Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[DGM]

If it didnt 'stick' I wouldnt encounter people almost weekly who learn the truth for the first time by seeing the collapse of wtc7 -wondering why the heck it was kept from them by the corporate press.

This must be a high school thing.

BTW: Nothing kept it out of the press, you were just too young to remember.

 

[000063]

Not every post is directed at you personally..(there;s a name for that,w hen people think everything is about them)

'Trutherism"I like - Like a new school of philosophy whose central tenet is the requirement that there be an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence to support one's claim.

If it didnt 'stick' I wouldnt encounter people almost weekly who learn the truth for the first time by seeing the collapse of wtc7 -wondering why the heck it was kept from them by the corporate press.

The truth is disturbing, -I imagine, like Nazi atrocities to many Germans at the time..'ummm, rather not think 'bout it' but how bout that game, or film, or play, or meal. Most who do realize it respond with, 'Thats messed up but It wasnt my family why should I care?' 'I dont care even if it is true, -the world is filled with such atrocities' and so on.. and then 'what are we gonna d for dinner?' Thats why people like Jim Hoffman, Steven E Jones, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and so on, are heroes and will be remembered that way some day. (The way Ho Chi Minh is remembered thus today (as a liberator),.. During the Vietnam war he was the evil communist rebel.
People (not all) are so narrow-minded and short-sighted/

I wish you all increased knowledge and well-being.

I note that, just like you said, you pay no regard to the substantial, fact-based counters of your claims, preferring instead to take a single sardonic comment and make broad comparisons to other people they laughed at. But remember, "...they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

 

[Bell]

Where. Are. The. Booms?!

 

[DGM]

Where. Are. The. Booms?!

I think it's cute when they claim the MSM ignored the collapse of building 7, then show a MSM news clip of the collapse to show it fall.

Precious.

 

[Justin39640]

I think it's cute when they claim the MSM ignored the collapse of building 7, then show a MSM news clip of the collapse to show it fall.

Precious.

I probably watched more video of 7WTC collapsing the week of 9/11 than most (younger) truthers have seen in their lives.

It was a huge story. You had to have been completely oblivious to... well, everything... to not have known about it.

 

[A W Smith]

I dont need any test, expert hack, or specialist, to tell me what is overtly obvious through direct observation and knowledge of the facts on the ground; that wtc 1 2 & 7 could ONLY have been brought down through the use of pre-planted explosives. This is determined by the facts no one disputes because they are so well documented. (they get ignored and dismissed but there they remain)
They include: the speed and symmetry of 1,2&7's destruction. 1 & 2's complete annihilation with astonishing explosive lateral energies (for what are told were gravity-driven collapses on an intact (below the point of impact) structures, the pulverized concrete, 100 day fires with excessive temps (2800f over a week later? thats fact, look it up!), 1000 missing bodies, wtc 7s rapid and symmetrical implosion, molten metal (steel and iron) and so on and so forth/. ALL (as well as a host of other FACTS) conclusively indicate the use of additional energy sources. (aka explosives)

Same Chris Mohr? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg (If I were, I'd keep quiet about anything technical and (try at least to) focus on simple common sense. cheers

**here's a little fact (re wtc7) for deniers, never has a skyscraper come down in a manner consistent with controlled demolition and not been one.

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 268

you joined in 2009? and you're posting 2012? but quoting debunked twoofer memes from 2006? Might want to follow the link in my sig for your answers to the yellow highlighted portion of your screed from incredulity.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

[SNIP] It's gotten beyond the point where I'm interested in repeating that these people haven't a clue about design or it's implications on their "first time in history" shenanigans. Food for thought on the CT's, there's a first time for everything, and before the "first times" there's always a "risk" because design is incapable of covering every conceivable thing that can happen to something during its life cycle. CT's never learn...

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

 

[leftysergeant]

I dont need any test, expert hack, or specialist, to tell me what is overtly obvious through direct observation and knowledge of the facts on the ground; that wtc 1 2 & 7 could ONLY have been brought down through the use of pre-planted explosives.

So you trust Jim Fetzer's ear crickets instead. Nice.

They include: the speed and symmetry of 1,2&7's destruction. 1 & 2's complete annihilation with astonishing explosive lateral energies (for what are told were gravity-driven collapses on an intact (below the point of impact) structures,

Bull flops. Hundreds of tons of stuff were falling onto floors only able to support dozens of tons. Dozens of tons could not go straight down, so they moved laterally, causing one hell of a wind against big flat surfaces that were just bolted toegether. Of course big sections of the perimeter columns would be forced outward.

...the pulverized concrete...

Not all of it was pulverised, nor do we hear any trace of the sorts of explosives that would ave to be used to crush any more of it.

100 day fires with excessive temps (2800f over a week later? thats fact, look it up!)...

How does that prove anything?

1000 missing bodies...

It was like a giant blender inside the collpase zone. Bodies get minced up in that sort of situation.

...wtc 7s rapid and symmetrical implosion,

It did not fall at a steady rate nor really symtricly.

molten metal (steel and iron) and so on and so forth

. Show me the ingots.

 

[Justin39640]

It was like a giant blender inside the collpase zone. Bodies get minced up in that sort of situation.

I can never understand why people don't/refuse to understand this fact?

 

[kmortis]

Keep it on topic and civil. The topic is not the other posters.

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

 

[MIKILLINI]

The most ignorant assumption truthers always make: They believe nobody in JREF does research and that there are no experts/professionals here.
Ignorance gets you nowhere atavisms.

 

[tntruther]

Melting point of steel vs reason for jumping

She definitely jumped. Twoofer-ghouls like to use her presence there as an example of how the temperatures couldn't have been that high, but oddly enough they go silent when asked why she jumped then.

This is a very sensitive issue. When you talk about someone dyeing we naturally try to be very respectful of the deceased and their families.
Conversely the science of structural integrity tends to be a fairly dispassionate subject.
It's hard to mix the two.
To say that the fire was hot enough to make someone jump but not hot enough to melt steel tend to make the messenger seem insensitive, but, none the less, the science is obvious.
When truthers use this example, it is really our attempt to overstate the obvious.
The reality is, even if the fires had reached 2800F, the melting point of steel. causing the upper part of the building to collapse on to the lower part, there would still not be enough mass or energy for it to crush the lower, much stronger part of the building in to a fine dust at near free-fall acceleration.
My heart goes out to all the victims of 911 and their families. And my heart goes out to America, who's liberties have been under attack from within since 911.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The reality is, even if the fires had reached 2800F, the melting point of steel. causing the upper part of the building to collapse on to the lower part, there would still not be enough mass or energy for it to crush the lower, much stronger part of the building in to a fine dust at near free-fall acceleration.

Since nobody is claiming any of this, your argument is worthless and irrelevant. It's been proven far beyond reasonable doubt that the fires reached sufficiently great temperatures to weaken the structure to the point of failure, and that there was ample mass and energy available for the initial failure to cause global collapse of the building. The only refuge left to truthers is therefore to lie by implication, as you have here, and pretend that nonexistent events remain unexplained.

Dave

 

[tntruther]

Useful science vs conspiracy theories

When I think of the horror of someone facing the decision to jump or stay, knowing that there was no difference in either choice, it really make me despise the truthers that use her as an example for their useless theories in their usesless lives.

Truthers actually put their own reputation and safety at risk for the betterment of society when they stand up to the government's official conspiracy theory of 911.
I'm a truther, but I'm not trying to exploit anyone. I just want to get to the truth about how those 3 buildings fell. And my major motivating factor is the tragic fate of the victims. So please, don't hate truthers for simply digging in to the science for the sake of justice.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Mother of God, time machines exist. We've somehow been transported back to 2009...

Edit: Actually, earlier. The truther misuse of victims who jumped must be one of the early tactics they tried; I'd actually forgotten they took that route. Plus, the whole idiocy about lower segment being able to resist the upper floors - as if structural integrity were not needed for such resistence - dates back to at least what, 2007? Maybe earlier?

 

[Sabrina]

First of all, welcome to the forum.

Secondly, if you're attempting to actually dig into the science, you'd be only the second truther I've ever seen who has (and of note is that the first truther has reached some conclusions that support the so-called "official theory" and not any truther "theories"). Would you mind starting a new thread wherein you outline exactly what you believe happened on 9/11 and provide evidence for your claims? You seem to be relatively polite, and I think perhaps people here might enjoy discussing this with you; lately the only truthers we seem to get around here are trolling for "teh lulz" or are long-time members who refuse to consider any possibilities other than what they want to believe. I'd be interested to know what it is you have come to believe.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Truthers actually put their own reputation and safety at risk for the betterment of society when they stand up to the government's official conspiracy theory of 911.

Only in their imaginations. In the real world, nobody actually cares much. This forum is probably the last place left where truthers are even deemed worth responding to.

I'm a truther, but I'm not trying to exploit anyone. I just want to get to the truth about how those 3 buildings fell.

Well, here are some aspects of the truth about how those three buildings fell:
(1) They didn't fall at near free-fall acceleration. One of them, for a small part of its collapse, fell at near free-fall.
(2) It's extremely well understood that the temperature of the steel didn't need to get anywhere near its melting point to cause the buildings to collapse.
(3) The steel in the buildings was not turned to dust.
(4) No reputable structural engineer is in any doubt that the collapses were entirely caused by the airliner impacts, the resulting fires, and in the case of WTC7 the impact damage and fires resulting from the collapses.

Now, if you choose to ignore these aspects of the truth, what does that say about your claim that you "just want to get to the truth"? And if you choose not to ignore them, what significant details are actually left to uncover?

So please, don't hate truthers for simply digging in to the science for the sake of justice.

If truthers would actually do that, we wouldn't. We despise truthers for deliberately perverting science to try to convince other people of untenable conjectures. Sadly, that's all most truthers do, and you haven't got off to a good start.

There are a rare few, such as BCR on this forum, who genuinely try to uncover the details of what happened, but they invariably end up determining that, in fact, the worst the US government can be accused of is negligence, incompetence, and after-the-fact coverups. After more than a decade, it's painfully obvious that there is no greater level of culpability that can honestly be ascribed.

Dave

 

[tntruther]

Since nobody is claiming any of this, your argument is worthless and irrelevant. It's been proven far beyond reasonable doubt that the fires reached sufficiently great temperatures to weaken the structure to the point of failure, and that there was ample mass and energy available for the initial failure to cause global collapse of the building. The only refuge left to truthers is therefore to lie by implication, as you have here, and pretend that nonexistent events remain unexplained.

Dave

David, Truthers are being disparaged on this forum. I think it is important to point out that we not only have good intentions but we also have good science. The implications of controlled demolition create cognitive dissonance that results in denial, ridicule and confrontation. But people need to get past all that and take a hard look at the science and the implication of ignoring it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

David, Truthers are being disparaged on this forum. I think it is important to point out that we not only have good intentions but we also have good science.

Speaking as a career scientist, who is therefore good at distinguishing between good and bad science, I disagree on the science, which tends to lead me to disagree on the intentions. The truth movement has never advanced a scientific argument that didn't rely on outright misrepresentation, to the point that the people advancing it can only be either dishonest or incompetent. Some of them, we know for certain, are outright liars; David Ray Griffin, for example, has published books containing points that he previously admitted were wrong, and Dylan Avery tried to weasel his way out of the corner he'd been boxed into by claiming he'd put incorrect theories into Loose Change to make people think. At the head of your movement there is a pack of liars and idiots, and at the bottom end there are the buyers of the snake oil.

The implications of controlled demolition create cognitive dissonance that results in denial, ridicule and confrontation.

And truthers don't understand what cognitive dissonance is either. Please drop the punk psychology, or you'll get slaughtered here.

But people need to get past all that and take a hard look at the science and the implication of ignoring it.

And this is where we do that. Use the search function, if you can persuade it to work. Every truther pseudoscientific argument has been discussed to death here. You may choose to disagree with us, but to pretend we've never addressed the arguments is simply laughable.

Dave

 

[000063]

This is a very sensitive issue. When you talk about someone dyeing we naturally try to be very respectful of the deceased and their families.
Conversely the science of structural integrity tends to be a fairly dispassionate subject.
It's hard to mix the two.
To say that the fire was hot enough to make someone jump but not hot enough to melt steel tend to make the messenger seem insensitive, but, none the less, the science is obvious.
When truthers use this example, it is really our attempt to overstate the obvious.
The reality is, even if the fires had reached 2800F, the melting point of steel. causing the upper part of the building to collapse on to the lower part, there would still not be enough mass or energy for it to crush the lower, much stronger part of the building in to a fine dust at near free-fall acceleration.
My heart goes out to all the victims of 911 and their families. And my heart goes out to America, who's liberties have been under attack from within since 911.

Welcome to 2006.

The official story doesn't require melted steel, and never has. It says the steel was heated, weakened, and failed. And given that the science says the upper blocks would've hit the lower blocks with force comparable to several times the weight of both towers combined...

I note that you don't actually respond scientifically to the people responding to you with science.