Debunk this 9/11 conspiracy fact and I quit ATS - WTC7: perpetual motion scam and the easy physics

Lots of 9/11 threads popping up, I rarely post in them for fear of incurring the wrath of the debate.
So has anyone actually debunked the freefall arguement.................no, I think this really is valid evidence for a re-investigation!

Originally posted by dereks

except that the OS does not break any laws of physics, it is the "truthers" with their noiseless invisible explosives etc. that break the laws of physics!

Lol, except for the massive amounts of molten steel, iron, and thermite compounds? Oh, and what about all of the eye witness accounts, with audio even, and some even from Firefighters, of explosions going off while the WTCs were going down?


Hmmm... Lets think deep and hard on that...

Originally posted by Outlawstar
So has anyone actually debunked the freefall arguement.................no, I think this really is valid evidence for a re-investigation!

The "freefall argument" is hardly evidence. Rather a proposition designed to sway those who cannot fathom complex events or even recognize what constitutes evidence. As usual, this thread is typified by the usual suspects and their thoughts: those who attempt to digest highly complex systemic structure failures by examining one or two data points, and then attempt to minimize all the elements involved in order to replace them with their own theories. The typical nonsense has once again emerged in this thread: that the buildings fell from small fires, that the planes did insignificant damage, that "freefall speed" indicates everything, that the laws of physics can't work if we are to believe the "official story", that all we have to do is "follow the money", etc. etc. These kinds of tricks from anti-establishment, armchair investigators with a Phd in Youtube may work on the simpletons who have not the foundation to recognize neither scientific nonsense or even a simple distraction trick, but even the most mildly rational and objective person should be able to easily avoid the transparency of such chicanery. However, in and era in which people can hardly make change for a dollar or wire a lamp, even a marginally clever conspiracy theorist can snooker the average Joe with such sleight of hand and blinded-by-science techniques. They often sway otherwise intelligent people with a sheer preponderance of this nonsense. In the end, it's not science, not evidence and to the truly discerning, not believable in any sense of the word.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Outlawstar
So has anyone actually debunked the freefall arguement.................no, I think this really is valid evidence for a re-investigation!

The "freefall argument" is hardly evidence. Rather a proposition designed to sway those who cannot fathom complex events or even recognize what constitutes evidence. As usual, this thread is typified by the usual suspects and their thoughts: those who attempt to digest highly complex systemic structure failures by examining one or two data points, and then attempt to minimize all the elements involved in order to replace them with their own theories. The typical nonsense has once again emerged in this thread: that the buildings fell from small fires, that the planes did insignificant damage, that "freefall speed" indicates everything, that the laws of physics can't work if we are to believe the "official story", that all we have to do is "follow the money", etc. etc. These kinds of tricks from anti-establishment, armchair investigators with a Phd in Youtube may work on the simpletons who have not the foundation to recognize neither scientific nonsense or even a simple distraction trick, but even the most mildly rational and objective person should be able to easily avoid the transparency of such chicanery. However, in and era in which people can hardly make change for a dollar or wire a lamp, even a marginally clever conspiracy theorist can snooker the average Joe with such sleight of hand and blinded-by-science techniques. They often sway otherwise intelligent people with a sheer preponderance of this nonsense. In the end, it's not science, not evidence and to the truly discerning, not believable in any sense of the word.

So like I said, hasint been disproven.
But thanks for the slate of character attacks, your over-generalization of the masses is a disrespect to your obvious vulcan-rivalling logic.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Do you know anything about physics? I have to ask because all of your responses so far have shown a severe lack of physics understanding. I have to ask what your formal training is.

What the heck is going on here. traditional drummer, could you actually explain something? Anything? Like, just one thing?

People are just going to think your a blockhead if you keep coming in here with nothing to say.

Explain the speed at which wtc7 fell. Go on, enlighten us. And it better be good, your up against thousands of engineering and architectural experts.

Drummer vs Engineer/architect...ha ha

[edit on 6-3-2010 by mrwiffler]

[edit on 6-3-2010 by mrwiffler]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

That's because Robertson is either incompetent, or he's lying to save himself from any kind of lawsuit.

Your opinion.

If you had proof of this, you'd have him in court.

You fail.


ETA: also, it's interesting that you have zero rebuttal to to my point about whether or not the buildings were designed from the start to survive plane impacts.

Guess this means that you concede the point?

Will you allow other truthers to make this same, erroneous claim, or will you be doing the honorable thing and correct your fellow truthers about their disinfo, much as you do with the no plane crowd?

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Joey Canoli]

Originally posted by GhostR1der

In order for a falling mass to simulate the video measurement, it requires a vacuum.

Right here, you should have realized that something about his measurements are wildly wrong.

But your cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing that this is impossible.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Outlawstar
So has anyone actually debunked the freefall arguement.................no, I think this really is valid evidence for a re-investigation!

The "freefall argument" is hardly evidence. Rather a proposition designed to sway those who cannot fathom complex events or even recognize what constitutes evidence. As usual, this thread is typified by the usual suspects and their thoughts: those who attempt to digest highly complex systemic structure failures by examining one or two data points, and then attempt to minimize all the elements involved in order to replace them with their own theories. The typical nonsense has once again emerged in this thread: that the buildings fell from small fires, that the planes did insignificant damage, that "freefall speed" indicates everything, that the laws of physics can't work if we are to believe the "official story", that all we have to do is "follow the money", etc. etc. These kinds of tricks from anti-establishment, armchair investigators with a Phd in Youtube may work on the simpletons who have not the foundation to recognize neither scientific nonsense or even a simple distraction trick, but even the most mildly rational and objective person should be able to easily avoid the transparency of such chicanery. However, in and era in which people can hardly make change for a dollar or wire a lamp, even a marginally clever conspiracy theorist can snooker the average Joe with such sleight of hand and blinded-by-science techniques. They often sway otherwise intelligent people with a sheer preponderance of this nonsense. In the end, it's not science, not evidence and to the truly discerning, not believable in any sense of the word.

your articulations are well written and deny any particular aspect of 911 conspiracy, and for that I applaud you.

One of the points you keep making is that the laws of physics were not broken on 911. I agree wholeheartedly. NIST admits to 2.2 seconds of freefall speed, and the energy to create this had to come from somewhere.

I would like you to cite where this energy came from in particular, as NIST was unable to do so. If you cannot, I cannot imagine that you can possibly accept an answer from either side of the fence as the true answer remains unknown.

Enjoy.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


FREEFALL evidence is NOT important?/ UNREAL!! you LOSE thos argument automatically when you take an established scientific FACT and dismiss it with NO ability to say WHy it is not critially important.

FREEFALL means that either: The laws of physics were broken...OR

the official story is a bad joke. those are the ONLY two choices...at least for anyone with a smattering of intelligence. To dismiss the freefall FACTS is like saying that a car that is smashed in from behind was not important to the crash investigation....just forget the damage and obvious facts...just dismiss the evidence and say it doesn't matter.

Of course no one with any common sense could dismiss the free fall evidence...it is a smoking gun, and the official story drones cannot and will not admit even the most obvious facts, as they know it would undermine their entire shaky framework of delusion.

Also has anyone ever explained how at least 2 channels pre-emptively stated that WTC7 had come down, when it indeed had not?

I just wanted to post this I have seen the "designed for 180 mph" claim come up more and more recently.

The only documented evidence I've seen is in NCSTAR 1-2 on page 305 where they show a copy of the actual three page memo. It clearly states 600 mph as the speed and that their "analysis indicates that such a collision would result only in local damage which WOULD NOT CAUSE COLLAPSE." Bullet point three is shown in the image below:



But the 180mph claim comes from somewhere, and NIST's only reference to it is the FEMA report released in 2002. "The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 403 (2002) report indicated that it was assumed in the 1960's design of the WTC towers that a Boeing 707 aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, might strike the towers while low on fuel and at a landing speed of 180 mph." (NCSTAR 1-2 pg 4)

But where did FEMA get this claim? We find it in the FEMA report in Chapter 1 on page 17 as shown below:



But there are no footnotes indicated or any mention of where this claim came from. NIST also in their release of April 5, 2005 on page 15 of 39 could only reference the FEMA report and not the original source:




So it seems to me that NIST could not independently confirm this 180 mph claim and had to resort to referencing an unsupported assertion made in the FEMA report. If they had looked at FEMA's sources, I'm sure they would have referenced the actual source instead of the FEMA report. If NIST had seen some document referencing this 180 mph claim, I'm sure they would have included it in their report right alongside the one shown above.

reply to post by NIcon


Thank you for looking up this information. I find Weedwhacker's silence on this particular fact rather pleasing as he can't debunk it.

As far as the 180mph "claim", Leslie Robertson, the incompetent and/or deliberately lying engineer, is the only one that I've heard throw a claim similar to this around.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

No problem Bonez. Part of my point was: I wonder why NIST did not interview Leslie Robertson and then include in their report as the source for this claim "Interview with Leslie Robertson, blah blah of WTC construction, interviewed on blah blah" but rather they just reference the FEMA report.

It's sort of like the Cheney office releasing info that we are all going to die from Iraqi nukes to the NY Times and then having Cheney go on Meet the Press and referencing the NY Times story rather than the info that came from his office. It's a cheap way to gain credibility.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Ergo, the impacts did insignificant damage.

My god. That is absolutely hilarious.

The truthers seem to be willing to convince themselves of absolutely anything to get the wiggle room they need to make a conspiracy work.

Hey drummerboy, maybe you should stick to the sticks, eh? Or can't you just help yourself engaging in discussions with no clue whatsoever as your preferred weapon of choise?

Originally posted by Durden

Hey drummerboy, maybe you should stick to the sticks, eh? Or can't you just help yourself engaging in discussions with no clue whatsoever as your preferred weapon of choise?

QFT!

I'm getting very, very tired of the whole 9/11 thing. These professional debunkers are GOOD! I mean REALLY good. They manage to detract from the main argument and pull everyone into circular logic that really has nothing to do with proving or disproving evidence.

1. On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced to the world that they had lost 2.1 Trillion (with a T) dollars. If that doesn't raise an eyebrow, you have either injected too much botox or your are simply naive. I might suggest that you are so naive that you are EXTREMELY naive. I might even be inclined to call you and extremist :0.

2. Although there are literally 100's of witnesses, and people who worked in the twin towers, and first responders who heard explosions, they are discounted because they don't show up in the official story. That's citing lack of evidence because someone else is ignoring the evidence. That logic doesn't fly, unless you are looking to control the inflow of evidence, which is akin to tampering.

3. BUT THE SIMULATION !?!. People seem to forget that computer simulations are created by humans, not machines. They will respond to whatever metrics you input. They are built with buggy computer code, that is built upon an API, that runs in a buggy operating system. So even if you figure that the program itself is completely without fault, it will still do whatever you program it to do. It's like being able to provide evidence completely of your own making. If I drive my car into someone on a rainy day, and 10 people witness it; would it be acceptable for me to present a simulation to the judge and jury that shows how impossible it would have been for me to create an accident? Maybe, but they wouldn't simply discount what the witnesses say based upon my simulation. (Which is what the debunkers say we should do).

4. Lets just for a minute forget what happened the day after the attacks and lets analyze what happened as a result. Opium (and Heroin as a by-product) production in Afghanistan is now at an all time high. Suicide rates amongst soldiers in the Afghan and Iraq wars are at an all time high. The IRAQ WAR for gods sake. It's illegal in anyone's eyes, and happened as a result of 9/11.

So while we can all argue about nano-thermite and whether or not planes could do enough damage to bring those towers down or whatever, we all lose.

Unless you stand to profit off the illegal drug trade, or you profit of the massive military expenditures, or you have stocks in Halliburton, or you profit from nation building YOU LOSE. It doesn't matter what side of the argument you're on. WE ALL LOSE. THE RESULT IS THE SAME. Your tax money is being spent. Your brothers and sisters are dying.

I've talked to returning soldiers and those in active duty as recently as last week. They all speak of the civil and criminal injustices they are forced to take part in. They all speak of the uselessness of these wars (readccupations).

So in my eyes, if you are so concerned about lurking around in forums and going to youtube videos to post your debunking "knowledge"; you are willing to distort the truth everywhere. You are willing to distort the end result of the wars. You are willing to distort the importance of the loss of civil liberties. You are willing to distort the implications of the huge (and growing) military expenditures. You are willing to distort the financial implications of having the Chinese pay for all this, and as a result what it means to be paying never ending taxes to a foreign oligarchy (China is not communist, by definition). Simply, you are willing to live in a distorted reality. IF you are being paid well to do so, then maybe these distortions do not mean anything more to you than it would if you worked as a 7/11 manager, but for millions of others, and those who are in active duty, I can assure you IT MATTERS. The truth, dear ladies and gentlemen, does not have an expiration date. All in due time.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by NIcon

 

Thank you for looking up this information. I find Weedwhacker's silence on this particular fact rather pleasing as he can't debunk it.

As far as the 180mph "claim", Leslie Robertson, the incompetent and/or deliberately lying engineer, is the only one that I've heard throw a claim similar to this around.

Leslie Robertson , one of the chief engineers on the WTC project, is one of the most distinguished engineers in the US with huge experience of high rise buildings both in the US and overseas.

The only reason you call him incompetent or lying is because what he says does not accord with your conspiracy theories.

Leslie Robertson may have been a chief engineer and may be a distinguished engineer but are we sure he takes his Geritol everyday to improve memory, because as it stands now the documentary evidence refutes his 40 year old recollection.

Until such a time as a document from that period that references the 180 mph study comes to light, as we have for the 600 mph study, I'm not sure why anyone would take the word of an old man rather than a document from that time period. Period.

Originally posted by Alfie1
The only reason you call him incompetent or lying is because what he says does not accord with your conspiracy theories.

Here's the statement made by Leslie Robertson:

"We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707, that is, to take this jet airplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure and still have it stand up."

Now here's the part where I'm talking about when Robertson says this:

"With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design. Indeed, I don't know how it could have been considered."

He doesn't know how it could have been considered? If you design buildings to withstand impacts of airplanes, but don't consider the fuel they're carrying, you're incompetent. There's no other explanation for it.

But thank goodness he wasn't the lead engineer. John Skilling and his firm (who recruited Robertson after the project was started) was the lead engineer and said that the fuel was considered:

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."