9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Chemtrail Kook, Apr 18, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chemtrail Kook

    Chemtrail Kook New Member

  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    People don't have to be loons and kooks to be wrong. And you can always find someone to believe your particular theory - often several. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of pilots, architects, and engineers accept the official version of the events of 9/11. Denialists like to gather their tiny minority into one place, to make it seem like it's representative of a larger movement, when really that's all there is.

    A good counter-illustration of this is "Project Steve"

    http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
  3. Janet D

    Janet D New Member

    Excellent points, Mick. Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and Pilots for 911 Truth are a very small part of the larger community of professionals in those fields, but it does seem to lend credibility to the 9/11 Truth Movement, especially when someone is new to that CT.
  4. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    An article from Philadelphia- "The Truth about Truthers" (mentions chemtrails too)

    http://www.citypaper.net/news/2011-08-25-september-11-911-truthers-activists-philadelphia.html

    Scenes from the fractured 9/11 activist movement.

    ..............That's one of the nagging little problems with the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just when you think you've found a starting point to discuss the issues, the rabbit hole goes even deeper. The answer is often a larger conspiracy.

    The bigger problem with the 9/11 Truth Movement is that there's no such thing as a unified, coherent 9/11 Truth Movement................................

    (continued at link, with some interesting comments from those interviewed)
  5. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    I agree. Why do you think there is no unified movement?
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Because pretty much everything the truthers say is bunk.

    Different groups pick on different concepts, most of which can be debunked. One group debunks tenets of another group, and vice-versa, so you end up with 90% of the 9/11 bunk being debunked by people in the 9/11 movements.

    The core things on which they more-or-less agree are pretty vague: the building looked weird when they fell, it's amazing that the terrorist's plan worked so well, building 7 looked superficially like a controlled demolition.

    The problem then is there is no real alternative narrative that they propose. What do they think actually happened? They can't say. Oddly the more reasonable the basis of the theory, the less specific it gets. They are unified mostly by a distrust in the official story, and what they see as holes in that story. But any attempt to proceed beyond that leads nowhere.
  7. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Clearly there is also a lot of disinformation/obfuscation floating about. This makes it hard to get to the truth. You're happy to say that most of what the truthers say is 'bunk'. But what about the official report? Have you read it and do you think it adequately reflects the truth of what happened?

    The core things on which they more-or-less agree are pretty vague: the building(s) looked weird when they fell, it's amazing that the terrorist's plan worked so well, building 7 looked superficially like a controlled demolition. I could say: the core things upon which you agree with some of the other contributors to this site are also pretty vague (mainly it's that you're all 'debunkers' together) - because you all go out of your way not to get into a disagreement with each other, even when it's obvious you don't hold the same views. You remain silent instead. I can give plenty of examples, but won't bother as it's apparent to anyone who actually reads any amount of this. The buildings looked weird when they fell? Only (in the cases of wtc1 and wtc2) if you call complete, almost instantaneous dissociation of the material structure of the buildings and their contents weird - then yes, it's weird - unique is another word that comes to mind. How exactly did those vertical core steels - 4inches thick at the bottom and three feet by one in cross section - become severed? What force acting upon those vertical steels as a result of the official narrative's 'progressive collapse theory' caused them to be sheared? What kind of 'progressive' collapse ejects matter and pulverizes everything, reducing 110 floors of 4inch thick steel reinforced concrete, miles of carpet, office furniture, computers, wiring, plasterboard, people, to dust and sheared steel columns? I challenge anyone to take a piece of carpet, plasterboard, forty-year-old steel reinforced concrete, office chair or desk etc. and try to pulverize it to dust - use whatever means at your disposal - drop it from a great height, get a sledgehammer and spend a few hours on it, crush it in a vice - whatever you can think of. Good luck. You say the buildings looked weird when they fell - I say they looked just as weird when they had fallen - there was nothing left but dust and sheared steel columns - where did all the contents and structure go? One doesn't need to be inundated with massive amounts of 'evidence' - one only needs to use eyes and common sense to understand that the official 'narrative' is wholly inadequate in describing the reality of what happened. That would seem like a good starting point for any discussion on what really did happen. ... it's amazing that the terrorist's plan worked so well...I'd be tempted to say 'incredible' rather than 'amazing'. It's even more incredible that at least six of them survived their 'suicide' mission, as subsequently reported by much of even the 'mainstream' media. Some feat that. However, the official narrative remains doggedly in place. A mere detail? I'd say that if you're going to nail such a heinous crime on someone, you better be sure you've got it right. Such things should be decided by serious deliberation and evidence gathering, alongside a presumption of innocence until proof is provided. In this case there was a presumption of guilt that was almost instant - Sherlock Holmes would have been proud of such swift and sure deduction
    ...building 7 looked superficially like a controlled demolition. I'd say, WTC7 looked exactly like a controlled demolition. Complete, catastrophic and simultaneous failure of this structure resulting in total destruction.

    Further, on the structural part of the argument and that planes crashing into these buildings would have had the effect that ensued, for anyone interested in an experiment, it might be worth fashioning yourself a baseball bat from steel and concrete and a model aircraft from aluminium. You could even do this to scale if you're any good at model making. When done, hang the plane from a piece of string so it is static and at a good hitting height; now clobber the plane with the steel and concrete bat. Note the results. Now we need to repeat the experiment to see what will happen....but hang on, you say: the aircraft flew into the building, the building didn't hit the aircraft! So how can your experiment be valid? Well, thanks to Isaac Newton, we know that it doesn't matter which way around we do this experiment - the forces acting on each component in the experiment are the same - exactly the same. If you drive your car at 30mph and a bug flies at your windscreen at 40mph and the bug hits the windscreen, which exerts more force on the other component, the bug or the windscreen? The answer is neither - they are the same forces acting on both. You can change the speeds to whatever you want, even 0mph, and the answer is always the same - the force exerted on both components is the same. The question now is which item was designed to withstand that force, and the bug always loses out in this duel for it was not designed for such pressures. Going back to your repeat experiment - if you're going to need to remake one of your models after the first experiment, which one do you think is more likely to have been destroyed completely in the first - the steel and concrete bat or the aluminium plane?
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What you are doing is presenting an argument from personal incredulity. It looks strange. It seems strange. You can't figure out the physics. Therefore the official story was wrong.

    I really don't want to get into a 9/11 discussion. It's been done to death. Just do a Google search for "pulverized concrete" and you'll find all the explanations you need as to what happened there. But you might want to ask yourself what the collapse of the building would look like if it did actually collapse from a local structural failure due to fire. Would there be any dust? How big would the debris pile be? How deep is the parking structure?

    A baseball bat of steel and concrete hitting a model aircraft made from aluminum is an interesting analogy. It's entirely inaccurate. It's an analogy designed to conjurer up a specific image of a strong steel and concrete baseball bat hitting a flimsy aluminum foil plane.

    A big reason the argument from incredulity works so well with the WTC is the problem of scale. We are not used to considering what would happen to a 1,300 foot high building being hit by 300,000 pounds of plane containing 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, travelling at 586 mph. So you try to frame it in terms you might understand. WTC has roughly the proportions of a baseball bat, so you come up with that analogy.

    The world does not scale like that though. An ant can lift fifty times its body weight, not because it is strong, but because it is tiny. An elephant can only lift a fraction of its weight. Your scale model analogy is meaningless. You saw the second plane hit the tower. It went through the exterior walls like they were paper. How does that translate to your model baseball bat? Do you think your analogy actually reflects what would really happen?
  9. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    But the second plane was a holgram, and haarp did the pulverizing!
    I saw it on youtube, and confirmed by Alex Jones himself!
    Yeah, that's the ticket!
    sheesh....
  10. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    No. What I am doing is presenting the argument from the point of view of a structural engineer.
  11. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    written any poems of late?
  12. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Really? at what altitude is this Boeing doing 586mph exactly? Do tell
  13. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    See. That's where you're wrong. The job is to consider what would happen to...
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    About 1000 feet, why? How fast do you think it was going?

    http://www.911myths.com/images/c/c1/Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11%2C_UA175.pdf
  15. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    So if 'we' are not used to it - what does that make you? Are you used to it - are you one of the few to figure it out?
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Of course I'm not used to it - nobody is. "We" included me. But I'm familiar with the problems of scale.

    What do you think would happen to a 1,300 foot high building being hit by 300,000 pounds of plane containing 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, travelling at 586 mph? I think what did happen does not seem unreasonable if you look into the actual physics involved.
  17. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Didn't you mean a quarter mile high steel and concrete structure weighing 300 thousand tonnes hit by a 13.5 tonne aluminium bomb containing 45 cubic metres of jet fuel? It seems very unreasonable to me. How exactly are you familiar with the 'problems' of scale?
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There you go. It "seems" unreasonable - from your point of view of incredulity. What I'm saying is that it's very reasonably if you look at the actual physics involved.

    Consider this visualization of the impact, why do you think it is wrong?

  19. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    It's déjà vu, all over again.....................and again................. and again.............
  20. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    There I go? Where exactly? Maybe you need to read it again, try to take it in this time. It's amusing (only mildy) that you are permitted to say this in instigation: What do you think would happen to a 1,300 foot high building being hit by 300,000 pounds of plane containing 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, travelling at 586 mph? I think what did happen does not seem unreasonable...and I, in response, say: Didn't you mean a quarter mile high steel and concrete structure weighing 300 thousand tonnes hit by a 13.5 tonne aluminium bomb containing 45 cubic metres of jet fuel? It seems very unreasonable to me - if YOU introduce the idea of what YOU think is reasonable, am I not permitted the same luxury? Clearly not. It's also interesting how you avoid such questions as: What kind of 'progressive' collapse ejects matter and pulverizes everything, reducing 110 floors of 4inch thick steel reinforced concrete, miles of carpet, office furniture, computers, wiring, plasterboard, people, to dust and sheared steel columns? Or: You: it's amazing that the terrorist's plan worked so well...Me: I'd be tempted to say 'incredible' rather than 'amazing'. It's even more incredible that at least six of them survived their 'suicide' mission, as subsequently reported by much of even the 'mainstream' media. Some feat that. However, the official narrative remains doggedly in place. A mere detail? And this: But what about the official report? Have you read it and do you think it adequately reflects the truth of what happened?
  21. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    What do think would happen if a quarter mile long, 300,000 tonne steel and concrete rectangle smacked a 13.5 tonne aluminium aircraft at 586mph? An hour later the wand would turn to dust in 15 seconds? What do you think?
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    One like these, except much much bigger.
    [Edit - reduced down to one video, as it's all you need]



    It did not pulverize everything to dust. Most of the concrete remained in chunks and gravel. But there was obviously a lot of dust. And obviously when the air in a floor is compressed, it blows out sideways at high speed, along with the dust. Any building collapse creates a lot of dust, because a lot of building material is pulverized in the process.

    Obviously carpet would not create much dust, but equally obviously the tons of plasterboard would.

    What do you think it would look like?

    Yes I've read it. I think it's a very reasonable account of what happened that day.
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Are you just trying to phrase what happened in a way that sound implausible?

    A plane hit the building, damaging several structural members.
    Subsequent fires weakened other structural members to the point of failure.
    Once on floor failed, rapid progressive collapse resulted. See Verinage video, above.
    It created a lot of dust, and ended up in a big pile of rubble, partly underground.

    The weight of the building is irrelevant, all it needed was for one floor to fail, and the rest comes tumbling down.
  24. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    oh yeah. Re: your films - and I've just looked at the others. Are you serious? You can see the strings mate. That (probably) 60's built tower block was pulled down - like I said, you can see the strings; it was supposed to collapse because it was set up to do just that! What does that prove? The visualization is just that - animation, so what? It asks me to believe that the nose cone of a plane coming into contact with a 36inch x 12inch box welded vertical steel, tied every which way to every other steel present from the basement to the penthouse, managed to break through a few of them before breaking up - you believe that? The other two films? And? The construction of those buildings is in no way relevant - is that it? There's a lot of wood in houses like that which is integral to the structure, wood has a habit of burning in a fire (one of the cases), then the structure is weakened - I believe the expression is 'gutted' by fire. Irrelevant. Are those your best evidence? Of what? How a building can collapse? But the important question is, why did it collapse? there's always a logical reason for that bit.
    You say: It did not pulverize everything to dust. Most of the concrete remained in chunks and gravel. But there was obviously a lot of dust. And obviously when the air in a floor is compressed, it blows out sideways at high speed, along with the dust. Any building collapse creates a lot of dust, because a lot of building material is pulverized in the process.

    Obviously carpet would not create much dust, but equally obviously the tons of plasterboard would.

    What do you think it would look like?

    There was a lot more dust than there should have been, and of types you would not expect to find in a collapse. Haven't seen a lot of lumps compared to dust and what my experience tells me there should be, which is: whole chunks of floors intact, bodies, desks, chairs, recognizable pieces of debris - there's a good bit of anecdotal evidence from a fireman who holds up a small piece of a telephone dial pad and says that's the largest recognizable piece of debris, collapse doesn't turn office contents to dust - but did you see the dust? Volcanic?. Have you ever constructed anything out of steel? Wood? apart from a table and some planters - I mean something structural? How would you make it if you set about it? You'd make it to withstand anyfuckenthing - because it's yours, and your ass. I reckon you would. Why do you assume that an engineer doesn't do the same?

    And this? Yes I've read it. I think it's a very reasonable account of what happened that day. And I thought you were dedicated to the truth! So, to clarify, is it ok to continue to name at least six guys (named in the report) as the perpetrators when it has been shown they are still alive?
  25. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Now you're projecting
  26. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    so you say....'The weight of the building is irrelevant, all it needed was for one floor to fail, and the rest comes tumbling down.' The weight of the building is irrelevant? Is its construction irrelevant too? I'd think it would be most relevant. Have you constructed anything structural out of steel, wood, concrete? Anything?
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Again, all you've got is an argument from incredulity. The vérinage video shows that if one floor fails, then the building will collapse just like was observed. The plane impact and subsequent fire seem like a plausible cause of a floor collapse. The engineers who built the building agree. (Specifically Leslie Robertson)



    The fact that you don't agree is just you reacting with incredulity to something that looks strange to you.

    Plane impact and fire = floor fails
    One floor fails = building pancakes down with lots of dust.
    Enormous building collapsing = looks unlike anything you've seen or could imagine.
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Did you not watch the verinage video? If one floor fails, the building collapses. The total weight of the building has very little effect on this. It could be 20 floors, or 50 floors or 110 floors, the end result would be the same.
  29. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    So you've never built anything structural then?
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Perhaps you could address the issues at hand. My lack of qualifications is not the issue. I'm just some guy, I've made a table and a workbench. That does not change anything.

    Would you agree, that if one floor of the WTC were fail, as in verinage demolition, then (providing there were enough floors above the failed floor), the entire building would probably pankcake collapse?
  31. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Thanks for the video of lots of controlled demolitions - that's what they're called, y'know? And the structure of those buildings doesn't bear comparison to wtc. You obviously have no actual experience with the physical materials we're talking about.
  32. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    So, to clarify, is it ok to continue to name at least six guys (named in the report) as the perpetrators when it has been shown they are still alive? How about you answer my question and then I'll answer yours?
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What does my experience have to do with it? Will my experience go back in time and change the facts?

    So what would you think would happen if one floor of the WTC were to fail?
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  35. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    Yes - and it looks nothing like wtc collapses 1 & 2, closer to 7. I see no mushrooming plumes ejecting laterally from the structure and a paltry amount of dust in comparison - a collapse, not an eruption, is what I see. And the structure of those buildings is nothing like wtc - as you know
  36. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    You've got a real penchant for websites and youtube to back up your argument - are they gospel? the website 911 myths? I wonder what their angle is?...mmmm....? and some youtube cartoon about how a plane severed several massive steel columns? Some videos of controlled demolitions and collapses of domestic timber and masonry properties? I can show you loads of videos from youtube - does that make them right?
  37. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Really, You don't think if you took something like this 18 story building:



    And scaled it up to six times as high, and three times as wide (about 50 times the mass and potential energy), then you've get something like the towers collapsing?

    I mean, look at the video. By the time the upper part has fallen three floors you've got a significant amount of ejecta. Remember the ejecta from the towers will be triple the density, plus it falls a lot more. This only falls 9 floors.
  39. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It would not be okay to continue to name them as being dead if they were shown to be still alive.

    Obviously.
  40. lee h oswald

    lee h oswald Banned Banned

    here's a couple of sources for you - but if you choose to beleive '911 myths.com' over the BBC and The Guardian....
    [h=3]BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hijack 'suspects' alive and well[/h]news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

    and [h=3]Many 9-11 "Hijackers" are Still Alive.[/h]guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm

    oh yeah, and this from your favourite - wikipedia!!:
    [h=3]9/11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theoriesCached - Similar
    You +1'd this publicly. Undo
    Jump to Hijackers‎: Some of the people named were later discovered to be alive,

    So what are you on about - 'they are not'? You choose 911myths.com over the BBC, The Guardian and wikipedia? c'mon, fess up
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page