Just how convoluted can you get?

David Ray Griffin huh ?

So he is another crackpot that belives that a missile hit the Pentagon ?

en.wikipedia.org...



Sorry...he has no credability in my opinion, I'm not buying his assesment...

Baer adds that Griffin's subtitle, Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, "suggests this book is a search for truth, but don't let that fool you. His mind is all but made up."

He is close minded, his mind is made up, I don't accept opinions from these type of people...


Try again...

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

Baer adds that Griffin's subtitle, Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, "suggests this book is a search for truth, but don't let that fool you. His mind is all but made up."

He is close minded, his mind is made up, I don't accept opinions from these type of people...


Try again...

Close-minded.. according to Baer. Well, I say Baer's close-minded! So you'll have to find someone better than that to comment on Mr. Griffin. Try again.

And is that not to say that your mind is not similarly all but made up?

Well...

You can say what you want, but as for me I'm a very open minded person ( you just have to proove me wrong, then I'll accept it )...

But you can belive what you want, I don't care...

But as for the good DR. he is close minded, and for me I can't accept what he says...

Back on topic.


BTW, just so you know, Bsbray11 has ignored me for disagreeing with him so any proof that I offer is invisible to him.

I adressed many of his problems in my last post.

The "squibs" issue has been adressed. The "plunger" never vanished, and the evidence is overwhelming in support of the powerful amount of air passing through the building as it collapsed.

That wind that knocked down a whole team of firefighters and held them to the floor during the collapse occured on the 4th floor. Jedi_master originally brought up said anecdote, and if the force of air was that strong on the fourth floor, it was certainly strong enough to blow out windows on different floors. Keep in mind the wind also blew open a door.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
The "squibs" issue has been adressed.

How has the squibs issue been addressed? Only two squibs were shown to exhibit a "stream-like" behavior, the rest all were single, explosive puffs. And the stream-like behavior of those two squibs could also be explained by progressive explosions occurring one after the other. The smaller, single puffs look like single explosions, but the larger, streaming squibs look very much like multiple explosions occurring one after the other inside the building which would also produce a continuous streaming effect. I personally am willing to accept the possibility that those two squibs were in fact created by the "syringe theory", because the plunger was still intact at that stage and the squibs were up close to the collapse level, but since the other squibs do not fit these criteria, the hypothesis has major holes.

The "plunger" never vanished

The "plunger" is clearly disintegrated by at most 1/3 of the way down the collapse. In fact, most of the "plunger" fell over the side of the building as it disintegrated and fell apart. Even the pro-government info and websites repeat this over and over, because they use it to explain the holes in the tops of other buildings like WTC6, and to explain the loss of angular momentum of the caps. The fact that this directly contradicts their other theory, the "pancake" one, doesn't seem to bother them, just as Orwell predicted it wouldn't. A demolition expert contacted by QuietSoul on this very website has reiterated the fact that the caps would disintegrate at the same rate as the lower portions would as they came into destructive contact. Again, the only people propagating this all-new "syringe" hypothesis are a couple of rogue, self-proclaimed debunkers here on ATS.



Plunger! Plunger! Wherefore art thou, plunger?

And if the laws of physics had been circumvented and the indestructible "plunger" had completely pulverize the concrete, snap the steel, and obliterate the entire 96 floors below it, right down to the very ground, under gravity alone, without being destroyed itself in the process, then we would have seen the same magical "plunger" sitting on top of the rubble pile like a knight on top of a slain dragon. The people in the top floors would have walked away after just experiencing the world's largest, most expensive amusement park ride. Or, we would have seen the plunger stay completely intact until it hit the ground. We didn't, because it's impossible, and it didn't happen that way.

and the evidence is overwhelming in support of the powerful amount of air passing through the building as it collapsed.

What "overwhelming evidence" is that? That there was air, with no concrete dust in it, traveling down stairwells? There is a huge difference between air in a stairwell knocking a firefighter off his feet, and gargantuan overpressure filling up multiple floors and blasting pulverized concrete a hundred feet out from the perimeter of the building. And explosions by their very nature create expansion of gases too, remember. The kind of air pressure you are talking about would occur in the stairwells whether the building was brought down by explosives, or under its own weight, or both, which seems to be the case. But unless the firefighters were blasted with pulverized concrete and had their guts come out their mouths from the overpressure required to validate the syringe theory, then air in the stairwells is unconnected and validates neither theory.

It's also interesting to note how firefighter testimony of air in the stairwells is cited as "proof" of the syringe hypothesis, yet when firefighters testify to explosions in the buildings, they are just "misinterpreting natural phenomena".

[edit on 2005-9-25 by wecomeinpeace]

You can say what you want, but as for me I'm a very open minded person ( you just have to proove me wrong, then I'll accept it )...

Open minded. But after a quick wikipedia lookup our sources aren't good enough for mr Yoda overhere. I'm having flashbacks.

And you keep coming up with "the logistics" of such an operation.

What logistics? Those techies and engineers running in and out the WTC buildings? Those towers aren't really desolate places.
And if you believe the towers can crash down because of a simple fire then I'm sure they didn't need many explosions either ? But ofcourse the pancake-gravitational-syringe-fireball-o-doom theory makes more sense.

Well some of the logistics involved would be this that I posted back one page ( guess you missed it ), so I'll quote myself...

I mean you would have to put in a crew to rip out the drywall, a crew to cut the beams, and place/wire the explosives, then replace the drywall and then mud and re-paint the areas that were ripped out to cause no questions from the inhabitants of the building...

According to the popular theory this took place over a weekend, folks this is impossible, mainly ( to me ) because of the mudding and re-painting, I've done this type of work and I'm here to tell ya, you have to put up at least 3 coats of mud and that should take about at least 2 days to dry and sand ( and this also depends on the environment, sometimes it takes longer )...

Then you have to paint it the same color as to not raise questions, and this all taking part over a weekend ?

Now to this day I've not seen any reports of any changes to the walls, if you have them post them...

And this is also not to mention that the crews would have to be coordinated on each floor at the same time to get the job done...

So how many people we talking about here 10...100...1000, I'm going to say at least 2000, that's 10 men per floor per building to get the job done over the weekend...

So you've got at least 1000 men per building rushing to their floors with construction equipment ( ie: welders/cutters, drywall, drywall mud, their tools, paint ect...) plus the explosives. And no one questioned this, or raised an eye brow ?

I've not seen any reports of any welding/cutting equipment being transported into the buildings, nor any of the other equipment, as of yet...

The only report was of a cableing job being done, and you don't need any of that type of equipment to do a cableing job, ( been there done that ), but still yet no one has stated that they saw anyone with that type of equipment in the buildings at that time...







[edit on 25-9-2005 by Jedi_Master]

Let me just say this, President Bush and his associates knew that 9-11 was going to occur. He did NOTHING in his power and "ability" to stop the attacks from happening. First thing that made me suspicious was the lack of fighter support over the entire Eastern Seaboard. Second thing is that NORAD "planned" an antiterror/anti-hijacking drill for that very same day. This confused the AT Controllers, who are supposed to know what is going on in the air at all times, to believing that this was IN FACT a drill. I mean it states it right on the recordings between NORCOM, northeast Command, and the air traffic controllers. Since this was going on all over the entire east coast, we were left very unprotecteted by the very same goobernment that it's duty is to protect us. We are being screwed over by the very politicans that we "elected"

As for the collapse of the WTC, that was not a gravity-driven collapse. There is absolutely no way possible that an office fire can collapse a stell-framed structure. The complete free fall of 110 story skyscrapers never happened before 9-11. When was the last time you heard about a steel-framed structure collapsing due to a fire? The demolition like collapse of the twin towers wouldn't have been possible without the use of some sort of explosive. For the average Joe Blow, especially if they are a retired fire investigator, down on the street at the time of the collapse of both towers , they would have also thought that something just didn't add up.
For example, ambulance at the triage area in front of the towers when they collapsed that had either very little damage or no damage at all. Fire trucks at the base of the towers at the time of the collapse buried by debris that had major damage or were totaled. Vehicles that were blocks away from the collapse that suddenly caught fire due to debris flying around. People are so blind to the facts, even if it is right in front of the face yelling at them!

Give it time when we heard no more from and or about the Bush clan when the facts are released to the public. The very same thing happened with Watergate years after Nixon had left office and died. I mean there have to be documents somewhere that state what actually happened. We could be dealing with a suped-up version of Operation Northwoods here. I have found de-classified documents about the explanation about Northwoods, the procedures, and the reasons for this operations existance. Don't believe me, you can read the full document at ]http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-i.htm and I'd like for you guys and gals to state your opinons about what you read

[edit on 9/25/2005 by gimmefootball400]

And this is also not to mention that the crews would have to be coordinated on each floor at the same time to get the job done...

So how many people we talking about here 10...100...1000, I'm going to say at least 2000, that's 10 men per floor per building to get the job done over the weekend...

So you've got at least 1000 men per building rushing to their floors with construction equipment ( ie: welders/cutters, drywall, drywall mud, their tools, paint ect...) plus the explosives. And no one questioned this, or raised an eye brow ?

I've not seen any reports of any welding/cutting equipment being transported into the buildings, nor any of the other equipment, as of yet...

The only report was of a cableing job being done, and you don't need any of that type of equipment to do a cableing job, ( been there done that ), but still yet no one has stated that they saw anyone with that type of equipment in the buildings at that time...

You state your only problem specific problem against the demo theory, which is weak at best in the face of the physics-defying problems, and then in your last paragraph reference the report I told you about while offering to rebutt simply by saying they would've required different equipment.

Is this what it's come to? The angular momentum magically disappears, the floors collapse one by one, perfectly symmetrically on top of each other at incredible speed and without retarding, while explosions pop out of the building all the way down, reports of explosions in the basement destroying huge presses, core columns being blown into neatly-cut blocks, with similarly neatly-cut perimeter columns being blown out hundreds of feet from the buildings as they collapse by some miracle of an unknown origin of force, and Larry Silverstein comes out and says he gave an order to "pull it" for one of his buildings after the fire chief says he doesn't think they can fight the fire, among many other blatant and obvious problems that any intelligent and open-minded person would easily pick up on, and your response is that 'those guys coming in the building before 9/11 didn't have the right equipment to set up the charges.' How do you know they didn't? Were the employees supposed to examine the equipment being brought in, as if they cared what was going on? Were the shut-off security cameras supposed to capture the equipment being brought in? This isn't open minded, and that's one of the lamest excuses for all of the problems that you can offer.

What do you see in the problem of buildings losing their angular momentum? How do you overlook that so conveniently while not offering any explanations? Or the squibs? You must realize that your explanations of the squibs do not hold up to science, right? But instead you'd rather simply watch the squibs and say they "look like" air to you? Which do you think would be a more accurate assessment: what they look like to you, or what science dictates air compression would or would not be able to do in those buildings? I would think that one would have enough sense, after so many people looking at the 2nd ring of the Pentagon and ignorantly saying that no plane could have went through it, that one would know a little better than to rely on simply what one "thinks" when they merely "look" at something.

And you honestly believe that you're being open-minded when you raise such moot points against serious problems with the official story, that are being explained to you time and again, to which you have no response? If this is being open-minded, then it's open-minded in the sense that you will readily take a leap of faith with whatever the government tells you in order to continue believing what you always have.

Originally posted by Shroomery
And if you believe the towers can crash down because of a simple fire then I'm sure they didn't need many explosions either ? But of course the pancake-gravitational-syringe-fireball-o-doom theory makes more sense.

An excellent point, and one that is often overlooked in all the debating over specifics. There are many who argue that a controlled demolition of the towers would be impossible because of the logistics involved in setting up explosives. And yet, these are the VERY SAME people who ignore simple physics and claim that both buildings were completely obliterated into dust and pick-up sticks because of a failure at one, single point, and that the towers destroyed themselves down to the very pavement purely under their own weight. If this were truly possible, then the demolition theory would be even FURTHER strengthened because you would only have to blow out one, single damn floor and voila!. Again, Orwell was right - doublethink is rampant, and glaring paradoxes fail to trouble the minds of the masses.

And hey, let's not even get into WTC7...that would just be TOO brain-bending.

All is well...that's iiiiiiit...go back to sleeeeep...

...go back to sleeeeeeeeeeeeeep...

[edit on 2005-9-26 by wecomeinpeace]

Cute real cute insults there boys...

It occurs to me you don't want to know the truth, you keep coming up with your broken record replies...

Tell ya what, if you really want to know the truth try talking to this guy Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl...

Do you know who he is ?

He is one of the guys who are actually studying the beams ( you did not ), he is actually a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering ( you're not ), he has been to ground zero ( you have not )...

His email addy is on the left of the page, if you talk nicely he may talk to you about it...

But a note here bsbray and wcip, in the email no more that 50 words, and no attachments ( which means no pictures )...

It also occurs to me that even if you did get the straight truth from him you wouldn't belive it, because it goes against your agenda...

LeftBehind has explained on your angular momentum theory here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yet you still persist with your broken record...

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Cute real cute insults there boys...

Insults?...

It occurs to me you don't want to know the truth, you keep coming up with your broken record replies...

Tell ya what, if you really want to know the truth try talking to this guy Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl...

Do you know who he is ?

He is one of the guys who are actually studying the beams ( you did not ), he is actually a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering ( you're not ), he has been to ground zero ( you have not )...

His email addy is on the left of the page, if you talk nicely he may talk to you about it...

But a note here bsbray and wcip, in the email no more that 50 words, and no attachments ( which means no pictures )...

No, wouldn't want to send him an actual photo of the actual WTC complex as it actually appeared on 9/11.. Those are for conspiracy theorists. Better stick with words only, with nothing even to support them.

But I'll keep that in mind. I'll email him, but I wouldn't doubt him pulling something out of his ass and expect me to believe it just because of his position.

It also occurs to me that even if you did get the straight truth from him you wouldn't belive it, because it goes against your agenda...

I could say the same to you, buddy. Except I wouldn't be lying.

LeftBehind has explained on your angular momentum theory here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yet you still persist with your broken record...

LeftBehind does not understand the physics he is referencing. I know you guys accuse me of this every chance you get, so I find this just that much more ironic.

He says..

Some would say that when the top of one tower tipped, that it magically lost it's angular momentum and fell straight down. This is a misunderstanding of the physics involved here.

I just have to stop here to add a

People can say almost anything, literally, and as long as someone else on these boards wants to believe what they're saying, they apparently will, and even go so far as to say it's "proof" or some other ridiculous claim.

But nevermind, let's go on..

What really happened was that there was a partial collapse which caused the very top to tilt slightly. This was followed by a general collapse which resulted in the total progressive collapse we saw on that day.

It's not that the angular momentum disappeared, but that there was never enough to topple the building sidewise. It never projected it's center of gravity far enough to the side.

Not only is this pure conjecture (that there was not enough force to continue moving the top floorsl, as if there would have to be any in the first place.. ..is an assumption LB makes with no further evidence to support it), but it also incorrectly interprets Newton's First Law of Motion. An object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an unbalancing force. There was no such unbalancing force that could compromise the massive amount of momentum behind those floors. His explanation is debunked that easily. We're talking about a law of motion that most people will learn in elementary school, that our friend LeftBehind can't comprehend here.

The floors would've kept going, regardless of whether any additional torque was being applied. No torque, and it would still move nonetheless. Newton's First Law of Motion. Study on that a little before you spew out another sorry excuse for "science."

And you might want to study into a little, too, Jedi, before foolishly accepting it as fact as soon as you read it and decide you'd like to believe it.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by bsbray11]

I have just sent the following to the prof.:

I'm inquiring of your ideas on where the angular momentum of the top floors of the collapsing WTC towers went. Its disappearance seems to contradict basic laws of motion, ie, Newton's first law, which provides that momentum should have continued without additional torque. No compromising forces were at work.

Thanks.

This should be entertaining.

If this is being open-minded, then it's open-minded in the sense that you will readily take a leap of faith with whatever the government tells you in order to continue believing what you always have.

Ya that's an insult you're implying that...

1) I'm lieing about being open minded...
2) That I'm gulable in beliveing everything that's told to me...

In fact I don't belive everything that's told to me ( espicialy by the government ), I belive people that have more training than I ( ie: the Professor ), I mean that's what they do, and I'm not a lier...

I could say the same to you, buddy. Except I wouldn't be lying.

Yep...just another insult, telling me that I'm lieing...

And you might want to study into a little, too, Jedi, before foolishly accepting it as fact as soon as you read it and decide you'd like to believe it.

And yet another insult...

I guess you don't see what I'm saying, these insults detract from your opinion, they don't add to them...

Glad you sent him an email, hope he replies...

Bsbray11, apparently you missed the rest of the post where I quote someone talking about how the top would have to extend 100 feet out from the side of the building before it would tip.

I have addressed your misunderstanding of the physics.

Since you seem intent on perpetrating these ideas, please explain how it would tip over without hanging out 100 feet.


Edit:

BTW the diffenence in my physics and your theories is the main difference between science and pseudoscience.

I have data, it fits my conclusion. Seems right IMO.

You have the same data, yet the data is impossible based on your conclusions. This means that your conclusions are false as they don't match the data.

You don't change the data to fit your conclusions.

You change your conclusions to fit the data.

That my friends is science.


If the data is impossible to you, then your conclusions are flawed.




[edit on 26-9-2005 by LeftBehind]

Jedi,

Calling you a butthead, for example, would be an insult (I'm not calling you one though, just an example). Saying that the fact that you were so hasty to believe LeftBehind's extremely faulty physics was foolish of you is not really an insult, imho.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Bsbray11, apparently you missed the rest of the post where I quote someone talking about how the top would have to extend 100 feet out from the side of the building before it would tip.

I'm not saying "tip," and I have no idea what assumptions your sources have made with that statement. The fact is that the momentum disappeared when it should not have.

I have addressed your misunderstanding of the physics.

Please show me how you've done this.

Since you seem intent on perpetrating these ideas, please explain how it would tip over without hanging out 100 feet.

LeftBehind, this is insane. You are using a straw-man tactic. The momentum disappeared when it should not have, and yet you change subjects entirely by arguing that the building should not have "tipped," rather than addressing the momentum disappearance itself, which is in clear violation of basic physics.

If it had continued, the top floors would have fallen over the rest of the building (though what you mean by "tip" is beyond me). In about three seconds into the collapse, the South Tower had already tilted about 15 degrees. It should not have stopped. It would have kept going, and gravity would pull it right off the side. It would not have had to be moved laterally for this to happen, at all, becase not all of the building would have to fall off! You're arguing some completely irrelevant argument of how the building would have had to have moved while making an assumption that I mean all of the top floors. I don't! Again, this is a straw-man, off the point, and no explanation in the least.

At least address the actual problem of the loss of momentum.

You're simply saying that it would have been impossible for all of the material in the top floors to fall off the sides from its current location. Frankly, it's a very ignorant assumption and an irrelevant argument.

Edit:

BTW the diffenence in my physics and your theories is the main difference between science and pseudoscience.

Edit only to make a crack like this?

I have data, it fits my conclusion. Seems right IMO.

It's not.

You're not even addressing the same problem I am.

You have the same data, yet the data is impossible based on your conclusions. This means that your conclusions are false as they don't match the data.

You don't change the data to fit your conclusions.

You change your conclusions to fit the data.

That my friends is science.


If the data is impossible to you, then your conclusions are flawed.

These are the comments I ignored you in the first place for, Left Behind. These are merely "your opinions" for which I have ignored you. They're smart-alecked and arrogant responses, little cracks you make, while offering a case that's full of holes. Quite frankly it gets on my nerves.


Since I know most people reading through here may become easily confused with these arguments, I've simplified them into a graphic. I'm no artist, but I think it will accurately compare the arguments here, especially for those that like to simply pick sides without even looking at the arguments they're backing.



Note that I made a typo, somehow typing "timble" instead of "timber."

I hope that graphic will make things easier for those here that like to do more talking than thinking.

The angular momentum problem itself is still 100% unaddressed.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Jedi,

Calling you a butthead, for example, would be an insult (I'm not calling you one though, just an example). Saying that the fact that you were so hasty to believe LeftBehind's extremely faulty physics was foolish of you is not really an insult, imho.

Dude you are...well you are just truely amazing...

In this you call me a fool ( calling me foolish is the same thing ), that's not to mention all the other points I posted that you didn't address...

LeftBehind has addressed your theory quite well, yet you fail to acknolwege the fact that it could happen ( which this probably is what did happen )...

LeftBehind along with myself addressed your "squib" theory, and shown that it could be wrong, yet you fail to acknowlege it, you only come across with insults, and smartalec remarks, your theories don't hold true with the folks that actually did do the research on the beams and buildings...

So who am I to believe, you just an Avatar on a web site, or the people who are actually on the ground doing the research ??


*sigh* this younger generation really scares me...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Saying that the fact that you were so hasty to believe LeftBehind's extremely faulty physics was foolish of you is not really an insult, imho.

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
In this you call me a fool

.....

Jedi, I'm done responding to you. You can claim that you have countered the evidence in the same way that a blind man can claim the sun is green, but it is irrelevant. My posts stand to whomever may wish to read them with intent to understand them.

Have a nice day.


Btw - Left Behind,

Please present a valid argument that actually relates to the angular momentum disappearing in your next post, rather than rehashing the same garbage that I feel so strongly in my gut that you are about to do. Read what I've posted and seriously let it sink in, man. Your argument doesn't even relate.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by bsbray11]

Bsbray I have presented a valid argument whether you think so or not.

By tip i mean fall over. You seem to think that the angular momemtum should have made the top of the towers tip.

I am telling you that based on the size of the towers, they would have to lean 100 feet over the side before that would be possible.

It is pointless to play the strawman blame game.

Once again I posted facts and you either misunderstand it, or try and twist it. If everyone ignored people for the kinds of things I post, you would be on global ignore BS my friend.


So regardless of your inaccurate mspaint document, the tops of the buildings never tiltled even close to 100 feet out. Without doing so the center of gravity remains inside the footprint of the building.

Angular momentum IMHO is an attempt at a strawman, as it is misapplied and has nothing to do with the towers.

The WTC towers are not perfect newtonion blocks hanging in a vaccum. They were complex honeycombs of steel and concrete, I don't know why you expect it to behave like wooden blocks.


Edit: BTW my last edit was talking about ideas. I didn't realize you people got so insulted when your ideas were challenged.

[edit on 27-9-2005 by LeftBehind]

I got a response from the Prof.

To recap, this was the email I sent him:

I'm inquiring of your ideas on where the angular momentum of the top floors of the collapsing WTC towers went. Its disappearance seems to contradict basic laws of motion, ie, Newton's first law, which provides that momentum should have continued without additional torque. No compromising forces were at work.

Thanks.

His response:

Unfortunate ly my very busy schedule of teaching 3 courses and research
etc., does not leave me with any time to prepare an appropriate response to
your e-mail. I apologize to you and wish you the best.
A.

He was not prepared to answer my question.