Welcome to the Twilight Zone

[beachnut]

Right about now would be a really good time to plow through the thread "New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis," our introduction to Sizzler. As a display of disingenuousness, I think it outdoes Gregory Urich's best effort. I'm proud of the contribution I made on page 9:

"I must have dozed off. Did he get to his conclusion that explosives brought down the Towers yet?"

Ironic, this is like the TZ. You meet posters who have zero clue. They lie about what they believe and what they have signed up for. Sizzler could be a top p4t member, or a a&e member, or one of the not so scholars member. Life is hard enough for some people without these idiots making up more lies. Ironic that so many join these groups and claim the high ground of open minded outside the box independent thinking as they repeat the claims of others they failed to check for themselves. Top researchers everyone (google 9/11, I found it! … it says, he says, they said,…)

 

[bje]

I have called you out on your mistake. I was not misleading anyone.

Please be a man and retract the satement. You are obviously completely wrong about this.

I'll make it easy for you, Sizzler, but you only get one chance:

I hereby retract all of Sizzler's statements for him to allow him to start over on the right foot.

There. Done.

Start again from the beginning, Sizzler.

 

[R.Mackey]

Is Sizzler ignoring my responses, or is he unable to respond?

It is possible to set off charges so small a seismograph won't register them, true.

But such small charges won't accomplish anything. The size of columns in the WTC places a mininum value on the amount of explosive, and it's much higher than the example here.

And such charges won't give us the inward bowing behavior seen.

And they'll make noise. Lots of noise.

And they require coordination with the aircraft. I'll settle for +/- one floor and hitting the right quadrant of the building to make this easy.

I haven't seen a single rebuttal to any of these problems, and there's still more where these came from.

 

[Sizzler]

Is Sizzler ignoring my responses, or is he unable to respond?.

Sorry, I got distracted.

It is possible to set off charges so small a seismograph won't register them, true.

But such small charges won't accomplish anything. The size of columns in the WTC places a mininum value on the amount of explosive, and it's much higher than the example here.

Therm?te silently cuts a significant portion of the steel and weakens the buildings steel structure. Charges go off to initiate collapse-initiation.

And such charges won't give us the inward bowing behavior seen.

Bowing before collapse initiation is due to weakening of the steel structure as a whole. Top section is "traditional" CD and falls into lower section. Bowing then looks like the buckling. Moments later the lower section begin top down CD (resembling progressive collapse) and expulsions can be seen coming out of the building.

And they'll make noise. Lots of noise.

Many witnesses report explosions, AND THEN, collapse. Oral histories supports explosions, and then collapse.

And they require coordination with the aircraft. I'll settle for +/- one floor and hitting the right quadrant of the building to make this easy.

North Tower--->plane must hit between floors 92 and 98 and on the right side.

 

[Spins]

You are all wasting your time with Sizzler, he won't accept anything you say unless it supports his theory that the Twin Towers were brought down by some sort of controlled demolition.

 

[Spins]

Thanks for your reply mackey (e^n I don't have time for 2 conversations, reply to this one).

First and foremost i need to read your paper. Unfortunetely it is the busy season at work.

Not that you had any intention of doing so anyway but ... don't bother, you've already made your mind up on the subject so you'd be wasting your time.

By all means point any fence sitters you come across to his paper though, and also this forum.

 

[Spins]

Totally. I started the thread to see what evidence for the official story would;

1. be likely for gravity driven collapse
2. be unlikely for CD

Our view of the collapse is not an official story but bound in reality and science, yours on the other hand is nothing more than a fantasy.

 

[R.Mackey]

Therm?te silently cuts a significant portion of the steel and weakens the buildings steel structure. Charges go off to initiate collapse-initiation.

How many times do I have to tell you there were no charges? No bang, no flash, no shrapnel, no leftovers, no shock, no pressure pulses in the smoke, nothing on the seismograph, no way to have them survive the impact and fire, no way to coordinate with aircraft impact, no way to plant them ahead of time...

Bowing before collapse initiation is due to weakening of the steel structure as a whole. Top section is "traditional" CD and falls into lower section. Bowing then looks like the buckling. Moments later the lower section begin top down CD (resembling progressive collapse) and expulsions can be seen coming out of the building.

Not good enough! HOW do you weaken to create bowing, many minutes before collapse initiation? What do you weaken? What do you cut?

Once again, the bowing requires intact connections, not cutting or weakening. The weakening that leads to bowing affects a huge area, due to widespread fires. Nobody has even proposed a way to replicate this with destructive devices of any stripe, including you.

I can't respond to a hypothesis that does not exist. You are still in the starting gate.

Many witnesses report explosions, AND THEN, collapse. Oral histories supports explosions, and then collapse.

Oh, no they don't. And besides, we have audio of the collapses. Even small charges, typical in normal demolitions, would have been heard on the audio before the structure started to move.

This has been explained to you before.

North Tower--->plane must hit between floors 92 and 98 and on the right side.

Non sequitur.

Even if everything you just wrote was correct, you've still only challenged a fraction of the case against explosives. But everything you just wrote is nonsense. You're getting skunked.

 

[Gravy]

Many witnesses report explosions, AND THEN, collapse. Oral histories supports explosions, and then collapse.

Is there any lie the Jihadist Anti-Defamation League won't tell?

Accounts of structural instability in the Twin Towers, Bowing of columns, Collapse expected

Did eyewitnesses report hearing or seeing bombs and demolitions explosives in and around the towers?

 

[stateofgrace]

Therm?te silently cuts a significant portion of the steel and weakens the buildings steel structure.

Many witnesses report explosions, AND THEN, collapse. Oral histories supports explosions, and then collapse.

I can never get my head around this, maybe you can explain how silence suddenly gets heard by lots of people.

 

[pomeroo]

You made the mistake. I did not post the "blip" part. You must have gotten that from the article I linked to. Thus you had a chance to read the whole thing and didn't. You misquoted it.

Then you wrote this:



You imply that I was misleading people.

I have called you out on your mistake. I was not misleading anyone.

Please be a man and retract the satement. You are obviously completely wrong about this.

First, misleading people is a specialty of yours. You presented yourself to this forum as an "agnostic" on the events of 9/11. Some of us pegged you for a full-blown twoofer right away. Let's drop the sanctimonious posturing, shall we? You certainly have no intention of ever "being a man" and apologizing for your transparent deception.

Second, I acknowledged my error in failing to realize that I hadn't seen the entire article. It was careless of me and demonstrates--redundantly--that I am far from perfect.

Third, before anything is "retracted," let's establish exactly what your position is, a process that your characteristic slipperiness tends to complicate:
The demolition of the Aladdin proved quite easy. Mark Loizeaux commented that he didn't require as much explosives as he originally estimated. A seismologist who hasn't been contacted (yet!) by either rationalists or conspiracy liars commented that charges placed above ground wouldn't show up on a seismograph. It appears, then, that you are committed to arguing that the Towers were brought down by explosives placed sufficiently high up that they didn't register on the Lamont-Doherty labs' seismographs. This is, unusual for you, a concrete statement that can be verified with Lamont-Doherty seismologists.

I quoted Pope regarding "a little learning." We shall see.

 

[pomeroo]

Sorry, I got distracted.



Therm?te silently cuts a significant portion of the steel and weakens the buildings steel structure. Charges go off to initiate collapse-initiation.

Why doesn't anyone who works in the demolition industry agree with Max Photon's silly lie? Thermite is useless for controlled demolition, and therefore IT IS NOT USED. From pretending to be an "agnostic" you have been reduced to parroting a nonsensical theory promoted by a complete know-nothing. You have observed your fantasies get systematically taken apart by the scientists and engineers here. As a self-styled Socrates, you turned out to be a bust.

Bowing before collapse initiation is due to weakening of the steel structure as a whole. Top section is "traditional" CD and falls into lower section. Bowing then looks like the buckling. Moments later the lower section begin top down CD (resembling progressive collapse) and expulsions can be seen coming out of the building.

What a silly fraud you have revealed yourself to be! You are peddling ancient, thoroughly debunked rubbish to a NASA engineer.

Many witnesses report explosions, AND THEN, collapse. Oral histories supports explosions, and then collapse.

Stop lying.

North Tower--->plane must hit between floors 92 and 98 and on the right side.

It "must"? Well, then,

WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

 

[pomeroo]

I can never get my head around this, maybe you can explain how silence suddenly gets heard by lots of people.

It's mind-blowing! These frauds attempt to peddle blatantly self-contradictory claptrap without a hint of self-consciousness. No explosions were recorded on the seismographs because the steel was merely " heat-weakened" by magic thermite. But, everyone heard massive explosions--which weren't heard because they were silent.

 

[pomeroo]

From Sizzler's first thread--his disguise was unraveling and he had just petulantly branded something a rationalist wrote as "a lie." I responded:

"Now, that's more like it!

I realize that we're still on page 9, but I was wondering if we could jump to page 14 and discuss how such large buildings could be wired with tons of explosives without anyone noticing?"


He kept up the masquerade through all fifteen pages of the single most disingenuous performance ever attempted on this forum.

 

[R.Mackey]

I can never get my head around this, maybe you can explain how silence suddenly gets heard by lots of people.

It's mind-blowing! These frauds attempt to peddle blatantly self-contradictory claptrap without a hint of self-consciousness. No explosions were recorded on the seismographs because the steel was merely " heat-weakened" by magic thermite. But, everyone heard massive explosions--which weren't heard because they were silent.

I believe it's gradualism, or a feeble attempt at Special Pleading, namely "I can concoct a ridiculous story that makes the bombs quiet enough that they wouldn't be heard."

But this is unfinished. How quiet? What was the threshold used by the conspirators? Did they only consider rabble with camcorders on the ground, or did they also anticipate police helicopters right next to the event?

How small were the bombs?

How were they placed or prepared to avoid sending an audio signal?

These are not simple questions, they are deeply complicated, provided one actually thinks about them rather than just hand-waving them off. Even if done perfectly well, the conspirators needed to anticipate every single way they might be discovered, and fabricate countermeasures.

Not bloody likely. Even if this was possible, let alone practical, we've still created a radically complex scenario that is, again, the worst of both worlds. And there is no evidence to suggest that it is possible.

Let us also not forget that no self-respecting conspirator would attempt something so complicated, as I've explained before.

Sizzler, the time has come for you to present a hypothesis, or give up. Your arguments are nothing more than evasions, and hardly new or valid.

 

[Sizzler]

Sizzler, the time has come for you to present a hypothesis, or give up. Your arguments are nothing more than evasions, and hardly new or valid.

Great idea. I will post it later.

Just one thing though.

The oral histories support both the official hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. People reported hearing and seeing explosions.

They could have been; 1. floors crashing into each other
2. detonations

The oral histories do not serve as direct evidence but they do fit both hypotheses.

 

[beachnut]

Great idea. I will post it later.

Just one thing though.

The oral histories support both the official hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. People reported hearing and seeing explosions.

They could have been; 1. floors crashing into each other
2. detonations

The oral histories do not serve as direct evidence but they do fit both hypotheses.

Oh. Post the sound likes and suffer the dumbness of another truther post. Sorry, no sounds of RDX on 9/11. We cheated, we talked to people on the street during 9/11, right there who saw WTC7 on fire out of control, leaning. No sounds of explosives; you know why? Are you really this knowledge challenged? You are in a movement of lies. You are repeating the false information and coming very close to being a liar by repeating false information. Why are you unable to get much right on 9/11?

You think Dan Rather would pass up a Pulitzer Prize. You have to get some better ideas on 9/11.

 

[R.Mackey]

Great idea. I will post it later.

Terrific! Few conspiracy theorists do this, and that is largely to blame for the unrealism of their ideas, as I explore in my whitepaper. If you can escape this cycle with a real hypothesis, then you will start making progress.

Just one thing though.

The oral histories support both the official hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. People reported hearing and seeing explosions.

They could have been; 1. floors crashing into each other
2. detonations

The oral histories do not serve as direct evidence but they do fit both hypotheses.

Horsefeathers! The same evidence cannot support two mutually exclusive theories. Above you claimed the "oral histories" supported explosions before collapse, but they do not. I've looked.

At best, this evidence is neutral to both theories -- if it does not bias one in either direction, then it supports neither.

 

[Sizzler]

You wrote:

Horsefeathers! The same evidence cannot support two mutually exclusive theories.

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

So if this can't support both theories, which one does it support?

And,

You wrote:

Above you claimed the "oral histories" supported explosions before collapse, but they do not. I've looked.

How hard did you look?

This point is made even more clearly by Chief Frank Cruthers, who said: ?There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."23

But, lets leave this for later. I will post my hypothesis.

 

[beachnut]

So if this can't support both theories, which one does it support?
And,
How hard did you look?
But, lets leave this for later. I will post my hypothesis.

You must of talked to them? Not going to the news to expose the bad guys and get a Pulitzer Prize? You have this person telling your there were explosives; right? Tell me you have first hand information not some hearsay crap you made up? Right...