weakens towers
towers collapse
many people die
very sad

There... it should help him understand better.
 
TruthersLie said:
EMH...

He won't understand what you posted.
Click to expand...

That's most likely so, but despite being mere repetitions of what has been said before, there's some marginal value in restating it. For one, I end up making sure that I have the argument right; if I misstate an engineering concept, for example, someone here will correct me on it. And for two, lurkers that may come by can see that the ridiculousness has been addressed; people not used to the forum may not go looking for the previous posts from years past refuting those claims.

And as a selfish motive: This is one of the very few forums where I get to stretch my writing legs. Without these posts, the majority of what I end up writing elsewhere firmly pigeonholes me as an uncreative management drone, and dangit, I need to stretch my wings... er, writing legs... oh, heck, you know what I mean!
 
Point by point rebuttal, part IV

atavisms said:
In the case of the south tower; we see a massive (approx 30 storey) block that falls, largely intact, and clearly considerably outside of, it's perimeter line..It then disintegrates into a massive rubble cloud falling into the path of maximum resistance, in the most unnatural way. In the real (natural) world, that large piece would have fallen largely intact into the street .
Click to expand...

You have some major conceptual problems here that lead to your overall misunderstanding of the situation:

  1. "... clearly considerably outside of it's perimeter line"?? Yes, the upper segments had indeed tilted down, but that's far from meaning that the upper floors had as a single mass moved its collective center of gravity outside the perimeter columns. This never happened. The tilt was the first indication of the failures in the fire/impact/collapse initiation zone; once those failures had completely severed the upper floors from the lower, that upper section was doing nothing but falling straight down onto the floors below.

  2. Maximum resistance: Once those upper sections impacted their respective lower floors, you have to ask yourself this: Does it take more energy to break the floor truss-to-column connections of the lower floors than it does to push the center of mass of those upper segments 100-some feet off to the side? The correct answer, obviously, is that it takes far less energy to sever truss-to-column connections. Think about what it takes to break floor truss to column connections. Compare that to moving either 11 or 27 (for the North and South towers respectively) stories laterally 104 feet (the distance from the center of either tower to the edge). Which is less?

    Furthermore, if you claim that the "large piece would have fallen largely intact into the street", you also have to ask yourself how that "large piece" could have remained intact. Remember, the perimeter and core columns were held upright by the floors. The floors were supported by the columns. Sever the columns, and floors fall. When the floors fall, the columns can't stay upright or connected to each other. How would the upper sections stayed intact? Answer: They wouldn't have. They would have disintegrated in exactly the manner that was observed: At their connection points. Reference NCSTAR 1-6 for the collapse sequence of events, and NCSTAR 1-3C for the study of how the steel components failed to begin with.

    In the end, you need to realize this: The path of least resistance for the upper floors was straight down. The amount of energy in the falling floors far exceeded what was necessary to apply enough force to sever the truss-to-column connections. And there was no energy available to push those floors off to the sides. The lower segments couldn't resist enough to do this. How could they, when the floor to column connections were insufficient to handle falling mass?
The bottom line is this: What was seen on that day is entirely, 100% consistent with impact and fire-exacerbated failures leading to a global collapse. You would not have seen the upper floors remain intact (how could they, with the lateral supports in their lower sections missing?) nor would you have seen it fall "largely intact into the street". Both of your claims are erroneous, and built on severe misunderstandings of the towers construction.

What happened was what was expected: The fires in the impact zone had finally reduced exposed steel's capacity to bear loads. This was first noticed in the inward bowing from interior elements sagging. Eventually, those elements failed. The upper floors were no longer supported at that point and started falling. That rubble - an incoherent mass now, since the interior structures had failed - hit the first floors below the impact/fire zones. That broke their connections to the columns; there was too much mass and energy from falling for the floors to stop the fall. The mass grew, and was now continuing to accelerate due to gravity. It hit the next floor with even more force. This continued until it all hit the ground.

That is what happened. At no point were explosives involved.

atavisms said:
In this photo http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html you can already see the systematic explosions that will make their way, blasting out multiple floors at a time, and moving down down and up from the points of impact. (see videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c
& the frame by frame at 911research)
Click to expand...

No. There were no explosions. First of all, the issue of explosives use was already definitively answered for you twice before, and you failed to pay attention both times.

Remedial reading:
atavisms said:
The photographic and video evidence clearly reveal the towers being systematically blown outward with high explosive forces.
Click to expand...
They do not. See links immediately above.

atavisms said:
This refutes any possibility of it being gravity (impact damage, jet fuel, fires and gravity) alone acting on the structures. Fires cause gradual deformations and could not possibly account for the observed and resulting events.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Your premise of explosives is not merely unproven it is actually contradicted by the evidence. NCSTAR 1-3C by itself refutes any notion of explosives use. So do the images of the Winter Garden's glass panes not having been all shattered. Furthermore, the links above provide futher refutation, as well as explanations for the pneumatic effects you mistakenly attribute to "explosives".

And fires do indeed cause gradual deformations. That was indeed seen: There was inward bowing was the first instance of this. What you don't comprehend is that once failure occurs, what you're dealing with is the falling mass severing floor connections.
 
Last edited:
I for one enjoy reading your posts. Félicitations, Monsiuer Skonk de Pew!
 
Point by point rebuttal, part V

(continued)

atavisms said:
CALLED "PROOF" IN THE REAL WORLD:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Click to expand...
The Jones-Harrit paper is fatally flawed.
Furthermore, Bentham's peer review process is suspect:
And here is Ryan Mackey's adventure in contacting the Bentham.org reviewers in order to explain why the paper should've failed review. His goal was to merely notify them of the problems with the paper; their response very firmly illuminated their bad practices and lack of rigor:
That "proof" you link is anything but. Read the previous discussions. The paper is fatally flawed and presents evidence contradicting what it claims.
 
Last edited:
Point by point rebuttal, part VI and conclusion.

atavisms said:
(Continued)

On 9/11: Keep it simple & factual.
Click to expand...

I've been trying to tell you that, but you keep on injecting explosives into the argument. Explosives which somehow did not leave any signs of it's use on the steel, on neighboring buildings, or on survivors trapped in the buildings.

atavisms said:
Asymmetrical damage (impacts and fires) cannot cause symmetrical and well defined (each in it's own way) damage. There are many clearly established facts that make the OCT utterly impossible. For example: the symmetry and speed prove demolition beyond any reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

You're stating this as though it's an axiom. You cannot, as what you're stating is not only not proven, it's utterly contradicted in this case. First of all, the tilt prior to the upper segments descending was indeed entirely consistent with the damage observed; the towers tilted in precisely the direction you'd expect them to given the damage. Furthermore, conspiracy peddlers like you continually try to use those terms to imply that the towers should've collapsed in some other manner than what they did. As I've shown earlier, that's based on a lack of knowledge of how the towers were built. Remove some columns, loads and strains shift. Weaken those remaining columns with fire, eventually they fail. Once they fail, the upper floors are no longer connected to the building and come crashing down onto the lower floors. Those lower floors break free at their column connections once the upper segments hit; those columns can no longer hold anything up, even themselves, when the floors disconnect. The collapse is that simple.

atavisms said:
No one has refuted (how could they?!) the basic facts revealed in Harrit et.s paper; that the elemental composition confirms a hightech, nanoengineered aluminothermic explosive. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/...php?postid=5229675#post5229675"]previous post. The proposal has been utterly refuted.

atavisms said:
9/11 has nothing to do with childish 'truther' labels, or Alex Jones, loose change, or any of the tons of nonsense associated with it by too many badly informed people. 9/11 is about an outrageous crime that goes unpunished, and a people that continue to be manipulated.
Click to expand...

The truther label is one applied to yourselves by yourselves. That it has become a pejorative is your own fault.

Furthermore, the outrageous crime has gone unpunished because the hijackers died on their airplanes. Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri have evaded capture, but this is a topic completely separate from your distorted understanding of the Towers collapses. What 9/11 is is an event that deserves far better than the deluded, underinformed and badly distorted treatment it's been getting from conspiracy peddlers and other opportunistic paranoids.

As far as "people that continue to be manipulated": That's true. People like you continually misuse terms and misapply concepts like "asymmetric damage", "conservation of momentum", and "path of least/most resistance" at the behest of the originating conspiracy peddlers. You should stop. Studying the links I provided and understanding the falsities behind the conspiratorial fantasies generated by individuals with severely distorted worldviews is a good start. Beginning to thing and analyze independently is another step beyond that. Learning how to discern truth from BS would be further growth. I encourage you to start down this path.

atavisms said:
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground...Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." --Frederick Douglass
Click to expand...

Fine quote, but given that your entire argument has been built on misunderstandings, misapplications of physical concepts, and outright distortions, how is that supposed to apply here? Frederick Douglass was speaking against slavery with that statement, but the only slavery I see here is yours to misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and pseudoscience. You may think you're choosing to exercise freedom from some tyrannical government supposedly orchestrating this "Official Story", but in reality it's critical thought and analysis you're choosing to be free from. And at the same time, you display a deep servitude to misrepresenting physics, engineering, and history. Instead of enlightening yourself and others, you proffer predigested material from dubious sources as arguments supporting this alternate fantasy construction. But in reality, you end up carrying the torch for paranoid delusionalists and you blind yourself to actual history and knowledge while doing so. Your recitation of standard truther canon displays a lack of serious critical thought, and instead reveals a prediliction towards credulous acceptance of the outrageous merely because it appears coherent within the fantasy "9/11 Was An Inside Job" world. But the congruences you see are due to the fact that you view the entire event through a distorted lens to begin with, one not based on honest study of evidence, but acceptance of slants and spins with innuendo attached. That's no way to approach reality.

You may quote the abolitionists speech in your call to justice, but you act in the cause of mental slavery to fantasy. Ironic, that.

You do not know as much as you think you know. And your reaction to the illumination we provide will determine whether you're ready and willing to start accepting reality based on evidence, or will instead continue to wholesale fantasy spun with half-truths and unsupported insinuations. A study of the evidence - of the REAL evidence, not the misrepresentations cynically foisted on the gullible by the fantasy peddlers - clearly demonstrates that no explosives whatsoever were used to fell the towers. As I've said multiple times in the past, the state of the steel components in NCSTAR 1-3C alone disproves any explosives proposals, and that's before considering all the other lines of evidence I cite. Misinterpreting pneumatic ejections for explosives, reeling off unsupported assertions about symmetry and ludicrous misapplications of physics concepts, and linking painfully flawed papers all fail in the light of the state that the very structural elements explosives were to have been used on were found in. When they do not display a single iota of explosives use, how can anyone even think to claim that they were used? When investigating a death, the police can take all sorts of reports of loud bangs, uncover gun licenses for suspects, find bullets and holsters in suspects homes, but if they cannot show a single bullet wound on the victim, there is no case for a shooting death. And the concept applies here. If explosives were used, go to NCSTAR 1-3C and point out which of the columns were explosively separated. While you're at it, explain how the Winter Gardens glass facade survived as well as it did. And talk to the survivors rescued from the collapsed towers. See if they can hear you. Then explain how it is they weren't rendered deaf by the explosions, let alone severely disabled by barotrauma to their lungs. If you can do that, or if you can propose an explosives hypothesis that actually explains the lack of all these other effects, then you'll finally have a hypothesis that is reasonable. Until then, you have nothing.

-----

In summary: Offer an explanation that actually fits the facts. Explosives are contradicted by the facts. Nothing you have said changes that. All it has done is demonstrate that you do not understand any aspect of the event.
Click to expand...
 
Unfortunately atavisms will do what truthers always do:

a) ignore your argument.

b) bring up the same BS in another thread later on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom