alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
Will these guys ever learn anything? I started a thread over at LCF recently to announce my latest videos debunking David Chandler's 'Smoking guns' video.
I actually made the mistake of trying to respond to some of their posts, hoping to have some kind of rational and civil discussion. Alas, this was not possible..
I decided never to return to that forum, as I feel it's a complete waste of time - however, someone from the forum recently contacted me thru youtube asking me to respond to his post on LCF.
This is a priceless request, since he dedicated the first portion of his post to a string of personal attacks and attacks on JREF. Needless to say, I didn't bother to read the rest of the post. But here it is, in it's entirety for you to comment on if you wish.
Notice he doesn't really address the points of Chandler's video which I rebutted. Surprise, surprise. In spite of all their bluster, the LCF guys didn't defend Chandler much at all - they preferred to attack me and JREF instead.
from Duffman1013 http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=335113&t=2515282
I was amazed nobody brought up some very very key points to duhbunking Alien, but unfortunately, the troll has hijacked the thread and made it about who has more experts (clearly AE911 won that one hands down, sorry Alien, but you've admitted that you're a JREF troll, and JREF is essentially the whole basis of your research. JREF has a lot of guys who talk big, but non of them have gone public (to the best of my knowledge), AE911 is well known in the 911 world, both by debunkers and truthers, tantamount to going public).
Now, you, and your JREF buddies love (almost to the point of screaming it on the hilltops) NIST. They are your gods, bread and butters, you're essence and mistress. NIST can do no wrong, and you will quote extensively from NIST's reports (at least the parts that further your claims). Sorry, buddy, NIST is about as reliable as a Yugo. They postulated that the collapse initiation was caused by extreme office fires, fueled by plastics, paper and the small amount of wood available. They also said the infernos raged for nearly an hour, without letting up. It weakened the structure, causing a global failure of the entire core (nearly simultaniously), and then they stop. Their computer models and mathematics go no further. Except to say that "collapse 'pancaking'" did not occur...
Let's examine that individually.
1) Fires raged inside across several floors for an extended period of time.
Fires had been reported initially. NIST's own models say that the jet fuel was consumed within the first 10 minutes maximum, so that had no bearing on the intensity of the fires at time of collapse. The concentration of fuel was not sufficient (according to FEMA's explanation) to create the sustained 800-1100* fires required by NIST's models for the time needed.
2) Weakened the structure of the building.
For NIST's models to work, both computer and lab tests, they had to remove nearly all of the silica/ceramic fireproofing over a large area of the floor. Second (this is the damning part), they had to remove 50% of the trusses and cross-members to initiate a global collapse. They even state in their reports that they had to use extreme measures to duplicate the results (a so-called "worst-case scenario). The probable scenarios couldn't create the results.
3) NIST says that pancaking of floors did not occur.
FEMA and Bazant et. al. both use pancaking as their primary vehicles for the destruction of the towers. Neither of them actually take in to account the relative speed of the collapse from initiation to completion. Pancaking takes time. It is a steady progression of single floors slamming in to single floors, overcoming the resistive forces applied from each. The speed of the collapse (which you lovingly pointed out that the top section didn't fall at freefall speeds. You're right it didn't fall at freefall speeds.... at first). It had to gather momentum, and it did so at the parabolic and exponential level that something beginning freefall would need to obtain. Translation: Something falling doesn't start at terminal velocity outside of a vacuum. It needs to build up momentum. Trace the collapse from a determined setpoint, I.E. the top of the tower. It starts falling slowly, then builds up speed, the penultimate result being the collapse followed the parabolic curve for reaching freefall speeds in a natural resistive manner. Translation: it fell like it was hitting air.
Should I go on? I will just bring up some questions for you to answer about a non-controlled collapse of 911.
1) Why was the top section pulverized with such ease by an equal material with equal strength and resistance?
2) Why was everything that wasn't structural steel ground to a fine powder, including virtually every piece of electronics and office furniture, carpeting, concrete and soft materials? Obviously, since fire didn't rage throughout the whole building, those things couldn't have been consumed in a fire.
3) Why did the core structure offer no resistance to the falling top section, instead the collapse followed the path with the absolute maximum highest resistance a building could offer? Certainly with any other tall structure, if you took the top 1/5 and tilted it 30* to the side, it would fall away from the structure, rather than coming straight down through the rest of the structure.
4) What about the molten and forge-red hot metal found during excavation? Why was it still hot 6-8 weeks after those fires?
5) What about Dr. Jones and the microspheres of iron and aluminum? That comes directly from nanothermite and thermite reactions on steel and iron (and from what I read in his paper, they've not ever been found in nature or from another steel-concrete structure fire).
Alien, you're sorely outclassed and outwitted. The stuff you brought up was the stuff I brought up to myself, and since answered with a little closer look. I questioned everything given by BoneZ, MM, JFK, hell, I even talk to Dylan about some of this stuff. I answered it for myself, and so far, nobody has been able to refute (to me, an open book), the counterclaims to your videos. Probably because there isn't any.
I seriously doubt I'm going to convince you otherwise, even if a new investigation were brought up, and came to the same conclusions as the members of this forum, you would probably deny them, and claim it was a witch hunt and was faulty just to prove a conspiracist's point. Sleep on it.
I actually made the mistake of trying to respond to some of their posts, hoping to have some kind of rational and civil discussion. Alas, this was not possible..
I decided never to return to that forum, as I feel it's a complete waste of time - however, someone from the forum recently contacted me thru youtube asking me to respond to his post on LCF.
This is a priceless request, since he dedicated the first portion of his post to a string of personal attacks and attacks on JREF. Needless to say, I didn't bother to read the rest of the post. But here it is, in it's entirety for you to comment on if you wish.
Notice he doesn't really address the points of Chandler's video which I rebutted. Surprise, surprise. In spite of all their bluster, the LCF guys didn't defend Chandler much at all - they preferred to attack me and JREF instead.
from Duffman1013 http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=335113&t=2515282
I was amazed nobody brought up some very very key points to duhbunking Alien, but unfortunately, the troll has hijacked the thread and made it about who has more experts (clearly AE911 won that one hands down, sorry Alien, but you've admitted that you're a JREF troll, and JREF is essentially the whole basis of your research. JREF has a lot of guys who talk big, but non of them have gone public (to the best of my knowledge), AE911 is well known in the 911 world, both by debunkers and truthers, tantamount to going public).
Now, you, and your JREF buddies love (almost to the point of screaming it on the hilltops) NIST. They are your gods, bread and butters, you're essence and mistress. NIST can do no wrong, and you will quote extensively from NIST's reports (at least the parts that further your claims). Sorry, buddy, NIST is about as reliable as a Yugo. They postulated that the collapse initiation was caused by extreme office fires, fueled by plastics, paper and the small amount of wood available. They also said the infernos raged for nearly an hour, without letting up. It weakened the structure, causing a global failure of the entire core (nearly simultaniously), and then they stop. Their computer models and mathematics go no further. Except to say that "collapse 'pancaking'" did not occur...
Let's examine that individually.
1) Fires raged inside across several floors for an extended period of time.
Fires had been reported initially. NIST's own models say that the jet fuel was consumed within the first 10 minutes maximum, so that had no bearing on the intensity of the fires at time of collapse. The concentration of fuel was not sufficient (according to FEMA's explanation) to create the sustained 800-1100* fires required by NIST's models for the time needed.
2) Weakened the structure of the building.
For NIST's models to work, both computer and lab tests, they had to remove nearly all of the silica/ceramic fireproofing over a large area of the floor. Second (this is the damning part), they had to remove 50% of the trusses and cross-members to initiate a global collapse. They even state in their reports that they had to use extreme measures to duplicate the results (a so-called "worst-case scenario). The probable scenarios couldn't create the results.
3) NIST says that pancaking of floors did not occur.
FEMA and Bazant et. al. both use pancaking as their primary vehicles for the destruction of the towers. Neither of them actually take in to account the relative speed of the collapse from initiation to completion. Pancaking takes time. It is a steady progression of single floors slamming in to single floors, overcoming the resistive forces applied from each. The speed of the collapse (which you lovingly pointed out that the top section didn't fall at freefall speeds. You're right it didn't fall at freefall speeds.... at first). It had to gather momentum, and it did so at the parabolic and exponential level that something beginning freefall would need to obtain. Translation: Something falling doesn't start at terminal velocity outside of a vacuum. It needs to build up momentum. Trace the collapse from a determined setpoint, I.E. the top of the tower. It starts falling slowly, then builds up speed, the penultimate result being the collapse followed the parabolic curve for reaching freefall speeds in a natural resistive manner. Translation: it fell like it was hitting air.
Should I go on? I will just bring up some questions for you to answer about a non-controlled collapse of 911.
1) Why was the top section pulverized with such ease by an equal material with equal strength and resistance?
2) Why was everything that wasn't structural steel ground to a fine powder, including virtually every piece of electronics and office furniture, carpeting, concrete and soft materials? Obviously, since fire didn't rage throughout the whole building, those things couldn't have been consumed in a fire.
3) Why did the core structure offer no resistance to the falling top section, instead the collapse followed the path with the absolute maximum highest resistance a building could offer? Certainly with any other tall structure, if you took the top 1/5 and tilted it 30* to the side, it would fall away from the structure, rather than coming straight down through the rest of the structure.
4) What about the molten and forge-red hot metal found during excavation? Why was it still hot 6-8 weeks after those fires?
5) What about Dr. Jones and the microspheres of iron and aluminum? That comes directly from nanothermite and thermite reactions on steel and iron (and from what I read in his paper, they've not ever been found in nature or from another steel-concrete structure fire).
Alien, you're sorely outclassed and outwitted. The stuff you brought up was the stuff I brought up to myself, and since answered with a little closer look. I questioned everything given by BoneZ, MM, JFK, hell, I even talk to Dylan about some of this stuff. I answered it for myself, and so far, nobody has been able to refute (to me, an open book), the counterclaims to your videos. Probably because there isn't any.
I seriously doubt I'm going to convince you otherwise, even if a new investigation were brought up, and came to the same conclusions as the members of this forum, you would probably deny them, and claim it was a witch hunt and was faulty just to prove a conspiracist's point. Sleep on it.
