StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Login   Register FAQ    Search

View unanswered posts | View active topics


It is currently 2014-09-21 12:13pm (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Gallery » Parting Shots


Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)

[asedra] Ed Asner on 9/11 - Building 7

Moderator: Moderators

Post new topic Post a reply  Page 6 of 7
 [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

asedra
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 01:22am 

Youngling


Joined: 2010-10-29 02:38am
Posts: 55
Where the fuck is madd0ct0r? He should have had plenty of time to compose an argument by now. Oh well, lets pick up right where we left off.

Its funny how everyone is chiming in on unrelated matters like that bolsters the non-existent validity of their WTC claims. 'Yeah, we're doing good. Lets keep nitpicking on how roughneck violated our idiosyncratic rules on quote attributions. Thats a perfect substitute!'

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
It's not an especially long article and I think most people here would find at least one thing in it new or interesting - but I'm not at all demanding it be done. Here's some excerpts from the article.


You don't listen very well, do you? I already said that the pancake collapse had been ruled out. It could not explain how the core columns fell (you see what their state is in your diagram? Yeah), and despite computer animations, entire floors collapsing was not what was actually observed. NIST findings do not even support the pancake collapse theory which is premised on the progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. Furthermore, a report by jim hoffman (The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center) measured the energy requirements for driving the expansion of the pyroclastic flow -what he termed a dust cloud- following the 'collapse' of WTC, and found it to be at least 10 times more than what the tower could have provided gravitationally, thus disproving and invalidating the governments and medias claims regarding the cause and 'gravitational' nature of its destruction.

Its another indicator of controlled demolition, but careful! It doesn't come from government organisations responsible for investigating the collapse, like all my other citations were. Time to overcome your agoraphobia and read some independent (which, according to Edi, is fully liable to be branded as incompetent, uncredible, or dishonest) research. Hopefully, though, I won't be thought of as 'just like every other Truther moron we've seen: All bluster, no credible sources and the sources that you do produce are either all lies or something that directly refutes your own arguments but which some scientifically illiterate moron took to mean something else.'
   Profile |  

bobalot
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 01:32am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2008-05-21 06:42am
Posts: 1529
Location: Sydney, Australia
asedra wrote:
Where the fuck is madd0ct0r? He should have had plenty of time to compose an argument by now. Oh well, lets pick up right where we left off.

You do realise this is the holiday season? Most people are spending time with their families and friends or simply taking a break from work.
   Profile |  

asedra
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 01:43am 

Youngling


Joined: 2010-10-29 02:38am
Posts: 55
weemadando wrote:
But onto serious matters. If you truly believe this was an inside job, please answer me one thing - how was this controlled demolition kept quiet? What happened to the tens if not hundreds of workers who had to have been involved in setting this up? How did no one notice this happening while the building was occupied up to the point of demolition? And why has nothing leaked about this?

The logistics of the WTC operation is a fascinating issue. The basics of it are all handled quite well in this video, 911 explosive connections: http://youtu.be/4LDdRVthqQU
   Profile |  

asedra
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 01:46am 

Youngling


Joined: 2010-10-29 02:38am
Posts: 55
bobalot wrote:
asedra wrote:
Where the fuck is madd0ct0r? He should have had plenty of time to compose an argument by now. Oh well, lets pick up right where we left off.

You do realise this is the holiday season? Most people are spending time with their families and friends or simply taking a break from work.

Yeah, good point. I'll be away from the computer myself for a couple of days. I guess we'll have at each other on boxing day or whatnot. How appropriate.
   Profile |  

weemadando
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 01:52am 

SMAKIBBFB


Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Posts: 19195
asedra wrote:
weemadando wrote:
But onto serious matters. If you truly believe this was an inside job, please answer me one thing - how was this controlled demolition kept quiet? What happened to the tens if not hundreds of workers who had to have been involved in setting this up? How did no one notice this happening while the building was occupied up to the point of demolition? And why has nothing leaked about this?

The logistics of the WTC operation is a fascinating issue. The basics of it are all handled quite well in this video, 911 explosive connections: http://youtu.be/4LDdRVthqQU


A few companies on a few floors of some of the buildings?

Fuck off and come back when you understand the massive undertaking that a controlled demolition is.
   Profile |  

asedra
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 01:58am 

Youngling


Joined: 2010-10-29 02:38am
Posts: 55
Sea Skimmer wrote:
it is clear that the building was not comprehensively designed with such an event in mind. If they were then a number of protective steps could have been taken but were not, like hardened fire stairs, foaming sprinkler systems or physical protection for fireproofing. Also just building the damn thing out of concrete would be far more survivable.

Not true. The cores were specifically designed not to allow passage of air in the event of a fire or other disaster, and included automatic fire shutters to close off the elevators. This means that the only air available to a fire in the core would have been from broken windows on the periphery of the buildings. Since the cores could not act as chimneys, the smoke and hot gasses from such fires would have to travel back along the ceilings to escape, and would not produce a strong draft to pull fresh air inward toward the core.
And the claim that the WTCs fireproofing was knocked off (by the plane impacts) was determined to have been false, so you saying that they needed physical protection is yet another red herring. You don't want to fight me on this one, I've dealt with this argument countless times.

Quote:
I love the one one '70% dust' BTW. That's totally what that jagged mountain of debris was; I really honestly would love to see what on earth you pulled that one out of.

There was a report made by 20 20, just three days after the attacks, which discussed the pulverisation of concrete: http://youtu.be/56aGHp8oez8. A notable 911 truther, named plague puppy, also went into good detail about this phenomena.

''In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.

The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.

Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?''
   Profile |  

weemadando
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 02:00am 

SMAKIBBFB


Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Posts: 19195
Also the whole thing of: "THIS GUY WAS ON BOARD OF COMPANY X! HE IS ALSO INVOLVED WITH Y!" is a really spurious argument.

There's a whole bunch of dirty shit that people who sit on multiple boards get up to, but the fact is, that when you consider just how many people hold multiple positions coincidence is a helluva lot more compelling. And I mean, what would a massive insurance company want with having someone with White House connections on their board? Man, it's not like we haven't seen that shit before.

Next point please.
   Profile |  

asedra
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 02:05am 

Youngling


Joined: 2010-10-29 02:38am
Posts: 55
weemadando wrote:
A few companies on a few floors of some of the buildings?
Fuck off and come back when you understand the massive undertaking that a controlled demolition is.

Your an idiot. Fuck off, and come back to me when you understand the potency of thermite. 911 debunkers (who you are obviously influenced by) still refuse to admit that a one kilo charge can sever support columns, so until they pull their heads out of their ass on that point, its useless arguing about all the complications in employing it. Oh, and since your not adressing the issues in the video beyond a simple handwave, and not adressing the solid connections to all the people involved in this operation, I'll take that as a concession.
   Profile |  

DPDarkPrimus
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 02:23am 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-11-23 12:02am
Posts: 18399
Location: Iowa
asedra wrote:
You don't listen very well, do you? I already said that the pancake collapse had been ruled out.


You dismiss the article because it doesn't address points that I never claimed it to. Oh wait, no, you dismiss the article because you're operating from flawed assumptions that the entire thing is false from the get-go. I posted the article because I found it informative and thought folks in the thread would find it interesting, I didn't post it to become yet another person who has to waste their time dealing with you. Your attitude is making me feel like I should, but those already involved are better-qualified than I.


asedra wrote:
come back to me when you understand the potency of thermite 911 debunkers (who you are obviously influenced by) still refuse to admit that a one kilo charge can sever support columns,


They had to use 1,500 pounds of thermite to bring down the Sky Ride, you can see pictures of it in place in the article. Even assuming the columns in the WTC were no larger or sturdier than those on the Sky Ride, it still would require orders of magnitude more than a single kilo to sever them. And you expect that these charges were put into multiple places in each Tower, without anyone noticing?
   Profile |  

Sea Skimmer
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 02:50am 

Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate


Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Posts: 35375
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
asedra wrote:
Not true. The cores were specifically designed not to allow passage of air in the event of a fire or other disaster, and included automatic fire shutters to close off the elevators.


In the event of a normal fire, sure that might work assuming never even went wrong with the sealing in several decades of use and modifications. That doesn't mean it will all remain sealed when a massive aircraft throws debris weighing up to nine thousand pounds clear through the building. A lot of that sealing was just drywall. Drywall will repel a normal fire, it doesn't do shit if a plane crashed into the place. WE KNOW for a fact that many stairways were breached, because that is why a large number of people could not escape and died. You are completely laughable and have completely failed to address the fact that you are dead fucking wrong on the nature of the fires in WTC 7 and the scale of the impact to Towers 1 and 2.

Quote:
There was a report made by 20 20, just three days after the attacks, which discussed the pulverisation of concrete: http://youtu.be/56aGHp8oez8. A notable 911 truther, named plague puppy, also went into good detail about this phenomena.


Auto fail. You said 70% of the structure. The floors are concrete, main structure of the building is STEEL, 70% of the steel did not turn into dust. Of course the concrete is going to turn into dust after falling up to 110 stories, you are a complete idiot to think otherwise. You want to know how you get dust in the early stages of the collapse, its easy. EVEN FALLING ONE STORY WILL TURN SOME CONCRETE INTO DUST. You can drop a piece of concrete from shoulder height and some of it will turn into fucking dust when it breaks, even if it just breaks in half. The energy does not have to be present to convert all of it into dust at that point. Furthermore all the drywallin that first floor of collapse will turn into dust, as will other building materials, not to mention soot and ash the raging fires on multiple floors. You are a complete fucking idiot, and it shows that you just want to drop names of other truthers and videos without a single equation instead of anything meaningful.
   Profile |  

weemadando
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 02:59am 

SMAKIBBFB


Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Posts: 19195
asedra wrote:
weemadando wrote:
A few companies on a few floors of some of the buildings?
Fuck off and come back when you understand the massive undertaking that a controlled demolition is.


and not adressing the solid connections to all the people involved in this operation, I'll take that as a concession.


No, you won't.

I provided a counterpoint which dealt with the fact that there is cross-pollination at the executive and board member level between companies and government to the point where holding multiple positions is the rule, not the exception. AND THEREFORE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO SHOW THAT THESE LINKS WERE PREMEDITATED AND DIRECTLY TIED INTO THIS GREATER PLAN AND NOT MERELY COINCIDENCE.

Also, if someone is smart enough to plan out all of this shit do you honestly think that they'd be fucking dumb enough to not have LAYERS AND LAYERS AND LAYERS of protection between them and the event, rather than "LOL! I'M ON THE BOARD OF THE COMPANY AT THE CENTRE OF THIS WEB OF LIES! ONLY THE GREATEST INTERNET GENIUSES AND DELUSIONAL YOUTUBE DOCUMENTARIANS COULD EVER SEE THROUGH THIS SCHEME."

BTW, I'd like to just gauge your craziness by getting your opinion on a few other things.
1) Iraq War - were there WMDs?

2) Moon Landing - did it really happen?

3) Socialised Health Care - excellent social policy or FEMA DEATH CAMPS?
   Profile |  

asedra
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 03:39am 

Youngling


Joined: 2010-10-29 02:38am
Posts: 55
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Drywall will repel a normal fire, it doesn't do shit if a plane crashed into the place.

The plane impacts did nothing to dislodge the thermal insulation, its a proven mathematical impossibility, this was confirmed by NIST who, again, did the research and provided all the numbers but left the answer blank. But given how ignorant you've already proved to be on all the other aspects of 911, why should I be surprised at this latest gap in your knowledge base?

Kevin ryan, the former executive of underwriters laboratorys, stated that NISTs tests for fireproofing loss, which was ''never inserted in the draft reports, involved shooting a total of fifteen rounds from a shotgun at non-representative samples in a plywood box. Flat steel plates were used instead of column samples.'' How professional of them! lol. In any case, there was, as ryan points out, ''Simply no energy available to cause fireproofing loss... NISTs test indicate that 1 MG of energy was needed per sqaure meter of surface area to shear the fireproofing off. For the area in question... The extra energy needed would be several times more than the entire amount of kinetic energy that there was to begin with.'' To make matters worse, ryan adds ''Previous calculations by engineers at MIT had shown that all the kinetic energy from the aircraft was consumed in breaking perimeter columns, crushing the floors, and destroying the aircraft itself.'' NISTs method for then calculating how much insulation was stripped off was equally arbitrary. In a document explaining the criteria for determining this, we find that if the debris from the impact of the airplane damaged any room furnishings on a given floor, then NIST assumed that the fire protection on the entire floor was dislodged. It made this assumption, moreover, even though the core columns were insulated with gypsum board, rather than (or in addition to) the much derived SRFM sprayed fire resistant material.
Quote:
Auto fail. You said 70% of the structure. The floors are concrete, main structure of the building is STEEL, 70% of the steel did not turn into dust. Of course the concrete is going to turn into dust after falling up to 110 stories, you are a complete idiot to think otherwise.

Now your just being lazy. Come on, did you even watch the damn video? They discussed the pulverisation of ALL the solid materials in the WTC structure, not the concrete alone. Your too eager (and too desperate, it would seem) to jump on simple typos.

Quote:
EVEN FALLING ONE STORY WILL TURN SOME CONCRETE INTO DUST.

Concrete hitting the ground and releasing a puff of dust (like we commonly see in our day to day lives) cannot be conflated with most of its mass actually being converted into dust, because in the former case, the block will always be intact, or, at worse, fragmented. It does not simply dissapear. Worse yet, you are guilty of ommiting that a large portion of that huge dust cloud appeared well before any solid material had hit the ground to 'release it.'
But again, your making it seem like only the concrete or gypsum is missing from the rubble pile, and not all the other shit that was in the towers.
   Profile |  

Sea Skimmer
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 04:43am 

Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate


Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Posts: 35375
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
asedra wrote:
The plane impacts did nothing to dislodge the thermal insulation, its a proven mathematical impossibility, this was confirmed by NIST who, again, did the research and provided all the numbers but left the answer blank. But given how ignorant you've already proved to be on all the other aspects of 911, why should I be surprised at this latest gap in your knowledge base?


You are claiming that a plane impact will not dislodge drywall, you are a complete idiot. Your further comments are irrelevant since they seem to be talking about different fire measures. You want to talk about calculations, fucking show them, and source them to credible sources, not guys even the Russians say are bonkers, or shut the hell up. Nobody is going to take your word or a truther video for anything.

Quote:
Now your just being lazy. Come on, did you even watch the damn video? They discussed the pulverisation of ALL the solid materials in the WTC structure, not the concrete alone. Your too eager (and too desperate, it would seem) to jump on simple typos.


They can discuss anything they want. Discussion is not peer reviewed calculations or proof or research. I did watch the video, I noticed it claims a nuclear weapon brought down the towers, which I mean, you could come up with more pathetic answers but it would be really hard; at least the thermite nonsense wouldn't leave radioactive fallout that would be detectable globally to this very day, and I also see it has no figures, and only one poor long distance shot of the debris themselves focused on an edge of the pile. You do an excellent job showing how absurdly stupid you are by linking to a clip like that.

Quote:
Concrete hitting the ground and releasing a puff of dust (like we commonly see in our day to day lives) cannot be conflated with most of its mass actually being converted into dust, because in the former case, the block will always be intact, or, at worse, fragmented. It does not simply dissapear. Worse yet, you are guilty of ommiting that a large portion of that huge dust cloud appeared well before any solid material had hit the ground to 'release it.'


Your attempts to ignore everything anyone else says while making more and more pathetic lies and misstatements is not impressing anyone.

Quote:

But again, your making it seem like only the concrete or gypsum is missing from the rubble pile, and not all the other shit that was in the towers.


Prove it. Not by dropping names or linking to videos. Show real peer reviewed work. You also still need to show the Chief of the New York City Fire Department didn't know what he was looking at in person and that everyone's numbers on the plane impacts are wrong, I see you have no intention of doing so in favor of moving onto different topics because you know your beat and spreading a bunch of bullshit nobody believes. Nobody gives a fuck what you want to assert or what names of other idiots you might want to drop. Do you even understand the concept of peer reviewed work? Do you realize how absurdly stupid you look linking to videos that prove they are nonsensical in the very title of the upload?
   Profile |  

asedra
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 04:55am 

Youngling


Joined: 2010-10-29 02:38am
Posts: 55
weemadando wrote:
AND THEREFORE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO SHOW THAT THESE LINKS WERE PREMEDITATED AND DIRECTLY TIED INTO THIS GREATER PLAN AND NOT MERELY COINCIDENCE.
Also, if someone is smart enough to plan out all of this shit do you honestly think that they'd be fucking dumb enough to not have LAYERS AND LAYERS AND LAYERS of protection between them and the event, rather than "LOL! I'M ON THE BOARD OF THE COMPANY AT THE CENTRE OF THIS WEB OF LIES! ONLY THE GREATEST INTERNET GENIUSES AND DELUSIONAL YOUTUBE DOCUMENTARIANS COULD EVER SEE THROUGH THIS SCHEME."

Your cognitive dissonance is poignant. Government coverups for massive false flag attacks do not rely on the procedures that you have outlined. A project this big cannot be covered up in any sense of the word, you said that yourself, and I proved it with that video. References to all these things are few and far between, imbedded in thousands of pages of reports, memos, correspondence; each one is a dot of color in a pointillist painting, but they are there. The task at finding them is not a trivial one. It took the maker of that video years to do. The relevant memos make only oblique references, and they float in a sea of innocuous documents; if an investigating committee were to read all of the records, the evidence would be drowned out by the noise.

Seeing that you are STILL not convinced, nevermore does the saying, I'll call myself a conspiracy theorist if you call yourself a coincidence theorist, come to play here. How many coincidences do you require before you are convinced? No amount, because your opinions rely on faith, not logic or evidence. You asked for the connections, they are right in front of you, and they are damning ones. All the pieces match up: The only thing that remains is their intent, and you can't read minds.

When reviewing all the things that have been discussed on this page, it is possible, but not necessarily probable, that the explanations behind all these various situations do not constitute a conspiracy theory. But even if that is the case, all the terrible things that happened in the wake of the september 11th attacks must be accounted for. The agents responsible for the erosion of americas civil libertys, the flouting of international law, the rampancy of the military industrial complex, and the exorbitant expenditure of the nations wealth must be punished in a court of law. If found guilty, I fully expect them to be imprisoned for life, if not summarily executed.

Quote:
BTW, I'd like to just gauge your craziness by getting your opinion on a few other things.
1) Iraq War - were there WMDs?
2) Moon Landing - did it really happen?
3) Socialised Health Care - excellent social policy or FEMA DEATH CAMPS?

I appreciate your attempt at humour.
For #2, of course there was, what kind of question is that? Again, you, like your friend sea skimmer, think that all 911 truthers believe the same shit that n00bs like dylan avery and jason bermass do. They don't know anything about project apollo, the saturn V rockets, or even rocketry in general. I don't know where they came up with the idea that the saturns didn't have enough performance to get to the moon.
For #3, I don't know. Theres been alot of people bellyaching about not being able to go across state lines to get better insurance, but who can say? I've heard those claims about the FEMA camps. Mostly from alex jones crowd. Their convinced that they can handle up to 15,000 people a day, and that this would allow for a re-enactment of the holocaust on american soil. But theres just not enough proof to believe such extraordinary assertions.
For #1, shouldn't I be asking you that? You aren't one of those sheeple who believe that saddam hid his nuclear weapons from the coalition armys (?), an assumption which belies the fact that he would have been justified in using those weapons on them for illegally invading his country, and finishing what was started in the first gulf war.
   Profile |  

Simon_Jester
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 05:07am 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 21597
asedra wrote:
Your cognitive dissonance is poignant. Government coverups for massive false flag attacks do not rely on the procedures that you have outlined. A project this big cannot be covered up in any sense of the word, you said that yourself, and I proved it with that video. References to all these things are few and far between, imbedded in thousands of pages of reports, memos, correspondence; each one is a dot of color in a pointillist painting, but they are there. The task at finding them is not a trivial one. It took the maker of that video years to do. The relevant memos make only oblique references, and they float in a sea of innocuous documents; if an investigating committee were to read all of the records, the evidence would be drowned out by the noise.
If an honest review of all the data shows only noise... what if there is no signal, only noise?

If you must sort through a thousand documents to find one that indicates 9/11 was an inside job when you look at it funny... maybe you're just interpreting that one document wrong?

I mean, I don't need to scour the universe looking for a few pointillist dots to find evidence of 9/11 being an outside job. We have all kinds of crazy shit going on that day, we have veritable armies of professional engineers who looked over the tower collapses and calculated it all to the sixth decimal place and have this hugely detailed descriptions of how the buildings collapsed in a hell of structural damage and burning jet fuel. We have paper trails of how funding and recruitment of hijackers got them into the US and ready to do the deed.

We even have Osama bin Goddamn Laden saying "yeah, I did it" and practically posting that on Youtube.

It does not take any special subtlety to find the evidence for 9/11 being an outside job.

Why, if "inside job" is so much better as an explanation, is it so much harder to find the evidence? Shouldn't there be utterly transparent nonsense in the official explanation? Shouldn't there be a significant minority of real structural engineers who find fault with the official explanation? Shouldn't Osama bin Laden have been more adamant that he wasn't involved, that it was the CIA or the Jews or whatever?

If you find forty pieces of 'evidence' and connect them together, and some of them are outright bullshit, and the other guy finds forty thousand pieces of evidence and so far as I can tell none of them are bullshit... why shouldn't I believe the other guy?

Quote:
For #2, of course there was, what kind of question is that? Again, you, like your friend sea skimmer, think that all 911 truthers believe the same shit that n00bs like dylan avery and jason bermass do. They don't know anything about project apollo, the saturn V rockets, or even rocketry in general. I don't know where they came up with the idea that the saturns didn't have enough performance to get to the moon.
The same magic void that gave you the idea that a Boeing 767 doesn't pack enough wallop to knock down a building?

In both cases, the professionals are practically unanimous: yes, Saturn V works, yes, a jetliner slamming into an office building designed like the WTC is going to knock the thing down. In both cases, you have a handful of incredibly determined kooks who will search anywhere, listen to anyone, believe anything, make any specious argument, even outright fabricate evidence, to try and refute the result the professionals arrive at.

Why? I do not know. But I don't recommend listening to them.
   Profile |  

Edi
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 06:08am 

Dragonlord


Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Posts: 11631
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Asedra, this is not a request, it is an order: You have made claims about the impossibility of this and that, many of which are things that can be calculated.

You will either back your claims up with the calculations, formulas and numbers and show them here (NOT just link to external bullshit videos!) and you will NOT ignore points made against you.

You will comply with this order, or you will face the consequences. The most likely consequence for failure to comply is, in the spirit of giving the board a Christmas gift, giving you a bootprint on your backside.
   Profile |  

Alkaloid
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 06:49am 

Jedi Knight


Joined: 2011-03-21 07:59am
Posts: 956
Quote:
For #1, shouldn't I be asking you that? You aren't one of those sheeple who believe that saddam hid his nuclear weapons from the coalition armys (?), an assumption which belies the fact that he would have been justified in using those weapons on them for illegally invading his country, and finishing what was started in the first gulf war.


My god you are dim. He's suggesting that a government or military industrial complex (you aren't entirely clear on whose conspiracy this is) that are capable of orchestrating a hijacking, crashing two hijacked aircraft full of people into an internationally recognised landmark and then demolishing the building without anyone noticing despite it being staffed by thousands of people daily all of whom had damn good reason to notice guys cutting away panels of the wall and ceiling to strap fuck off big explosive charges to structural members throughout the building (like you have to do for a controlled demolition, you can't just tape a thermite charge to the roof in the basement and expect anything to happen) in order to stir up public sentiment for a war, (again, you are vague on the purpose of this war, which so far has cost trillions of dollars and done not much else, for the US anyway) all without leaving any trace that could be picked up by the broader community, may have been able to plant evidence that there was actually a WMD program somewhere in Iraq somewhere. A blueprint, a small sample of enriched uranium, anything similar would be enough for them to point to and go "see, see, justified!" Apparently that was too much for you dastardly villains, however.

(yes, I know I'm not on the already telling Asedra he's a fucking moron list, and I'm sorry, but this had to be said)
   Profile |  

Il Saggiatore
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 06:50am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2005-03-31 09:21am
Posts: 274
Location: Innsmouth
asedra wrote:
The plane impacts did nothing to dislodge the thermal insulation, its a proven mathematical impossibility, this was confirmed by NIST who, again, did the research and provided all the numbers but left the answer blank. But given how ignorant you've already proved to be on all the other aspects of 911, why should I be surprised at this latest gap in your knowledge base?


Maybe you should at least read the FAQ by NIST on the WTC collapse:

Quote:
6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
(bolding mine)

Dislodging of fire-proofing from structural steel in the Twin Towers was one of the main conclusion of the NIST'S investigation.


asedra wrote:
Kevin ryan, the former executive of underwriters laboratorys,... [SNIP!]


Kevin Ryan, former laboratory manager (not executive) of a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories (link), a subsidiary that deals exclusively with testing water, has no relevant expertise.

You really should be embarrassed to use him as "expert".
   Profile |  

asedra
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 06:57am 

Youngling


Joined: 2010-10-29 02:38am
Posts: 55
Sea Skimmer wrote:
They can discuss anything they want. Discussion is not peer reviewed calculations or proof or research. I did watch the video, I noticed it claims a nuclear weapon brought down the towers, which I mean, you could come up with more pathetic answers but it would be really hard; at least the thermite nonsense wouldn't leave radioactive fallout that would be detectable globally to this very day, and I also see it has no figures, and only one poor long distance shot of the debris themselves focused on an edge of the pile. You do an excellent job showing how absurdly stupid you are by linking to a clip like that?

That is the reporters of 20 20 (one of the most professional media groups around) and their scientific contacts you are dissing. Anyway, that video has 3 parts, and only the 1st clip on dustification was really relevant to what was being discussed. Dragging the other 2 clips into the discussion like you did is all fine and well, but seriously, your whole line of reasoning has been watered down to an argument by stereotype: Associate the enemy with someone who seems crazy (despite the fact that they were a sideshow to the clip in question), and you don't even need to consider their arguments, because they clearly have no idea what their talking about!

Quote:
Prove it. Not by dropping names or linking to videos. Show real peer reviewed work. You also still need to show the Chief of the New York City Fire Department didn't know what he was looking at in person and that everyone's numbers on the plane impacts are wrong.

I've already given you AT LEAST two such papers. That would be the NIST final report on WTC 7, and jim hoffmans on the energy requirements for driving the expansion of the WTCs pyroclastic flow of pulverised material (which would kill two birds with one stone at this point). Go ahead, look it up. Whats stopping you?

I've already proven that the pancake collapse is an impossibility, that the WTCs were designed to resist the impact of those planes (and that those impacts should have had no effect on their structural integrity, thus leaving the job of destroying them to THE FIRES ALONE), that there are ample connections to those responsible for rigging the towers for controlled demolition, that the fireproofing was not damaged by the impacts (which, BTW, heres the link to: http://www.journalof911studies. com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf, as requested), that column 79 could not have been displaced the full 5.5 inchs, I've disproved all the claims you made about building 7 as well, and a dozen other things as well. But oh no, its me whos on thin ice, and its me who has to do something drastic to prevent this hopeless farce of a thread (more like a kangaroo court) from being closed. You two have as much sense as a box of rocks, you lie through your big fat asses, and trying to get an admission that all those things I mentioned have, in fact, transpired, is like pulling fucking teeth.

Quote:
I see you have no intention of doing so in favour of moving onto different topics because you know your beat and spreading a bunch of bullshit nobody believes. Nobody gives a fuck what you want to assert or what names of other idiots you might want to drop. Do you even understand the concept of peer reviewed work? Do you realize how absurdly stupid you look linking to videos that prove they are nonsensical in the very title of the upload?

Whatever dude, if you're frightened away from anything that isn't gift wrapped for you in a politically correct or government approved package, then be that way. But do not, under any circumstances, suggest that because a treatment on a subject came from an opposing party, that it must therefore be lies or doctored*. I don't want to see that shit from you again, sea skimmer, and if I do, it will only prove that you are guilty of the same behaviour you constantly attribute to 911 truthers.

*Its one thing to say that, it is quite another to actually prove how they lied. Since you aren't getting around to doing that, I'll assume that your statement was just a puerile attempt to flip the board of chess over to avoid the inevitable coup de gra. Its time you change your attitude, or excuse yourself from this argument. I've provided alll the documentation realistically required, and you either ignore all their conclusions, or reject them on grounds as shallow as their political orientation.

Its become clear to me how the denizens of stardestroyer.net conflate the strength of their emotions with the strength of their argument. Yelling louder and cursing more does not make your story any more credible than it is: This is display behaviour for the benefit of onlookers, to distract them from your genuinely laughable and fraudulent position.
   Profile |  

PeZook
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 07:12am 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2002-07-18 06:08pm
Posts: 13237
Location: Poland
Asedra, a mod has requested something from you. When you refer to a specific claim in a specific document, you are supposed to cite it and if necessary explain how it supports your argument. Linking to a report hundreds of pages in length in its entirety is not acceptable.
   Profile |  

asedra
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 07:16am 

Youngling


Joined: 2010-10-29 02:38am
Posts: 55
Il Saggiatore wrote:
Kevin Ryan, former laboratory manager (not executive) of a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories (link), a subsidiary that deals exclusively with testing water, has no relevant expertise.
You really should be embarrassed to use him as "expert".


I could say the same with the governments assignment of FEMA and NIST to research the september 11th attacks. That the investigation into the most bizarre collapse in recorded history was assigned to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (which is a government institution), and not to much more prestigious bodies like MIT or Harvard which are private and more independent organisations, is very suspicious indeed. NIST thought the telltale signs of their incompetence could be buried in the absurd 10,000 page long report they slammed out. With all this in mind, even non-conspiracy theorists should be alarmed at the callous disregard the government shows at obtaining closure for the familys of the september 11th victims. You want to rant about incompetance? Kid, I can go on for hours.

This is a group of researchers who exaggerated both the duration and temperature of the towers fires by a large amount. Furthermore, NIST assumed no thermal conductivity of steel at all in their model. NONE. Imagine that steel will not conduct heat the next time you heat a spoon over a flame, or grind a bolt on a grindstone. This suggests that they were attempting to concentrate the heat in their model to get maximum thermal expansion, by not allowing the heat to sink into the other parts of the steel structure. To compound matters, their heads are so far up in the clouds that they failed to remark on how much their computerised model of WTC 7s collapse differed from what was ACTUALLY OBSERVED. Their graphics model show twisted sides and warping that did not take place during the actual collapse. I could say more and more and more, but its beside the point. Just because its a companys job to do something does not mean they are guarenteed to suceed in it, or vice versa.
   Profile |  

asedra
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 07:18am 

Youngling


Joined: 2010-10-29 02:38am
Posts: 55
PeZook wrote:
Asedra, a mod has requested something from you. When you refer to a specific claim in a specific document, you are supposed to cite it and if necessary explain how it supports your argument. Linking to a report hundreds of pages in length in its entirety is not acceptable.

I'm not sure how to link directly to the paragraph in question. The document isn't hundreds of pages long, only 12, and it has a quote finder, after all. Theres not much more assistance I can give, PeZook. (Shrug)
   Profile |  

asedra
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 07:23am 

Youngling


Joined: 2010-10-29 02:38am
Posts: 55
Edi wrote:
You will either back your claims up with the calculations, formulas and numbers and show them here (NOT just link to external bullshit videos!) and you will NOT ignore points made against you.

Thats a two way street. I'm not going to sit here and have demands made of me to back up my claims with peer reviewed papers while you excuse yourselves from doing this same. Quit being a cheap little prick with me. Thats not a request, thats a demand. I'll not go any further with this discussion until there is some adult supervision and actual accountability.

Quote:
You will comply with this order, or you will face the consequences. The most likely consequence for failure to comply is, in the spirit of giving the board a Christmas gift, giving you a bootprint on your backside

Then do it, Edi. Censor me, throw my ass out. You people don't debate fairly in any sense of the word, and you can't stand to loose. You've got a status quo to uphold (you cut off arguments just at the point the 911 truthers are about to win, and I suspect this is not the first time this has happened), while I only have truth, justice, and the american way. Its obvious the moderators aren't holding the two sides to the same standard. Kicking me off this sorry excuse of a website would be a favour. I sure don't intend to stick around and chalk up my post count to 10,700, which is more than some people can say. Laugh and get fat.

Quote:
You will either back your claims up with the calculations, formulas and numbers and show them here (NOT just link to external bullshit videos!) and you will NOT ignore points made against you.

Has this request been made of my opponents? They've been allowed to run rampant with the same behaviour you accuse me of, and this was something that was happening on this page before I even got here. Why did you not step in then? Because, your a biased asshole. Getting your hands dirty clearly isn't your style, you leave that to everyone else why you work the wheel of executive control. The only one whos done any sort of fair moderating is pezook: Your a disgrace to the term.
   Profile |  

Il Saggiatore
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 08:33am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2005-03-31 09:21am
Posts: 274
Location: Innsmouth
asedra wrote:
I could say the same with the governments assignment of FEMA and NIST to research the september 11th attacks. That the investigation into the most bizarre collapse in recorded history was assigned to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (which is a government institution), and not to much more prestigious bodies like MIT or Harvard which are private and more independent organisations, is very suspicious indeed.


Nobody stopped other organisations from investigating the collapse and reviewing the NIST's investigation.
Indeed, what are the conspiracists waiting for? With 1500 architects and engineers doubting the "official story", why can't they get a few dozens to work on investigating "properly" the collapse?

Probably because these "for truth" groups are not interested in reaching a conclusion, but on keeping the discussion going, because that's how their business of selling books, DVDs and T-shirts keeps going.


asedra wrote:
NIST thought the telltale signs of their incompetence could be buried in the absurd 10,000 page long report they slammed out. With all this in mind, even non-conspiracy theorists should be alarmed at the callous disregard the government shows at obtaining closure for the familys of the september 11th victims. You want to rant about incompetance? Kid, I can go on for hours.

If there are telltale signs of NIST's incompetence in the report, why do the conspiracists have to rely on misrepresentations, omissions and lies?


asedra wrote:
This is a group of researchers who exaggerated both the duration and temperature of the towers fires by a large amount.

The University of Edinburgh (UK, non a US government institution) thinks that the fires were enough to bring down the Twin Towers. They actually criticized the NIST for overstating the importance of the dislodged fire-proofing.


asedra wrote:
Furthermore, NIST assumed no thermal conductivity of steel at all in their model. NONE. [SNIP!]

You utter moron!
Read the NCSTAR1-5 and appendixes. They explain how they modelled the various components, including the steel components, and how the models were tested. That modelling needs the thermophysical properties of the material, including thermal conductivity.

You just swallowed what conspiracists said without checking.
   Profile |  

Broomstick
PostPosted: 2011-12-24 08:33am 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2004-01-02 08:04pm
Posts: 21334
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
asedra wrote:
To make matters worse, ryan adds ''Previous calculations by engineers at MIT had shown that all the kinetic energy from the aircraft was consumed in breaking perimeter columns, crushing the floors, and destroying the aircraft itself.''

Oh, really?

If all the kinetic energy of "the aircraft was consumed in breaking perimeter columns, crushing the floors, and destroying the aircraft itself" where did the energy come from to fling fragments blocks away from the towers? Or are you saying the "operatives" planted charred, mangled bits of landing gear and such on street corners and rooftops?

Quote:
It made this assumption, moreover, even though the core columns were insulated with gypsum board, rather than (or in addition to) the much derived SRFM sprayed fire resistant material.

Do you know what "gypsum board" is? It's fucking drywall. The same shit probably used for the walls in your house. Yes, it can resist fire somewhat, and can insulate somewhat, but its primary functions are to subdivide open space and provide a flat surface for paint. A human fist can crack, crumble, and break it. That shit is easily broken and notorious for producing dust.

A column "insulated" in "gypsum board" is not going to be insulated long if something impacts it much, and a B-767 smashing into drywall will certainly pulverize it. This is not helping your argument.

Quote:
Quote:
EVEN FALLING ONE STORY WILL TURN SOME CONCRETE INTO DUST.

Concrete hitting the ground and releasing a puff of dust (like we commonly see in our day to day lives) cannot be conflated with most of its mass actually being converted into dust, because in the former case, the block will always be intact, or, at worse, fragmented. It does not simply dissapear. Worse yet, you are guilty of ommiting that a large portion of that huge dust cloud appeared well before any solid material had hit the ground to 'release it.'
But again, your making it seem like only the concrete or gypsum is missing from the rubble pile, and not all the other shit that was in the towers.

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here. The Towers were not simply empty buildings of concrete and steel, they were, indeed, full of offices and all the stuff that implies. Some of that was converted to ash by fires - and how the fuck anyone can distinguish ash from "dust" in a video is beyond me. Perhaps you will explain that?

I'm not sure what, exactly, you think was "missing" from the debris piles.

As for it puffing out of windows during the collapse - when the floor above starts to descend it compresses the air beneath. Air, being a gas, will tend to equalize in pressure in a given area by flowing from high pressure to low pressure areas. This generates what is commonly called a "wind", which is capable of moving lightweight stuff like paper (which indisputably was blown for miles from the Tower) and dust. Puffs of dust do not require two floors to impact each each other, they only require moving air. As moving air is generated by a descending floor even before it hits what's beneath it, this is all the explanation required for the puffs of dust seen in videos of the collapse.
   Profile |  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 6 of 7
 [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

It is currently 2014-09-21 12:13pm (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Gallery » Parting Shots

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group