What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by maxella1
Truther ;The firemen reported that there were explosions.

Debunker: So now the firemen are in on it too?

edit on 20-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

hahaha so true!! Some of the things you hear just make you stop and chuckle.. seriously where does it end.

Originally posted by 4hero
A lot of impossible things happened that day, for example, no steel framed building had ever collapased due to fire alone, but NIST in their report claim that WTC7 came down due to fire alone (Page 39).

The first bit really isn't true. The normal 'truther' phrase used is 'No steel framed high-rise'. The high-rise bit is important because it means that the steel is fully fireproofed. If you look for examples where there is fireproofing damage or exceptional circumstances (which is definitely true for WTC7) then there's quite a few collapses. Of course, nothing of this magnitude but then again there were a lot of firsts in history that day.

I could write a long list of impossible things that happened that day, like 19 Arab hijackers managing to sneak 19 sets of knives past airport security

Knives were not prohibited pre-911. They didn't need to sneak them.

4 sets of locked cockpits being breached

This wasn't true pre 911 either. The procedures only came in after 911 in a rigorous fashion. I have personally seen cockpit doors left open for a half flight only a year or two prior.

impossible flight maneuvers, planes re-appearing on radar after they had supposedly crashed, this is just a few of the numerous impossible things that happened that day.

These are also not 'impossible', I think you've just been mislead by people with false confidence. There are good explanations for everything here, otherwise I wouldn't have been convinced either. It's not like I just one day decided 'nah I think I will go to the Government side'. I had a lot of doubts and I slowly and methodically went through each one. The flight manoeuvres made me chuckle because I have been into aircraft and flight for a long time and some of the claims made about what is impossible are just silly.

I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong (except on the couple of examples above where it's an easy mistake) but you should examine some of the claims about impossibilities harder. What foolish organisation would produce a story so riddled with impossible actions, and then attempt to foster it on the public? These surely couldn't be the same people who are so competent they apparently have shills all over the internet and have carefully managed dissent? The two ideas are contradictory.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I don't have a problem with "least assumptions". But that does not mean DENIAL OF DATA.

The least assumptions that explains the data. If the data is not explained then Occam's Razor does not apply. That is grasping at straws.

This is fair and accurate, but the mistake you make is that your interpretation of a video is not data. There are parsimonious explanations which do not include technology never seen before or even remotely theorised about. The other explanation is a complex buckle forms and the spire falls downwards, being masked by the dust.

If we had some reliable data that this steel did in fact turn to dust then we would have a lot more to look into. First though someone has to answer the question: how?.

How do you know it's impossible rather than you just don't know what the explanation is? People watched the Aurora Borealis for thousands of years and did not have a clue what it was. We only got an explanation in the last 100 years or so. Charged particles from the Sun spiraled into the atmosphere by the Earth's magenetic field creating phosphorescent effects in the atmosphere.

What would Occam's Razor have made of that 200 years ago.

I appreciate your argument, but this is not 200 years ago, this is 2012 and we can literally see the atoms making up a material with modern microscopes. The ability to disassociate steel on the molecular level is worth literally tends of billions to trillions of dollars. Steel is a big industry and it will take more than a few ambiguous videos to convince me that the US Government managed to keep technology like that hidden.

Originally posted by scully222
You have just described exactly how I feel about about EVERY defender of the official version of events. They must all be confused.

I'm not confused, and I'm not promoting the existence of any mystery technology or unknown demolition mechanism.

Originally posted by scully222
He exaggerated to make the point that the buildings fell with no resistance. The concrete was reduced to dust, but the columns were cut neatly at an angle in sequence using a powerful chemical explosive, most likely nanothermite.

That was not his point, and I am not sure why you are bringing this up here. If you want to have a talk about nanothermite we can, but the evidence for it is pretty bad. One successful trial from the discoverer, and two unsuccessful trials from independent parties. There's also the problem that nobody has explained how nanothermite would actually work. I don't think this is the place for it though, so perhaps some other time?

Oh, and btw, I can't be straw-manning someone by quoting them and replying to them. Why are people so quick to start accusing their opponent of being dishonest? That's three times and I've barely done more than ask a few questions.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I don't have a problem with "least assumptions". But that does not mean DENIAL OF DATA.

The least assumptions that explains the data. If the data is not explained then Occam's Razor does not apply. That is grasping at straws.

This is fair and accurate, but the mistake you make is that your interpretation of a video is not data. There are parsimonious explanations which do not include technology never seen before or even remotely theorised about. The other explanation is a complex buckle forms and the spire falls downwards, being masked by the dust.

The video is DATA.

Your interpretation of the video is just as much NOT DATA as mine. Everyone will have too look at the video for themselves. Since I cannot explain my interpretation of the video I have never tried to make a big deal of it.

Isn't the fact that the buildings stood for 28 years DATA? Isn't it a fact that every LEVEL had to support all of the weight above?

So why doesn't everybody want the DATA on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete that was on every LEVEL? How can the Conservation of Momentum be applied without that DATA? Instead people want to blather about Occam's Razor so they can pretend to be intelligent and rational.

This verbal pseudo-intellectual BS is just a method of maintaining confusion and stretching things out 'til people get bored and ignore the problem.

Can't build a physical model that will have 15% crushing 85% but can talk endless pseudo-intellectual drivel.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The video is DATA.

Your interpretation of the video is just as much NOT DATA as mine. Everyone will have too look at the video for themselves. Since I cannot explain my interpretation of the video I have never tried to make a big deal of it.

That is totally fair, and I agree people should look at the video and decide for themselves. I think it is also fair to point out that there is no currently known mechanism to achieve what some people claim occurred. Am I being unfair or in any way biased or illegitimate when I say this?

Isn't the fact that the buildings stood for 28 years DATA? Isn't it a fact that every LEVEL had to support all of the weight above?

So why doesn't everybody want the DATA on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete that was on every LEVEL? How can the Conservation of Momentum be applied without that DATA? Instead people want to blather about Occam's Razor so they can pretend to be intelligent and rational.

You'll have to accept sooner or later that people don't feel the same way about this issue as you. When I was interested in the distribution of mass in the towers, I discovered there was no tabulation of likely service weight in the NIST report. I then discovered that third party engineers had added the appropriate values together and calculated the final values. This was more than enough for me, and more than enough for the vast majority of people.

I'm not trying to belittle or insult you here, but it's been years now and I don't know what you expect to change or who you expect to convince.

This verbal pseudo-intellectual BS is just a method of maintaining confusion and stretching things out 'til people get bored and ignore the problem.

Can't build a physical model that will have 15% crushing 85% but can talk endless pseudo-intellectual drivel.

I've offered you what I consider the best solution before and in this post. You ignore me or tell me it's not the solution you're looking for. I'm afraid that it's the best that is available.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The video is DATA.

Your interpretation of the video is just as much NOT DATA as mine. Everyone will have too look at the video for themselves. Since I cannot explain my interpretation of the video I have never tried to make a big deal of it.

That is totally fair, and I agree people should look at the video and decide for themselves. I think it is also fair to point out that there is no currently known mechanism to achieve what some people claim occurred. Am I being unfair or in any way biased or illegitimate when I say this?

Isn't the fact that the buildings stood for 28 years DATA? Isn't it a fact that every LEVEL had to support all of the weight above?

So why doesn't everybody want the DATA on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete that was on every LEVEL? How can the Conservation of Momentum be applied without that DATA? Instead people want to blather about Occam's Razor so they can pretend to be intelligent and rational.

You'll have to accept sooner or later that people don't feel the same way about this issue as you. When I was interested in the distribution of mass in the towers, I discovered there was no tabulation of likely service weight in the NIST report. I then discovered that third party engineers had added the appropriate values together and calculated the final values. This was more than enough for me, and more than enough for the vast majority of people.

What 3rd party engineers? Gregory Urich? Who else?

He admitted that he did an interpolation of the perimeter columns from the 9th floor to the top then says it doesn't matter.

You'll have to accept sooner or later that people don't feel the same way about this issue as you.

The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about anybody's FEELINGS. There had to be enough steel in the right places for the towers to hold themselves up. So people believing in a collapse without demanding that information are just being stupid and not dealing with the physics. Physics is not going to change in the future. It is just a question of when this zeitgeist of stupidity will end.

A physical model depends on physics. That is reality.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
What 3rd party engineers? Gregory Urich? Who else?

He admitted that he did an interpolation of the perimeter columns from the 9th floor to the top then says it doesn't matter.

psik

Gregory produced his paper with the work of others. There's a few at an offsite forum I don't think I'm allowed to advertise but I'm sure you know it.

I'm aware he doesn't think it's of importance, but my point is that nobody but you seems to be clamouring for these details with such fervour. People who are qualified and experienced have produced results that they are satisfied with, it just seems to be you left here demanding greater accuracy.

l l
l l
l l
l l
__
__ Structure fails @ this point, yet there is still solid structure underneath, where is the resistance of the remaining 85% of the structure, the 85% that has always held the other 15% up?????
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l

Even if the building fails at the point where there is a gap, the lower part of the structure is still standing, so even if the top part is coming down, the lower part should still offer RESISTANCE (unless removed through explosives) against the part collapsing, yet the videos of the collapse show the building is just coming down smoothly, seemingly meeting little resistance in comparison to what is actually there in terms of solid steel structure support columns-

The bottom 85% half has always held the top half up, so why does the bottom 85% of the building give way so easily?

The upper half has always been held by the lower 85%, here-



The collapse as it happeneed is not possible with the official story.



Again, not possible people.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
What 3rd party engineers? Gregory Urich? Who else?

He admitted that he did an interpolation of the perimeter columns from the 9th floor to the top then says it doesn't matter.

psik

Gregory produced his paper with the work of others. There's a few at an offsite forum I don't think I'm allowed to advertise but I'm sure you know it.

I'm aware he doesn't think it's of importance, but my point is that nobody but you seems to be clamouring for these details with such fervour. People who are qualified and experienced have produced results that they are satisfied with, it just seems to be you left here demanding greater accuracy.

Wonderer2012 just pointed it out.

Why can't your EXPERTS build a "physical" model to do what the north tower supposedly did? I supplied a physical model that didn't.

www.youtube.com...

All you can do is keep talking and pretend that is important. I provided models years ago. Of course after TEN YEARS the experts will look pretty stupid if they admit the physics makes it impossible and it is easy to understand because then they should have solved it in 2002. Now they have a vested interest in not solving it.

psik

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
__ Structure fails @ this point, yet there is still solid structure underneath, where is the resistance of the remaining 85% of the structure, the 85% that has always held the other 15% up?????

It held it up while it was stationary. Stopping something that's moving is a whole lot more work than holding something up. If you doubt it, hold the heaviest weight you can above your head, then let it fall for only a couple of inches and try and stop it.

note: don't actually do this please!

Even if the building fails at the point where there is a gap, the lower part of the structure is still standing, so even if the top part is coming down, the lower part should still offer RESISTANCE (unless removed through explosives) against the part collapsing

Sure, I agree that the lower part should definitely provide resistance. Lets say me and you were to conduct an experiment using the videos available. How should we measure the resistance felt? I'm interested in your opinion of what the best way to go about it would be.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why can't your EXPERTS build a "physical" model to do what the north tower supposedly did? I supplied a physical model that didn't.

They're not my experts psikey. They're just experts.

All you can do is keep talking and pretend that is important. I provided models years ago.

But your models don't match up with anything. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here, I thought your whole point was that your models don't work, and that you wanted NIST to give you the data to make them work?

Do your models work or not?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why can't your EXPERTS build a "physical" model to do what the north tower supposedly did? I supplied a physical model that didn't.

They're not my experts psikey. They're just experts.

All you can do is keep talking and pretend that is important. I provided models years ago.

But your models don't match up with anything. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here, I thought your whole point was that your models don't work, and that you wanted NIST to give you the data to make them work?

Do your models work or not?

I provided video links. Do your eyes work?

Obviously one of us is STUPID. The 10,000 page NIST report admitted in THREE PLACES that they needed to know the distribution of weight in the towers to analyse the impacts. But then they didn't do it or explain it.

I demonstrated that changing the weight and its distribution altered the behavior of a flexible vertical structure when it was impacted with a sheer force.

www.youtube.com...

So it is not my fault if you cannot evaluate the information from people that you regard as EXPERTS when they are talking about something as simple as grade school Newtonian physics. That should have been the data they were emphasizing within weeks of 9/11. Since they didn't it makes the culture of our experts look pretty strange. That is the trouble with physical models that anyone can duplicate. They don't care about experts.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


When are you going to tell us the weight and distribution of washers and paper rings on every level of your model ?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I provided video links. Do your eyes work?

Obviously one of us is STUPID.

You provided the wrong video link. Please don't go around accusing other people of being stupid. It's not a very nice thing to do.

I demonstrated that changing the weight and its distribution altered the behavior of a flexible vertical structure when it was impacted with a sheer force.

Did anyone ever disagree with you? If this is all your models prove then they say nothing about 911. Just because you want to have someone build a similar model doesn't mean they're required to. I honestly have no idea where you're going with this. It seems you're stuck in an infinite loop of ignore questions, demand the nonexistant.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Steel did not hold them up. It was a combination of many things, but, in the end, it was what connected the outside to the inside that failed. Once that happens, you no longer have the correct distribution of weight.

We are not talking a 3 story building but a heavily engineered 100 plus floor skyscraper which does make a difference. It is a testament to the engineers the buildings stood as long as they did.

Also, If they were wired, why wait? No one ever has an answer just another link to a video. Make it a dirty bomb that ends NYC as we knew it and really make cause for war. Why only be a little evil and kill 3000 when you can kill 20000 and nuke Mecca if you like.

Answer yourself these questions...

PS....Still pimping that washer WTC model also huh

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Steel did not hold them up. It was a combination of many things, but, in the end, it was what connected the outside to the inside that failed. Once that happens, you no longer have the correct distribution of weight.

We are not talking a 3 story building but a heavily engineered 100 plus floor skyscraper which does make a difference. It is a testament to the engineers the buildings stood as long as they did.

Also, If they were wired, why wait? No one ever has an answer just another link to a video. Make it a dirty bomb that ends NYC as we knew it and really make cause for war. Why only be a little evil and kill 3000 when you can kill 20000 and nuke Mecca if you like.

Answer yourself these questions...

PS....Still pimping that washer WTC model also huh

edit on 27-5-2012 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

You keep making these arguments about the "connections" failing and causing the collapse. Lets assume for argument that you are 100% correct. The connections holding the inside of the building to the outside of the building all gave way simultaneously on each floor causing the symmetrical collapse of the building. This caused an incorrect distribution of weight in the building. The incorrect distribution is the weight of the floors being REMOVED from the support columns, which are the skeleton of the building. They hold it up. Shouldn't you have 47 boxed steel beams shooting 800-900 feet in the air at the end with your theory? Oh wait, you say all 47 beams folded up on the way down and collapsed upon themselves. Therefore we should have 800-900 foot pieces of beams all bent up and laying on the ground at ground zero. Not what we see. The beams are broken into thousands of pieces in the rubble. Try pounding a steel nail(applying downward force). The nail will bend but it will not break into pieces. The only way steel columns end up in pieces is through violent concussive force (explosion) or through cutting. The only force your theory mentions is downward force from the floors above. How do you rectify this in your mind?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
__ Structure fails @ this point, yet there is still solid structure underneath, where is the resistance of the remaining 85% of the structure, the 85% that has always held the other 15% up?????

It held it up while it was stationary. Stopping something that's moving is a whole lot more work than holding something up. If you doubt it, hold the heaviest weight you can above your head, then let it fall for only a couple of inches and try and stop it.

note: don't actually do this please!

Even if the building fails at the point where there is a gap, the lower part of the structure is still standing, so even if the top part is coming down, the lower part should still offer RESISTANCE (unless removed through explosives) against the part collapsing

Sure, I agree that the lower part should definitely provide resistance. Lets say me and you were to conduct an experiment using the videos available. How should we measure the resistance felt? I'm interested in your opinion of what the best way to go about it would be.

I'm not an engineer or scientist, but I will say from the video is this-

85% of the structure was solid and undamaged, the top 15% gave way at the point of the plane's impact and came down.

The time of free fall from the top of the WTC is roughly 10 seconds. The building came down in just over 11 seconds.

ARE WE SURELY TO BELIEVE THAT OVER 100 FLOORS OF SOLID STEEL STRUCTURE AND CONCRETE GAVE WAY AT THIS RATE?

The point is you don't have to be an engineer to understand that over 100 floors of solid steel and concrete would offer a lot more resistance than it did. It is unnatural.

Building's destroyed by controlled demolition do not fall at free fall, they fall in time with just over free fall speed, AKA the way the twin towers collapsed on 9/11.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
__ Structure fails @ this point, yet there is still solid structure underneath, where is the resistance of the remaining 85% of the structure, the 85% that has always held the other 15% up?????

It held it up while it was stationary. Stopping something that's moving is a whole lot more work than holding something up. If you doubt it, hold the heaviest weight you can above your head, then let it fall for only a couple of inches and try and stop it.

note: don't actually do this please!

You expect people to evaluate things on the basis of stupidly inadequate analogies.

Each tower consisted of 110 LEVELS.

My collapse model has 33 LEVELS.

Some LEVELS do get crushed in the collapse. But crushing those LEVELS requires energy and that comes from the kinetic energy of the falling mass so it SLOWS DOWN. It eventually stops and the collapse ends with most of the structure still standing. I was able to empirically test how much energy was required to crush my paper loops. It closely matched the potential energy of the drop I created.

That is why it is so absurd for EXPERTS to not demand accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete of the towers or to talk about the energy required to collapse each LEVEL.

psik

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

PS....Still pimping that washer WTC model also huh

Well if you watch the end of my video you will see the great model that MIT put on the air in 2002.

What has stopped you or any engineering school from making a better model that can collapse completely? It wouldn't be the Laws of Physics by any chance. Any material that can support the static load will absorb energy being crushed by a dynamic load so how could 90 LEVELS be completely crushed?

psik