Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
I was curious about your answer on the model because I was just thinking that Richard Gage should make a model of a Tower 6.5 feet tall and on a one square foot base. Using lego blocks glued together in one or two foot sections. This could be caried in a smallish bag and used in multiple media appearances.
Click to expand...

Could I suggest you try something a little more useful? Take a little bit more Lego, and build a tower 4,000 miles wide at the base. The top will then be at a height of 26,000 miles, and you'll be able to use it to launch satellites into geosynchronous orbit by simply putting them in the freight elevator, taking them up to the roof, and letting them go. Since scaling isn't an issue, there shouldn't be any engineering problems, and you'd be performing a valuable service to humanity in the name of 9/11 truth - just the thing to get everyone to sit up and take notice.

Come to think of it, if scaling isn't an issue any more, why weren't the Twin Towers made from Lego, instead of messing about with all that steel?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Could I suggest you try something a little more useful? Take a little bit more Lego, and build a tower 4,000 miles wide at the base. The top will then be at a height of 26,000 miles, and you'll be able to use it to launch satellites into geosynchronous orbit by simply putting them in the freight elevator, taking them up to the roof, and letting them go. Since scaling isn't an issue, there shouldn't be any engineering problems, and you'd be performing a valuable service to humanity in the name of 9/11 truth - just the thing to get everyone to sit up and take notice.

Come to think of it, if scaling isn't an issue any more, why weren't the Twin Towers made from Lego, instead of messing about with all that steel?

Dave
Click to expand...

Duh, Dave, it's because fire does melt plastic.

Otherwise, a fine idea tho'.
 
bill smith said:
It would just be to give people n idea of the height of the Tower related to the base and have them picture the unliklihod of a straight down collapse
Click to expand...

For the towers to have toppled over sideways the toppling part would need to get enough angular momentum. To get angular momentum, the toppling part needs a pivot point. But the very act of toppling destroys the pivot point before the upper portion of the tower gains enough angular momentum to do anything but collapse straight down.

bill smith said:
People re not stupid. They know enough about structures to recognise a crock when they see one.
Click to expand...

It's not that people are stupid, it's that reality often acts in counter-intuitive ways.
 
Matthew Cline said:
For the towers to have toppled over sideways the toppling part would need to get enough angular momentum. To get angular momentum, the toppling part needs a pivot point. But the very act of toppling destroys the pivot point before the upper portion of the tower gains enough angular momentum to do anything but collapse straight down.



It's not that people are stupid, it's that reality often acts in counter-intuitive ways.
Click to expand...

Matthew.

I hate to disagree... but IMHO most truthers really are stupid, uneducated (or undereducated) and believing that their opinion carries as much weight as someone who is an expert and has the facts and experience to prove it.
 
TruthersLie said:
Matthew.

I hate to disagree... but IMHO most truthers really are stupid, uneducated (or undereducated) and believing that their opinion carries as much weight as someone who is an expert and has the facts and experience to prove it.
Click to expand...
It's what I call the Perfect Storm of Ignorance and Arrogance.
 
12: Questions-

T: balh blah blah, can you debunk this??

D: Yepo, 2006, here is linky, and another, and another to provide evidence

T: Blah blah blah but what about THIS??

D: Yepo, still the same BS. Didn't we JUST go over this??

T: But, its an INSIDE JOBBITY JOB!!1!!1!
 
Red, if you think the DNA is not enough good evidence because according to you it could have been "tampered with", then what makes you think the videos of the planes weren't tampered with, or the victims list, or the black boxes, or the witnesses? How do you discriminate between what could and could not have been tampered with? On what basis do you evaluate the evidence?

In other words, what is your standard for evidence, do you have one or does it shift around according to your mood or your willingness to believe or disbelieve?

Remember, this is what you had to say about the victims DNA:

RedIbis said:
since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such DNA could have been reported without that flight having been at the Pentagon
Click to expand...

But you can plug any type of evidence in the argument:

"since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such debris could have been reported without that flight having been at the Pentagon"

"since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such video could have been recorded without that flight having been at the WTC"

"since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such a core column could have been reported without having been at the WTC 7"

"since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such victim could have been reported without that person having been at the WTC"

So, according to your own logic, how do you go about and discriminate which statement is more likely than the other?
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
Explain how else "DNA could have been reported without the flight being at the Pentagon."
Click to expand...

Reports of DNA at the Pentagon do not prove unconditionally that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

This is the only point that I've made and that you thus far have been unable to comprehend. It's really not my responsibility to keep explaining this.
 
RedIbis said:
Reports of DNA at the Pentagon do not prove unconditionally that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

This is the only point that I've made and that you thus far have been unable to comprehend. It's really not my responsibility to keep explaining this.
Click to expand...

That's not what I was asking you.

I just want to know how DNA could have been reported at the Pentagon without the flight being there. You pretend that you weren't suggesting that it could have been tampered with, but in your usual cowardly fashion refuse to offer another explanation. Your constant refusal to explain yourself is really something.
 
RedIbis said:
Reports of DNA at the Pentagon do not prove unconditionally that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

This is the only point that I've made and that you thus far have been unable to comprehend. It's really not my responsibility to keep explaining this.
Click to expand...

Okay, here are the ways I can conceive of that would lead to reports of the passenger's DNA at the Pentagon:

  1. A plane containing the victims crashed at the Pentagon.
  2. The remains of the victims were planted at the Pentagon.
  3. Somewhere in the chain of custody of the evidence from the Pentagon to the DNA testing labs, the DNA evidence was tampered with.
  4. Somewhere in the chain of custody of the DNA samples of immediate relatives being sent to the testing labs, the samples were tampered with.
  5. Someone at the testing labs tampered with the evidence and/or samples after receiving them but before analysis.
  6. Someone tampered with equipment used to perform the DNA analysis.
  7. Someone tampered with the raw data generated by the tests before the data was analyzed.
  8. The testing labs lied about the results that they got.
  9. The government lied about the reports the labs gave.
Do you dismiss any of these explanations out of hand?

Are there any that you think more or less probable than the others?
 
Or perhaps you mean: even if there was a 110% guarantee that no sort of trickery whatsoever happened with regards to the DNA evidence, it still wouldn't be enough to prove, in and of itself, that Flight 77 had crashed at the Pentagon. And if this is what you mean, do you mean that no single piece of evidence alone can prove something like that, no matter how genuine that piece of evidence is?

ETA: And if the above is what you mean, do you mean that there's more than one trickery-free way for the DNA of the victims to have gotten into the Pentagon? Or do you mean that even there was no trickery, and even if the only trickery-free way for the DNA to get into the Pentagon was via Flight 77, it still wouldn't be enough evidence (in and of itself) that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom