1 Chop, 2 Chop & ALL 3 Fall Down

reply to post by The All Seeing I


IOW, since you cannot give through your "common sense" approach, an answer to the hinge problem I gave you, you again resort to, as the poster says...... "rhetoric".

Why am I not surprised.

Is this "rhetoric" over your head or are you out of coffee?

With your inability/refusal to answer the OP... you attempt to detour with your own questions... what a cowardly deceptive maneuver, to say the least and when you consider how infantile the questions are they barely merit answering... for they are so obvious, which i will attempt to illustrate in addressing. Though based on prior observation, i'm not taking much stock in being understood, let alone heard.

You want me to show you the "basic science" at play here, and yet you saw the collapse just like everyone else did... do you not trust your own two eyes? All three free fell into their own foot print, in order for this to be possible a helping hand has to be at play. There are very basic laws of physics that reconfirm that your eyes didn't lie.

Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum — one of the foundational Laws of Physics?

You want me to point out a "hinge point/plane that would be able to support the weight above while at the same time undergoing enough rotation to move the center of gravity outside the exterior walls, at which point it would indeed be expected to topple off the lower part." Strange overly elaborate way of wording it but yes... again blatantly obvious, where the planes entered the building, chop... chop... remember?

In sum, the OS regarding the collapses violates the laws of physics. Where as the CT does not violate the laws of physics. So which theory does science dictate we reject? For those who regard NIST an authority on science, then you have to ask yourself; why did they ignore the Laws of Conservation of Momentum and Energy in their "studies"?

Now you were eluding earlier to something called "common sense"?

[edit on 6-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I


Again, all you're saying is it looked like a cd, that is proof that it was.

If you think this is an intelluctually rigorous argument, then you're sadly mistaken.

This is trooferism at its finest.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
I
In sum, the OS regarding the collapses violates the laws of physics. Where as the CT does not violate the laws of physics. So which theory does science dictate we reject? For those who regard NIST an authority on science, then you have to ask yourself; why did they ignore the Laws of Conservation of Momentum and Energy in their "studies"?

I'll provide the same stunning amount of proof that you do here to refute your statement.

It didn't violate any laws of physics. That is proof that it was a natural collapse.

Your statements are just more rhetoric copied nearly word for word that can be found on just about any troofer site. You have proven yourself to be one of the sheeple that have no ability to have any original thoughts.

Again, trooferism at its finest.

Nice cop out, but i don't think you will find anyone here gullible enough to buy it. You might want to take a good look in the mirror... for who you just described renders a self portrait... worst yet, and to me more accurate, a disinfo agent.

But before you can even come close to recognizing this about yourself...
you need to start with a thorough read of another thread of mine:
10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty



[edit on 6-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

a disinfo agent.

Where's the laughing dog when you need it?

And this is another fine example of trooferism - the paranoia that is a prerequisite of being a troofer in the first place..

No, sorry, but there's no intellectual dishonesty from me. I pointed out that your "proof" is nothing more than your "belief" of an inside job.

And the fact that you offer nothing more than "it looks like", and " it violates the laws of physics", without any demonstration of how, bs? C'mon, you call THAT rigorous?

Again, proof that you are wrong is that no one believes the ct garbage other than cterz. And I have also proven in another thread that the majority of troofers are typically young kids with immature reasoning abilities, although it's also apparent that age is not the only determining factor. Some sort of impairment also is evidently at work.

And no, I don't really expect to sway any troofers here, for they are a lost cause, IMHO. Instead of facing reality, they prefer to be terrorist apologists, while they indulge their fantasies that their "raging against the machine" will change the world.

I was really giving you the benefit of the doubt there bud, but you just reconfirmed my initial impressions. You have provided in your walk and talk an excellent example of The use of Doublespeak to derail Occam's Razor. Thank you for showing us all your true colors... your real intentions are crystal clear now.

Only a certain type of person is capable of running/hiding/deflecting/distorting in the face of what can't be denied. You know there is a reason ATS has coined "Deny Ignorance"?... which you have given a whole new meaning to.

My signature about sums up the part you choose to play, a mantra you know all too well.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

Only a certain type of person is capable of running/hiding/deflecting/distorting in the face of what can't be denied.

You mean how you run from the simple question I posed to your OP?

Provide a hinge point? Remember that?

But go ahead and ignore your own call to using common sense, since you have avoided it so fastidiously.

If rhetoric is fine for you, then revel in your ignorance, for contrary to what is posted at the top of the page, ATS is not a place to deny ignorance, but a place for the ignorant to enforce it with other like minded fools.

Ok ... now i'm starting to think you are pulling my chain or need glasses, you can't be that obtuse/delusional/blind... you have got to be joking.

If i told you the sky is blue, you'd most likely want me to prove it... but how do you prove such... to someone who is color blind or is looking through rose colored glasses? This maybe the reason why you rely so much on others to tell you what you see. You are in the matrix son, i'm only trying to help you see, it takes no rocket scientist to figure out what happened, i even proved this with simple science and math. A little slight of hand and someone might convince you that blue is purple (leaving out the fact that they added red)... why be so naive?... and afraid of information that challenges your sacred OS doctrine.

Placing you back in the time of Renaissance, i could see you spitting on those who challenged the Official Story of Copernicus's day... that the world is flat.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

1-You are in the matrix son,

2-it takes no rocket scientist to figure out what happened,

3-i even proved this with simple science and math.

1- you are delusional if you think that this is a movie, or that a movie reflects real life. In real life, you are a terrorist apologist. Revel in it.

2-actaully this is correct. What it takes is an SE. I gave you several, but you poopoo'ed it as irrelevant. Yeah, that's rational all right.

3- "it looks like a cd therefore it is" isn't science. Saying that it violates laws of physics without calcs isn't science. Occam's Razor isn't science. And I see no math at all. You have lied and misrepresented your argument, like any other troofer.

Congratulations, you have found a home here, where ignorance is embraced....

So you want to play hotscotch now... will the mind-games ever end with you?

1- Can't grasp metaphor? I suppose 1984 does translate for you either. So if i am a "terrorist apologist", that would make you... a jingoistic neo-con political pundit?

2- Yes in your Brain Operators Manual, only a SE who sells out to the OS can know what really happened.

3- Not sure where you have been, but a majority of science is based on visual evidence/observation and the record of such data over time. Occam's Razor is a philosophical approach to critical thinking that has been adopted by many scientists, such as Newton, Einstein & Hawkings. To say that the laws of physics have no merit without calcs is bunk. The commonality of these three collapses with regard to the lack in conservation of momentum, shows with or without the calcs, that the OS is bunk. ...and i don't know of any simpler math to show you than 1+1 does not =3... but the OS would have you believe otherwise.

So i am the one who lies and misrepresents my argument?...
hmmm you must be right... i must be the delusional one.

Thank you for the kudos on finding a home. I want to be the first to welcome your ignorance with an embrace of truth.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

1-The commonality of these three collapses with regard to the lack in conservation of momentum, shows with or without the calcs,

2-hmmm you must be right... i must be the delusional one.

1- yes, this is why physics is such an easy class and should be taught in the 2nd grade - no complex calcs are ever used in physics to prove a theory, formula, or hypothesis. All one needs is some simple addition. This is what so comical about the Beverly Hillbillies and Jethro - he could cipher just fine... shoot, Mr Drysdale could have gotten him a high level job at a physics lab if he wanted to.

2- correct

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

2- Yes in your Brain Operators Manual, only a SE who sells out to the OS can know what really happened.

Does this include SE's in other countries? Are they also part of the Bush regime? Or is it an NWO thang?

What about all the countries antagonistic to the US? Are they also a part in the coverup? Lawdy Lawdy it's world wide then, eh?

No, that ain't delusional at all....

So if i flip further into your Brain Operators Manual, will i find a proclamation that all CT SEs are anti-american? Seems to me that those who love their country the most expect more from their government and fellow citizens... like this CT SE explains:

One of our primary responsibilities as architects and engineers is to ensure public safety in and around our structures, and we take this seriously. It is also our responsibility as concerned American citizens to ask questions and seek honest answers. I encourage everyone to read the numerous books, technical reports and papers about the WTC; look closely at the photographs and videos; listen to the speakers with an open mind. Decide for yourself, and take a stand for what you believe. As a structural engineer I believe in the laws of physics and rely on them every day.

After much reading and studying it is obvious that NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission have all fallen short of a detailed accounting of the catastrophic collapses of the three World Trade Center buildings in Manhattan on 9/11/01. A few examples of unexplained details include the "severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel" as described in Appendix C of the FEMA Building Performance Study, the complete symmetrical collapses following asymmetric structural damage and short-term fires, and the chemical signature of incendiary compounds found in the toxic WTC dust.

I would really like to know why complete collapse of the twin towers "became inevitable" as expressed by NIST without any scientific analysis to substantiate it. Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing most of the contents into dust and ash - twice? Why would WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified - and necessary - for all three collapses.

Ronald H. Brookman is a licensed structural engineer in the state of California. He obtained his B.S. Civil Engineering (1984) and M.S. Structural Engineering (1986) degrees from the University of California at Davis, and has over 21 years experience in structural analysis, design, evaluation and rehabilitation of buildings in northern California.

Boy this guy really hates America, what a delusional terrorist-lovin crack-pot he is.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

Boy this guy really hates America, what a delusional terrorist-lovin crack-pot he is.

Yes, he's a crackpot if he can't follow technical papers like Bazant's.

As far as being un-American, I wouldn't go that far... yet. What else does he say? Does he think that 9/11 was an inside job?

Or has he, like other responsible and concerned engineers, questioned certain aspects of the NIST report, like Dr Quintere.... while still accepting the fact that planes and fire brought down the towers?

There IS a difference....but delusional CTerz will take rational questions like those from Dr Quintere.... or calls for another investigation into the 9/11 intel failures from Dr Paul as signs that rational people actually believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

And terrorist lovin? I reserve that special little grouping for the sub-humans that don't know how to allow facts to enter into their delusional world, and continue to push the lies that 9/11 was an inside job.

I know he's a member of Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, not sure if he draws the conclusion that it's an inside job, but it's naturally the next logical step, no stretch of the imagination required there. Obviously if it was a CD, which all evidence points to, then it had to be an inside job... i don't see anything wrong with making this claim prematurely, but in the grand scheme of things whether one makes this assertion or not it's irrelevant. What is most important is to recognize that much of what has been dished to us, doesn't make any sense... and that further inquiries suspiciously go unanswered and/or are given very lame feedback/explanations.

The crux of it is, we all need to push for a thorough independent reinvestigation, which includes a complete background check on everyone involved in the first investigation/white-wash.

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

Why didn't these towers fall like trees?

I can answer this one:

BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT TREES.
there...

Maybe you could understand my point...
if i used a different analogy... from a different perspective?



Why did all three towers fall as if they were made from a deck of playing cards?

Maybe this blue print of the WTC towers answers my question.


[edit on 7-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I


Ohhhhh now I see.

The problem isn't your initial argument, it was in the wholly inadequate way you continue to pose it.

Sitting around and posing oversimplified and incongruent thought experiments are not a substitute for hard facts and solid computations to surround them. Thought experiments are a compliment used to provide easier assimilation of complex subjects.

It's the continual assertion of "basic common sense" that is the truly intellectually damaging portion of your argument. Allow me to sum up this point in a single sentence:

"Science and reality rarely conform to common sense in extremely complex physical interactions."

One may not view the plethora of evidence that has come to light in the past 8 years without it being painfully obvious that the OS does not explain everything witnessed on 9/11 during and after the collapse of the WTC towers. However, when those of us with what may be a slightly broader range of experience say "Hey, you're not doing it right" it is always met with "you're an OS believer".

Were that true, the Earth would be flat, the sun would orbit around the Earth and we'd live swimming in the middle of an invisible aether as opposed to existing on the surface of a bubble of space-time.

Next I supposed we're going to become government loyalists, which seems to be the talking point of the week for twoofers.

Pseudo-intellectual garbage is your escape-door?

Get a grip, this is not quantum physics were talking about. You guys are more invested in the image of intelligence and authority than in authentically seeking the truth. Typical debunker mind games... full of themselves, fooling themselves and on a quest to fool others.

As for it taking all these years to find out what really happened, this is not the case for most truthers. We were the first to ask questions, and use all available resources in drawing conclusions... not waiting around for the government to tell us what to think. All the bull that NIST, FEMA and the Commission have flung at us has only reconfirmed what we saw with our own two eyes and have suspected in reflection of all the coincidental events and nonsensical mishaps that just happened to took place all at the same time for 911 to occur.

For a day, just stop regurgitating all of this crap that has been dished to you, take off the blinders, remove the filters and trust your own ability to think and reason ... and you will see that we have all been lied to.


[edit on 8-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]