Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Clayton Moore]

... almost four years ago.

Science, how the ***** does it work?

Somebody wake me if there's ever an intelligent Truther sighted. I think they've gone extinct.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2927872&postcount=6
Also correct. The conditions in the WTC Towers would be quite complicated...

One interesting scenario would be for jet fuel to "pool" on or around a large elevator, say the main freight elevator, about the time said elevator had its cables cut by the impact. The fuel would then fall with the elevator at "virtually free-fall" speeds , resulting in a fireball in the sublevels only a few seconds after impact.

Lots of possibilities.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2927899&postcount=7

R mackey, lifts, tend to have an anti fall device fitted, so that if the cables snap, restraining bolts spring out, catching the lift... So its doubtful that any lifts would have fallen, however, there are gaps and burning fuel would 1 pass into the lift itself (if it found an opening), and two, some of it would go around the lift, following the path of the least resistance.

Your buddy norseman blows your current vaporization nonsense out of the water with cascading fireballs.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3192547&postcount=44


Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
1. Simply trace the route and the amount of the jet fuel, in liquid or fireball form from the initial impact to the basement areas and still account for the survivors located within the elevators.
Once again Swing Dangler, elevator shaft number 6, 7 and 50 went through the impact zone. Shaft number 6 and 7 ended at B-4 while shaft number 50 ended at B-6. These shafts were the route followed by the jet fuel down to the basement.

Gravy has traced these three shafts for you on this page:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/wtcelevatorshafts

Shafts number number 6 and 7 are marked yellow and number 50 is marked blue. If you do not trust Gravy's interoperation of the drawings you find high resolution scans here on Jim Hoffman's truther site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...ans/table.html

There were two survivors in freight elevator number 50 that stopped between B-1 and B-2, both were pulled out of the car just before the fireball arrived:
Quote:
'I don't know who saved me. It was so black and smoky. I couldn't see nothin',' Arturo said. 'When they got me out, I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.'
Source

Felipe David who came running into William Rodrguez's office was badly burnt when he was in front of the the freight elevator on either B-1 or B-2. While Arturo and Marlene avoided burns since they were lying on the floor due to their injuries when the fireball arrived.

And do not forget that Arturo's wife survived even though she was inside her elevator car in a different shaft when the fireball arrived:
Quote:
A full elevator had just left the 78th floor, and Carmen was about to carry up six or seven stragglers. The plane struck as the doors of her elevator closed. They could hear debris smash into the top of the car; then the elevator cracked open, and flames poured in. Carmen jammed her fingers between the closed doors, pulled them partly open and held them as passengers clambered over and under her 5-foot-6 frame to escape.

Before finally throwing herself out onto the lobby floor, she glanced back to be sure the elevator was empty. That was when fire scorched her face with second- and third-degree burns, and literally welded her hooped right earring to her neck. Her hands were badly burned.
Source

Tracing the fireballs way down to the basement is not exactly rocket science Swing Dangler. It is time for you to stop repeating this question in thread after thread, you know the answers I have given you above.
Last edited by Norseman; 27th November 2007 at 05:35 PM. [/QUOTE]


Then you gather yourself and author the following obfuscation.
28th November 2007, 12:17 AM
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3193586&postcount=55

 

[Athyrio]

Hey, Clayton Moore.

You're on right now.

What about the Pentagon videos and the missing 2.3 trillion dollars?

Any comment tonight?

 

[Clayton Moore]

It's cute that you think these are valid questions...how about these:

Have you taken physics at any level? How about Fire Science?

A couple thousand gallons of fuel are poured into an 80 story hole...what makes you think the fuel wouldn't gradually atomize as it fell? What makes you think the whole supply would be used up before hitting the bottom floor?

What book on earth has vapor sticking to walls?

Do you realize how dumb you sound?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2927373&postcount=3
R.Mackey

Just to add to your useful and perfectly reasonable comments,

We expect the "droplets" of jet fuel to be much, much larger than rain droplets. The jet fuel is not all coalescing out of vapor phase. Instead, the droplet size will be driven by Plateau-Rayleigh instability, which states that the droplet radius will be approximately equal to the radius of the original stream of fluid -- potentially quite large. Larger droplets would fall much faster.

I would actually expect the rate of fuel travel to be limited by wetting effects on the sides of elevator shafts, rather than aerodynamic considerations. Not sure how to estimate this without conducting an experiment. In any event, the timing seems plausible to me.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2927373&postcount=5
Norseman

If I understand you correctly, some amount of droplets should be picked up by the shaft sides on the way down. Yes, that should definitely be a limiting factor.

Poured fuel, droplets, fireballs, gasses exploding after fireballs????

 

[Eschat]

Eschat it is not one question "9/11 inside job or not" There are many aspects to 9/11 and there could well be aspects of "inside job" in the government actions on and related to the day.

Taking the one example that you have rejected multiple times already. If you include demolition of WTC buildings as part of the "inside job" the simple fact is that there was no demolition so your claim of inside job is dead at the starting line whilst ever you persist in your all inclusive approach to "inside job" as if it was a single entity.

I would not be at all surprised if there were aspects of Government conduct which were wrong and need correction. But the WTC towers were not demolished so demolition of the towers could not be an inside job OR part of any overall packaging of all government actions as one single "inside job".

.

For you to say that the buildings were not brought down by demolition in light of facts of building #7, that light being that it was never touched by an airplane. Then I can only conclude you have tunnel vision. I can understand the debates presented about the molten steel, but you cannot ignore building 7.

Building 7 was not hit by an airplane, never hit with any major debris from the towers collapse and had only a small fire. Yet WTC 3-6 were hit with major debris from the towers collapse.

So why did WTC 3-6 remain standing. Seriously damaged but none of them suffered a complete collapse. Yet WTC 7 was brought down completely without being touched.

See these links for pictures

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3456.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3456.html#wtc56

I prefer to always step back a little and consider all of the evidence together. Yes you have to also get down to the nitty gritty very precise measurements of, load, stress, melting points etc. Those are important but so is the panorama of the seeing entire event as one event.

If I rebuild the motor in my car and come back later to find only the piston, then I'm going to say "Where is the rest of the motor" Same is true with the lack of debris at the Pentagon in the first 30 minutes after being hit. Some great footage of that is in the first video link I posted. No jet engines found, they don't disintegrate in a crash ever. Then the pictures of the landing gear they posted later on the internet had the wrong number of lugs for the airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon.

It is about the entire picture of 9/11 all at once, not just part of it. I don't have every fact, but I have enough facts to see and I am open to more facts. But this is not just a scientific investigation, it is a national security investigation, at least it should be. Nothing should have even got close to the Pentagon. Yet it did and we know why, also covered in my first video link.

So the scientific investigation can never be far away from a possible criminal investigation. Motive in this type of event has to considered at every level.

During my service in the Marine Corps I was in-charge of a nuclear weapon assembly training facility. To have a breach of security like we did at the Pentagon would have cost me 25 years in Leavenworth. Fall asleep with a small security breech 4 years prison. Fall asleep with no security breach while at the nuclear training desk: 6 months jail, then 6 months forfeiture of pay, then a bad conduct discharge. Which mean no possibility of a federal job.

Simply if you fall asleep you're done in the military in those types of jobs. There are no second chances. That is how it is at the Pentagon, NORAD and many others at least for the military component. So the Pentagon attack is a really big deal, it should have never happened, not even for one split second.

My point the Pentagon was a giant security breech especially considering the fact we had already been hit at the towers. Mistakes do happen, but never like this.

So in my opinion the big picture is important in order to determine possible motives for the attack. It is not just a scientific endeavor only. If you focus only on the piston you will never realize the whole engine is missing.

 

[dafydd]

.
A hypothetical question to all who believe that 9/11 was NOT an inside job.

If you found out without any doubt that you were wrong, then what would your next action be other than conceding that point. Remember this is a hypothetical question only.

The reason I ask this is because your position as a debunker requires nothing further of you politically or personally. If you are correct then all is well and there is no need for any further discussion. However if the 9/11 truther is correct, then they have to ultimately take action politically to make change. To do nothing invites further deceptions and murders and ultimately the end of freedom to even discuss anything at all, let alone government corruption.

So if you found out someday you were wrong and 9/11 was in fact an inside job how would you deal with it differently than the current 9/11 truthers.

Note the Laconic if. The biggest if in the world. If I ever find out that I'm wrong about vapor sticking to walls,I'll be in touch.

 

[Eschat]

Eschat it is not one question "9/11 inside job or not" There are many aspects to 9/11 and there could well be aspects of "inside job" in the government actions on and related to the day.

Taking the one example that you have rejected multiple times already. If you include demolition of WTC buildings as part of the "inside job" the simple fact is that there was no demolition so your claim of inside job is dead at the starting line whilst ever you persist in your all inclusive approach to "inside job" as if it was a single entity.

I would not be at all surprised if there were aspects of Government conduct which were wrong and need correction. But the WTC towers were not demolished so demolition of the towers could not be an inside job OR part of any overall packaging of all government actions as one single "inside job".

.

For you to say that it is impossible for the buildings to been brought down by demolition in light of building #7 never being touched by an airplane is ridiculous. I can understand the debates presented about the molten steel, but you cannot ignore building 7.

Building 7 was not hit by an airplane, never hit with any major debris from the towers collapse and had only a small fire. Yet WTC 3-6 were hit with major debris from the towers collapse.

So why did WTC 3-6 remain standing. Seriously damaged but none of them suffered a complete collapse. Yet WTC 7 was brought down completely without being touched.

See these links for pictures

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3456.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3456.html#wtc56

I prefer to always step back a little and consider all of the evidence together. Yes you have to also get down to the nitty gritty very precise measurements, load, stress, melting points etc. Those are important but so is the panorama of the seeing entire event as one event.

If I rebuild the motor in my car and come back later to find only the piston, then I'm going to say "Where is the rest of the motor" Same is true with the lack of debris at the Pentagon in the first 30 minutes after being hit. Some great footage of that is in the first video link I posted. No jet engines, they don't disintegrate in a crash ever.

It is the entire picture of 9/11 seen all at once. For me it is not a debate anymore, I don't have every fact, but I have enough facts to see and I am open to more facts. But this is not just a scientific investigation, but a national security investigation, at least it should be. Nothing should have even got close to the Pentagon. Yet it did and we know why, also covered in my first video link.

So the scientific investigation can never be far away from a possible criminal investigation. Motive in this type of event has to considered at every level.

During my time in the Marine Corps I was in-charge of a nuclear weapon assembly training facility. To have a breach of security like we did at the Pentagon would have cost me 25 year in Leavenworth. Fall asleep with a small security breech 4 years prison. Fall asleep with no security breach while at the nuclear training desk: 6 months jail, then 6 months forfeiture of pay, then a bad conduct discharge. Which mean no possibility of a federal job.

Simply if you fall asleep you're done in the military in those types of jobs. There are no second chances. That is how it is at the Pentagon, Norad and many others at least for the military component. So the Pentagon attack is a really big deal, it should have never happened ever.

My point the Pentagon was a giant security breech especially considering the fact we had already been hit at the towers. Friends mistakes do happen, but never like this.

The big picture is important in order to determine possible motives for the attack. It is not just a scientific endeavor only. If you focus on only the piston you will never realize the whole engine is missing.

 

[Eschat]

Eschat it is not one question "9/11 inside job or not" There are many aspects to 9/11 and there could well be aspects of "inside job" in the government actions on and related to the day.

Taking the one example that you have rejected multiple times already. If you include demolition of WTC buildings as part of the "inside job" the simple fact is that there was no demolition so your claim of inside job is dead at the starting line whilst ever you persist in your all inclusive approach to "inside job" as if it was a single entity.

I would not be at all surprised if there were aspects of Government conduct which were wrong and need correction. But the WTC towers were not demolished so demolition of the towers could not be an inside job OR part of any overall packaging of all government actions as one single "inside job".

For you to say that it is impossible for the buildings to been brought down by demolition in light of building #7 never being touched by an airplane is ridiculous. I can understand the debates presented about the molten steel, but you can not ignore building 7.

Building 7 was not hit by an airplane, never hit with any major debris from the towers collaspe and had only a small fire. Yet WTC 3-6 were hit with major debris from the towers collapse.

So why did WTC 3-6 remain standing. Seriously damaged but none of them suffered a complete collapse. Yet WTC 7 was brought down completely without being touched.

See these links for pictures

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3456.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3456.html#wtc56

I prefer to always step back a little and consider all of the evidence together. Yes you have to also get down to the nitty gritty very precise measurements , load, stress, melting points etc. Those are important but so is the panorama of the seeing entire event as one event.

If I rebuild the motor in my car and come back later to find only the piston, then I'm going to say "Where is the rest of the motor" Same is true with the lack of debris at the Pentagon in the first 30 minutes after being hit. Some great footage of that is in the first video link I posted. No jet engines, they don't disintegrate in a crash ever.

It the entire picture of 9/11 all at once. For me it is not a debate anymore, I don't have every fact, but I have enough facts to see and I am open to more facts. But this is not just a scientific investigation, but a national security investigation, at least it should be. Nothing should have even got close to the Pentagon. Yet it did and we know why, also covered in my first video link.

So the scientific investigation can never be far away from a possible criminal investigation. Motive in this type of event has to considered at every level.

During my time in the Marine Corps I was in-charge of a nuclear weapon assembly training facility. To have a breach of security like we did at the Pentagon would have cost me 25 year in Leavenworth. Fall asleep with a small security breech 4 years prison. Fall asleep with no security breach while at the nuclear training desk: 6 months jail, then 6 months forfeiture of pay, then a bad conduct discharge. Which mean no possibility of a federal job.

Simply if you fall asleep you're done in the military in those types of jobs. There are no second chances. That is how it is at the Pentagon, Norad and many others at least for the military component. So the Pentagon attack is a really big deal, it should have never happened ever.

My point the Pentagon was a giant security breech especially considering the fact we had already been hit at the towers. Friends mistakes do happen, but never like this.

The big picture is important in order to determine possible motives for the attack. It is not just a scientific endeavor only. If you focus on only the piston you will never realize the whole engine is missing.

 

[Clayton Moore]

.
A hypothetical question to all who believe that 9/11 was NOT an inside job.

If you found out without any doubt that you were wrong, then what would your next action be other than conceding that point. Remember this is a hypothetical question only.

The reason I ask this is because your position as a debunker requires nothing further of you politically or personally. If you are correct then all is well and there is no need for any further discussion. However if the 9/11 truther is correct, then they have to ultimately take action politically to make change. To do nothing invites further deceptions and murders and ultimately the end of freedom to even discuss anything at all, let alone government corruption.

So if you found out someday you were wrong and 9/11 was in fact an inside job how would you deal with it differently than the current 9/11 truthers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAT5m2GmMSo

 

[Zep]

Gosh! I don't think I've ever seen such a load of fail all in one post here!

Look, Eschat, why don't you use the Search function here and go look at the mountains of evidence that say you are wrong. There's even a whole subforum devoted to debunking all your points, in painstaking and elaborate detail.

So please. To save yourself looking even more foolish, go read all of it before you post on this subject again. Unless, of course, you LIKE having whoop-ass unleashed on you...

 

[ozeco41]

.

For you to say that it is impossible for the buildings to been brought down by demolition in light of building #7 never being touched by an airplane is ridiculous....

Once again Eschat you ignore the thrust of my post. I normally only engage in discussion with people who are prepared to discuss and parroting truther technical lies does not count as discussion. Why do you waste bandwidth if you are not prepared to engage in discussing the points raised? It's your problem so I will leave you with it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Building 7 was not hit by an airplane, never hit with any major debris from the towers collapse and had only a small fire. Yet WTC 3-6 were hit with major debris from the towers collapse.

3-6 are entirely different building constructions, and their partial collapses were the result almost entirely of large sections of the WTC towers hitting them. The fact that WTC 7 ended up differently is not rocket science; it was taller, had long floor spans, and it burned for 7 hours. You can scream about them as comparisons until your face turns violet as you have already for a decade, but if you can't see the differences between them and 7 you really don't have any place in a discussion. Fact is, you're doing nothing to look at the bigger picture if you're ignoring facts that basic.

*for clarity's sake, 5's partial collapse was primarily due to fire, not the debris

 

[Eschat]

Once again Eschat you ignore the thrust of my post. I normally only engage in discussion with people who are prepared to discuss and parroting truther technical lies does not count as discussion. Why do you waste bandwidth if you are not prepared to engage in discussing the points raised? It's your problem so I will leave you with it.

Give me a break.... Why are you wasting bandwidth. Parroting serious patriots technical truth you mean. Shall I start calling everyone in your movement names next. Calling someone a liar is a little personal isn't it? I think maybe you were better off as you were, out of your own mouth you said you hardly respond. Nothing gained, nothing lost I say. So as you were, that policy for yourself seems valid to me.

 

[Athyrio]

Hey, Clayton Moore.

You're on right now.

What about the Pentagon videos and the missing 2.3 trillion dollars?

Any comment tonight?

11:05 EST

You're still live.

You challenged us to GOOGLE.

We GOOGLED.

Any comment, Clayton Moore?

 

[Eschat]

Gosh! I don't think I've ever seen such a load of fail all in one post here!

Look, Eschat, why don't you use the Search function here and go look at the mountains of evidence that say you are wrong. There's even a whole subforum devoted to debunking all your points, in painstaking and elaborate detail.

So please. To save yourself looking even more foolish, go read all of it before you post on this subject again. Unless, of course, you LIKE having whoop-ass unleashed on you...

Wow all has been said and all as been done. I guess it is time to close the forum ehhh? You worry to much about looking foolish and not enough about how you really look to those who know better. I guess some people have to a certain amount of kudos everyday to feel good. If your trying to impress me with your intellect, please try harder.

 

[Cuddles]

Just because this is a general thread does not give you free reign to insult each other. Remain civil and on topic, and avoid engaging in personal attacks and bickering.

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

 

[Quad4_72]

For you to say that it is impossible for the buildings to been brought down by demolition in light of building #7 never being touched by an airplane is ridiculous. I can understand the debates presented about the molten steel, but you can not ignore building 7.

No one is ignoring Building 7. In fact, there was a very large engineering report done on the matter. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Building 7 was not hit by an airplane, never hit with any major debris from the towers collaspe and had only a small fire. Yet WTC 3-6 were hit with major debris from the towers collapse.

This is all factually incorrect information. WTC7 was in fact hit by large amounts of debris and had fires on ten floors.

So why did WTC 3-6 remain standing. Seriously damaged but none of them suffered a complete collapse. Yet WTC 7 was brought down completely without being touched.

The design of WTC7 was very different when compared with the other buildings. And to say that WTC7 came down without being touched is blatant dishonesty. Those type of statements will get you put on ignore lists pretty quickly around here, because they are very indicative of trolling.

I prefer to always step back a little and consider all of the evidence together. Yes you have to also get down to the nitty gritty very precise measurements , load, stress, melting points etc. Those are important but so is the panorama of the seeing entire event as one event.

Have you read the NIST report on WTC7? According to your comments, you have not read any of it.

If I rebuild the motor in my car and come back later to find only the piston, then I'm going to say "Where is the rest of the motor" Same is true with the lack of debris at the Pentagon in the first 30 minutes after being hit. Some great footage of that is in the first video link I posted. No jet engines, they don't disintegrate in a crash ever.

There are many many pictures of airplane debris at the Pentagon. If you choose to ignore those pictures, that is on you.

It the entire picture of 9/11 all at once. For me it is not a debate anymore, I don't have every fact, but I have enough facts to see and I am open to more facts. But this is not just a scientific investigation, but a national security investigation, at least it should be. Nothing should have even got close to the Pentagon. Yet it did and we know why, also covered in my first video link.

If it is not a debate for you anymore, why are you here? We can present facts to you all day, but you are going to simply ignore them because you have already made up your mind based on lies and distortions.

So the scientific investigation can never be far away from a possible criminal investigation. Motive in this type of event has to considered at every level.

What motive would that be?

During my time in the Marine Corps I was in-charge of a nuclear weapon assembly training facility. To have a breach of security like we did at the Pentagon would have cost me 25 year in Leavenworth. Fall asleep with a small security breech 4 years prison. Fall asleep with no security breach while at the nuclear training desk: 6 months jail, then 6 months forfeiture of pay, then a bad conduct discharge. Which mean no possibility of a federal job.

That is meaningless information.

Simply if you fall asleep you're done in the military in those types of jobs. There are no second chances. That is how it is at the Pentagon, Norad and many others at least for the military component. So the Pentagon attack is a really big deal, it should have never happened ever.

Who fell asleep? And everyone is well aware of the massive intelligence breakdown on 9/11 and the months leading up to the event.

My point the Pentagon was a giant security breech especially considering the fact we had already been hit at the towers. Friends mistakes do happen, but never like this.

Yes, mistakes do happen, just like this. Your lack of research into what happened that day is becoming very evident.

The big picture is important in order to determine possible motives for the attack. It is not just a scientific endeavor only. If you focus on only the piston you will never realize the whole engine is missing.

This is your biggest fallacy. You are trying to think of outlandish conspiracy motives without focusing on the actual facts. Your biases will ever allow you comprehend reality.

 

[Dave Rogers]

For you to say that it is impossible for the buildings to been brought down by demolition in light of building #7 never being touched by an airplane is ridiculous. I can understand the debates presented about the molten steel, but you can not ignore building 7.

No, your logic here is ridiculous. Your implied premise is that buildings can collapse either by being hit by an airplane, or by demolition using explosives. This is a classic, though somewhat veiled, example of the false dilemma fallacy. In fact, there are many other ways in which buildings can collapse, including the fairly common cause of being weakened by fire to the point of collapse.

Building 7 was not hit by an airplane, never hit with any major debris from the towers collaspe and had only a small fire. Yet WTC 3-6 were hit with major debris from the towers collapse.

That first sentence is quite simply not true. There's a well-known photograph showing WTC7 being hit by major debris from the collapse of WTC1, and the resulting fires were described by the firefighters attending as extremely widespread and intense.

I prefer to always step back a little and consider all of the evidence together.

Except, it seems, for the bits that don't fit the conclusion you want to come to. In this case, that means most of it. There is a colossal mountain of evidence supporting the conclusion that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda and took the USA by surprise. The counter-evidence is generally composed of lies and misrepresentations, such as:

the lack of debris at the Pentagon in the first 30 minutes after being hit [...] No jet engines, they don't disintegrate in a crash ever [...] Nothing should have even got close to the Pentagon [...] My point the Pentagon was a giant security breech especially considering the fact we had already been hit at the towers

and many similar lies and misrepresentations that we see here daily.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

I responded to the clone of this post in the other thread, but I'll just point out in this one that:

Building 7 was [...] never hit with any major debris from the towers collapse and had only a small fire.

is completely untrue. If you start from incorrect premises, and use sound reasoning, your conclusions are almost certain also to be incorrect; at best, they're worthless. Read up on the real details of the WTC7 collapse, rather than thinking exactly what the liars in the truth movement want you to think.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

Wow all has been said and all as been done. I guess it is time to close the forum ehhh? You worry to much about looking foolish and not enough about how you really look to those who know better. I guess some people have to a certain amount of kudos everyday to feel good. If your trying to impress me with your intellect, please try harder.

The truth movement is dead,only a few nutters try to keep applying CPR. The forum is just a bit of fun and it serves to educate lurkers.

 

[triforcharity]

The truth movement is dead,only a few nutters try to keep applying CPR. The forum is just a bit of fun and it serves to educate lurkers.

Wouldn't that be cosidered necrophilia?