Common Sense

[Horatius]

Made it at last!
I thought pointing out one or two of your obvious errors might actually be a contribution to the debate, but sadly I was mistaken.

No no no, don't you understand? His style of debate only works if you don't point out the obvious errors. Sheesh!

 

[babazaroni]

Well, when you have classic signs of planted explosives i.e. "squibs" shooting out of the building some 20-30 floors below the collapse point... I'd say that real-world data (you know...stuff that can be observed and measured) like this, makes your job a lot harder.

When you look at real building CD's you see nothing like what was being ejected on the towers.

You only see little wisps as only a very minimum of explosives is used or needed.

The building started to collapse before any material was ejected.

You seem to value your own common sense over demolition experts.

 

[gumboot]

Well, when you have classic signs of planted explosives i.e. "squibs" shooting out of the building some 20-30 floors below the collapse point... I'd say that real-world data (you know...stuff that can be observed and measured) like this, makes your job a lot harder.

Except for a couple of tiny details:

1) your so-called "squibs" are not "classic signs of planted explosives"
2) while the collapse front for the exterior of the building can be determined from videos we have no way of determining what is happening INSIDE the building, and it is what is happening inside that is influencing the "squibs".

-Gumboot

 

[Skibum]

Miles of ductwork that all lead back to mechanical floors, being crushed in rapid succession would IMO be what caused the "squibs".

 

[LashL]

Fair use, as part of a scholarly work. Sue me if you think otherwise.

Heck, never mind scholarly work (I'm doubtful that anything 28th writes could legitimately be part of a scholarly work anyway) but "research" is another exemption, easily utilized. My exemption of choice in this case, though, is satire, which in my view is the best exemption ever, ever.

And there is no question that quoting 28th in a sig line, or anywhere else for that matter, definitely qualifies as satire*.

*see my sig line

 

[firecoins]

wow this thread grew quickly.

 

[Myriad]

Well, when you have classic signs of planted explosives i.e. "squibs" shooting out of the building some 20-30 floors below the collapse point... I'd say that real-world data (you know...stuff that can be observed and measured) like this, makes your job a lot harder.

You know with common sense... we might say - okay, maybe stuff (smoke/dust/debris) shooting out on the floor that is being crushed might be possible... since the air on that floor could be affected by the immediate impact from above... but when you're talking about floors that have not collapsed... floors that have not been touched or affected by the falling upper mass - magically spouting out debris like a steel-boned whale doing a handstand* - well, now we're experiencing the rainbow-colored thaumaturgy that is so ubiquitous in the land of debunkerville.

28th Kingdom, you're wrong about the explosives. Thats why you can't convince anyone. Explosives don't fit the facts. As long as you overlook the evidence that the towers were brought down by implosives, you'll never see the real truth. Explosives push. Implosives pull. Do you see what I'm getting at?

At last report, implosives were being developed by the Soviets at a facility in Minsk around the mid 1980s. According to documents recovered from the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, the project was supposed to have been abandoned by 1988. But perhaps it was instead merely handed off to others?

The most powerful type of implosive is the G/S or Gas-to-Solid type, but those have proven tricky to manufacture in more than minute qualities, so most field demonstrations so far have been of the less powerful but more stable G/L or Gas-to-Liquid types. The action of a G/L implosive can be seen as analogous to the detonation of a liquid explosive, in reverse. The implosive is deployed in gaseous form contained within a balloon-like plastic envelope ranging from one to several thousand cubic meters in volume, depending on the application. To facilitate the reaction, the inner surface of the plastic envelope has an invisibly thin coating of the necessary catalyst, whose composition (like that of the gas) is of course top secret. When the implosive is triggered, the catalyst causes the gas in the bag to turn into a liquid, reducing its volume by several thousandfold. This causes the bag to shrink to a tiny fraction of its former volume. This change in volume is extremely rapid. In fact, for so-called "high implosives" the collapse is faster than the speed of sound, a true "tonation" (the opposite of a detonation).

Obviously, the effect of an implosive is the reverse of that of an explosive. Instead of a pressure wave blasting outward, the implosive creates a vacuum or, more precisely, a rarefaction wave which causes all nearby materials to rush inward toward the center of the volume formerly occupied by the implosive gas. In a test in 1988, the tonation of a G/L implosive inside the fuselage of a decomissioned Antonov An-124 Ruslan (on the ground) caused the fuselage to crush lengthwise in a series of accordian-like folds. The collapse was complete in 0.23 seconds and left the enormous aircraft shortened to less than 12 meters from nose to tail.

There's a lot more information about implosives at my Web site here: http://www.darknology.com/implosives/index.htm. Recently I've uncovered evidence that a more advanced G/L implosive that requires no gas bags was used for 9-11. How were the massive amounts of implosive installed in the towers without anyone noticing? Simple -- a coat of "paint" inside the elevator shafts and in other locations that could lie in wait unnoticed for up to several weeks, the elevator shafts themselves flooded with the implosive gas maybe a few minutes before the demolitions, and apparently, evacuated lower floors similarly flooded literally at the last minute. Possibly even at the last second -- those "squibs" you talk about are probably a side effect of rapid implosive release, forcing the air out of those floors. "Why weren't there flashes and sharp explosions as we usually see in CD?" Answer: because it was implosive tonations, not explosive detonations. There is no flash (implosives actually absorb light as they tonate, causing momentary "flashes of darkness" which might show up on some of the videos if you look carefully for them) and the loud "MOOB!" sound they make is one that few people had ever heard before.

The main problem with large implosive tonations is the timing, which is what went wrong at the towers. That's right, it went wrong. "If it was CD then how did the detonators and fuses survive the impacts and fires?" Answer: they didn't, not all of them, and that's why the towers collapsed in such a messy way instead of being "pulled" by the implosive vacuum into neat twin cubes as they were supposed to be. However, the implosives were effective enough to cause a collapse faster than freefall, which only implosives could do. Most likely they delayed "pulling" WTC7 because the tower implosives had misfired so badly, but in the end they had no choice because otherwise it would have left too much evidence behind.

I have to warn you, though. As long as you keep chasing mistaken ideas about thermite and explosives, just as they want you to do, you're safe. You're no threat to anyone, because you won't ever find evidence of explosives or thermite, because they weren't used! But if you start recognizing the real truth, then you'll need to start being more careful. First of all, don't act as if you believe me! Unless you're willing to take on considerable risk, your wisest course is to reply in this thread as if you think this post is a joke or a satire, while spreading the word as best you can in locations that are more private or more secure.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Gravy]

In honor of Bell's birthday, I'm listening to a playlist of songs with "bell" or "bells" in the title (I didn't include belle, because that would make the list very long)

Carol of The Bells.....Empire Brass Quintet
Jingle Bells.....Woody Phillips
Jingle Bell Rock.....The Ventures
Silver Bells.....Johnny Mathis
Bells of St. Mary's.....John Fahey
I Hear Jingle Bells.....Freddy King
The Bells.....The Originals
One Less Bell To Answer.....The 5th Dimension
Answering Bell.....Ryan Adams
Deep Red Bells.....Neko Case
Wedding Bell Blues.....Laura Nyro
Bell Bottom Blues.....Derek & The Dominos
The Bells Of Rhymney.....The Byrds
Ring Them Bells.....Bob Dylan
Hell's Bells.....AC/DC
Monk with Bell.....Michael Stearns
Liberty Bell March (1902).....Sousa's Band
When Do The Bells Ring For Me?.....Tony Bennett
If I Were a Bell.....Dinah Washington
Bell Boy Blues.....Buck Clayton/Trummy Young/Willie Smith/Flip Phillips
Bells.....Albert Ayler
Bell Bird Serenade.....Pixie Williams w/Jimmy Carter's Hawaiians
Hawaiian Bells.....Marty Robbins
Ring My Bell.....Anita Ward
Where They Ring That Bell.....Starline Rhythm Boys
Wedding Bells.....John Prine with Lucinda Williams
Acony Bell.....Gillian Welch
The Three Bells.....The Browns
Church Bells Blues.....Luke Jordan
Serenade Of The Bells.....Sammy Kaye
Tubular Bells.....Mike Oldfield
Mission Bell.....Donnie Brooks
The Church Bells May Ring.....Diamonds
Whispering Bells.....Dell-Vikings
The Bell Boys (1920).....Golden & Hughes
I'll Be There with Bells On (1909).....Frank Stanley & Elise Stevenson
When the Bell in the Lighthouse Rings (1905).....Frank C. Stanley
The Tale the Church Bell Tolled (1907).....Frank C. Stanley
No Wedding Bells For Me (1907).....Bob Roberts

Happy birthday, Bell!

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And I'll add a site for a very good friend of mine who plays bells
http://www.thegoldendance.com/ and the group she also participates in http://www.sonos.org/

 

[Pardalis]

I just proved that everything necessary for 9/11 to be an inside job has already happened at some point throughout history.

Really?

Have three simultaneous covert controlled demolition on working office buildings (two of which are the biggest in the world) ever been performed in history?

Nothing is crazy or magical about demolishing a building with explosives.

How did they plant these explosives in three working office buildings without anyone noticing it?

Nothing is crazy or magical about a commercial-size airliner being flown by remote control.

How about four, simultaneously?

Nothing is crazy or magical about the highest ranking officials in the government having the ability to hand down orders and disarm NORAD.

no proof.

So, the question remains... what is so crazy or magical about 9/11 being an inside job?

Everything you've said about it so far.

See, the problem is that you left-brain radicals like to dig down past the surface of all these essential points...

Will you stop it with that left-brain nonsense?

to a place where facts and evidence are but pawns under the ruling of speculation and assumption.

What the F* are you babbling about?

FACTS and EVIDENCE are the only things that we can base any assumption upon.

We know the big facts...

Oh, the Big facts? Excuse me...

we know that all of these things are possible... but you (skeptics) insist on dragging the debate down into the muck (in an attempt at debunking) of minor details for which the answers can only be derived from speculation.

BS

See, it's the same thing as NIST using something like computer simulations (beyond the physical world) to prove all of their (physical) real-world theories... since they control all of the inputs (facts/variables/evidence) they can get these simulations to generate only the answers that will confirm their original hypothesis.

Incoherent drivel.

You "debunk," the planted explosive theory not with any real physical evidence, but by using warped speculation about how it's, "impossible" to plant explosives without anyone noticing.

Then show me how it could be possible, in the real world.

 

[Kage]

When you hear hoofbeats, does common sense make you think horses or zeebras?

When you see jets of low temp gas and dust, does common sense say pressure change or cutter charges (which you call squibs -- why a conspiracy would use special effect charges is beyond me, unless John Wo did the choreography).

Common sense cannot design a spacecraft, and it cannot guide that spaceship while in orbit.

Common sense cannot design an airplane, why can it be used to determine its capacity to deal damage to soil or concrete?

Common sense cannot build a skyscrapper, how can it be used to model its collapse?

Stop using common sense in these cases where it doesn't apply.

 

[Dog Town]

When you hear hoofbeats, does common sense make you think horses or zeebras?

Having rounded horses, as a lad that is easy! To be honest... having worked on enough soundstages, I always think of coconuts!

 

[Mashuna]

The Herald (Scotland's largest selling broadsheet) tv section ran a good analysis pointing out that one of the problems was that, even allowing for normal sci-fi suspension of disbelief, the underlying principles and assumptions just didn't make sense.

This is absolutely true (although I did watch the whole series). I don't believe the people who wrote the script for Torchwood realise this. It wasn't Russell T Davies after all, it was all ghostwritten. I think I've found the writer responsible. . .

I just proved that everything necessary for 9/11 to be an inside job has already happened at some point throughout history. Nothing is crazy or magical or far fetched or off the wall, about a country using a false flag operation as a pretext to invade another country. Nothing is crazy or magical about demolishing a building with explosives. Nothing is crazy or magical about a commercial-size airliner being flown by remote control. Nothing is crazy or magical about the highest ranking officials in the government having the ability to hand down orders and disarm NORAD.

 

[uk_dave]

You mean, 28K came out of the rift?

Now that makes sense

 

[gumboot]

I just proved that everything necessary for 9/11 to be an inside job has already happened at some point throughout history. Nothing is crazy or magical or far fetched or off the wall, about a country using a false flag operation as a pretext to invade another country. Nothing is crazy or magical about demolishing a building with explosives. Nothing is crazy or magical about a commercial-size airliner being flown by remote control. Nothing is crazy or magical about the highest ranking officials in the government having the ability to hand down orders and disarm NORAD.

So, the question remains... what is so crazy or magical about 9/11 being an inside job?

The thing you don't seem to understand is that something being "possible" or even "plausible" does not mean it DID happen in a given specific incident.

If we just take the NORAD example...

Sure, it's possible that government officials can order a stand-down of some kind of military forces to prevent their intervention in events. I don't think anyone would claim that would require magic or any kind.

But there's something you are utterly failing to understand.

THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN ON 9/11. We KNOW it didn't happen. We have the EVIDENCE to demonstrate it did not happen. So whether it COULD happen is actually irrelevant.

We're not interested in "could have" or "did once" or "might do". We're interested in "Did do on 9/11". And on that count you have absolutely nothing whatsoever.

-Gumboot

 

[Mashuna]

You mean, 28K came out of the rift?

Now that makes sense

He ain't evil, just came through like a weevil.

 

[Bell]

And Happy Birthday Bell.

Thanks Brainache.

See, 28IQ couldn't even give me that courtesy before he put me on ignore

 

[Bell]

In honor of Bell's birthday, I'm listening to a playlist of songs with "bell" or "bells" in the title (I didn't include belle, because that would make the list very long)

Carol of The Bells.....Empire Brass Quintet
Jingle Bells.....Woody Phillips
Jingle Bell Rock.....The Ventures
Silver Bells.....Johnny Mathis
Bells of St. Mary's.....John Fahey
I Hear Jingle Bells.....Freddy King
The Bells.....The Originals
One Less Bell To Answer.....The 5th Dimension
Answering Bell.....Ryan Adams
Deep Red Bells.....Neko Case
Wedding Bell Blues.....Laura Nyro
Bell Bottom Blues.....Derek & The Dominos
The Bells Of Rhymney.....The Byrds
Ring Them Bells.....Bob Dylan
Hell's Bells.....AC/DC
Monk with Bell.....Michael Stearns
Liberty Bell March (1902).....Sousa's Band
When Do The Bells Ring For Me?.....Tony Bennett
If I Were a Bell.....Dinah Washington
Bell Boy Blues.....Buck Clayton/Trummy Young/Willie Smith/Flip Phillips
Bells.....Albert Ayler
Bell Bird Serenade.....Pixie Williams w/Jimmy Carter's Hawaiians
Hawaiian Bells.....Marty Robbins
Ring My Bell.....Anita Ward
Where They Ring That Bell.....Starline Rhythm Boys
Wedding Bells.....John Prine with Lucinda Williams
Acony Bell.....Gillian Welch
The Three Bells.....The Browns
Church Bells Blues.....Luke Jordan
Serenade Of The Bells.....Sammy Kaye
Tubular Bells.....Mike Oldfield
Mission Bell.....Donnie Brooks
The Church Bells May Ring.....Diamonds
Whispering Bells.....Dell-Vikings
The Bell Boys (1920).....Golden & Hughes
I'll Be There with Bells On (1909).....Frank Stanley & Elise Stevenson
When the Bell in the Lighthouse Rings (1905).....Frank C. Stanley
The Tale the Church Bell Tolled (1907).....Frank C. Stanley
No Wedding Bells For Me (1907).....Bob Roberts

Happy birthday, Bell!

Thanks Gravy, that's quite a list to listen too.
I guess 28IQ has you on ignore now too, for posting that list

 

[MG1962]

Can I ask a CD question here - sorry if the answer is obvious. But the outer facade carried quite a bit of load on the buildling - in fact it was a design feature.

Now traditional cutting charges would have had to be placed on the outside of the building to break the facade.........yes?

If so - the lack of a ring of external explosions would be an indicator of no controlled demolition?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

What magic are you talking about? I just showed you that there doesn't have to be any magic or faith leaping involved in the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief.

I just proved that everything necessary for 9/11 to be an inside job has already happened at some point throughout history. Nothing is crazy or magical or far fetched or off the wall, about a country using a false flag operation as a pretext to invade another country. Nothing is crazy or magical about demolishing a building with explosives. Nothing is crazy or magical about a commercial-size airliner being flown by remote control. Nothing is crazy or magical about the highest ranking officials in the government having the ability to hand down orders and disarm NORAD.

So, the question remains... what is so crazy or magical about 9/11 being an inside job?

See, the problem is that you left-brain radicals like to dig down past the surface of all these essential points... to a place where facts and evidence are but pawns under the ruling of speculation and assumption. We know the big facts... we know that all of these things are possible... but you (skeptics) insist on dragging the debate down into the muck (in an attempt at debunking) of minor details for which the answers can only be derived from speculation.

See, it's the same thing as NIST using something like computer simulations (beyond the physical world) to prove all of their (physical) real-world theories... since they control all of the inputs (facts/variables/evidence) they can get these simulations to generate only the answers that will confirm their original hypothesis.

The same goes when you bring the focus of a debate down into a "virtual" world of convictions (which can be completely formulated/manipulated without the aid of real-world facts/variables/evidence) where you then proceed to "debunk" anything and everything with nothing more than manufactured opinions (based upon your beliefs - which are simply more thoughts and not real-world elements) that support whatever theory you are trying to prove.

You "debunk," the planted explosive theory not with any real physical evidence, but by using warped speculation about how it's, "impossible" to plant explosives without anyone noticing. You fool yourselves into believing that your theories are based out of some kind of fact or scientific laws, when in reality, they are composed purely of thoughts upon thoughts... virtual components (at your complete discretion) stacked upon virtual components (at your complete discretion) used to confirm real-world phenomena and events... just like the NIST computer simulations.

Wowsers.

Does it hurt to hold dear to such fallacious reasoning? Do you use linament?