[Vote] Who did 911?

[TECSHARE]

@Tecshare, I think you're treating the building collapse like a game of pool, when really it's a bit more complex. To say what you're saying with such conviction, would require evidence such as intricate mathematical models with hundreds of variables.

Again, it might be unlikely but I don't believe you're in a position to say it's 100% impossible.

Those are your words, not mine. Physics is a matter of math. Math is not under debate. We don't need complicated models. It is a FACT that moving a 4 ton girder over 500 feet laterally, against the forces of gravity in a matter of seconds requires explosive force. There is nothing to debate about it.

Funny you accuse me of treating this like a game of pool when Spendulus is the one claiming 4 ton girders just randomly deflect sideways 500 feet multiple times in violation of the laws of physics. That seems like a more appropriate metaphor for his position. Perhaps you are projecting the flaws in your own argument in order to subconsciously displace them?

[1715139167]

1715139167

[1715139167]

1715139167

[protokol]

Since when does gravity act sideways? You would have a point if the girders flew straight up, or hovered in the air. That would be against gravity. But they went sideways, so that's not against gravity.

There are many ways in which vertical momentum can be transferred into lateral speed. Here's one:


http://giphy.com/gifs/games-x-kGl5Sfvagdxok

Notice how Bob travels as far laterally as his maximum height when airborne, even without the help of his skateboard. Does this break the laws of physics?

(Of course this is an optimum transfer of energy from vertical to horizontal due to the curved ramp, but it still shows that such a thing is possible. I don't see any explosives attached to him.)

[TECSHARE]

Since when does gravity act sideways? You would have a point if the girders flew straight up, or hovered in the air. That would be against gravity. But they went sideways, so that's not against gravity.

There are many ways in which vertical momentum can be transferred into lateral speed. Here's one:


Notice how Bob travels as far laterally as his maximum height when airborne, even without the help of his skateboard. Does this break the laws of physics?

(Of course this is an optimum transfer of energy from vertical to horizontal due to the curved ramp, but it still shows that such a thing is possible. I don't see any explosives attached to him.)

Bob doesn't weigh 4 tons, he didn't travel over 500 feet and he has the assistance of bearings. The mass of the object is the most important factor in the calculation (which you are conveniently ignoring). I am providing fundamental physical calculations to show the force required. You are providing anecdotes. Please excuse me for not being convinced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

[protokol]

Since when does gravity act sideways? You would have a point if the girders flew straight up, or hovered in the air. That would be against gravity. But they went sideways, so that's not against gravity.

There are many ways in which vertical momentum can be transferred into lateral speed. Here's one:


Notice how Bob travels as far laterally as his maximum height when airborne, even without the help of his skateboard. Does this break the laws of physics?

(Of course this is an optimum transfer of energy from vertical to horizontal due to the curved ramp, but it still shows that such a thing is possible. I don't see any explosives attached to him.)

Bob doesn't weigh 4 tons, and he didn't travel over 500 feet and he has the assistance of bearings. The mass of the object is the most important factor in the calculation (which you are conveniently ignoring). I am providing fundamental physical calculations to show the force required. You are providing anecdotes. Please excuse me for not being convinced.

Just scale it up and the same thing will happen. If Bob did weigh 4 tons, and the peak of his height was ~1,300 feet, then he most certainly would travel well over 500 feet laterally.

The mass is irrelevant because we don't have to factor in the work to get the 4 ton weight up to an altitude of 1,300 feet (that was done by cranes when the building was built). Even if he weighed a million tonnes, the extra momentum of such a weight would carry him a similar distance laterally (assuming it was possible to build a vert ramp that could handle a million tonne skateboarder).

[Spendulus]

Since when does gravity act sideways? You would have a point if the girders flew straight up, or hovered in the air. That would be against gravity. But they went sideways, so that's not against gravity.

There are many ways in which vertical momentum can be transferred into lateral speed. Here's one:


Notice how Bob travels as far laterally as his maximum height when airborne, even without the help of his skateboard. Does this break the laws of physics?

(Of course this is an optimum transfer of energy from vertical to horizontal due to the curved ramp, but it still shows that such a thing is possible. I don't see any explosives attached to him.)

Bob doesn't weigh 4 tons, he didn't travel over 500 feet and he has the assistance of bearings. The mass of the object is the most important factor in the calculation (which you are conveniently ignoring). I am providing fundamental physical calculations to show the force required. You are providing anecdotes. Please excuse me for not being convinced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

No you are not.  If you want to show the work, be my guest.  A link to a youtube video is not showing your work.

Translation of force along a vector is obviously capable of moving something sideways.  As I have mentioned twice it makes zero difference what the mass of the object is.   Here is a simple question.

Assume that at some moment during the collapse at 500 foot altitude, one section of the perimeter beams was for just a moment canted at a 45 degree angle.  The 4 ton thing comes down on that with acceleration from 3 seconds of free fall.  How far sideways will it move if the impact is frictionless?  How far if the acceleration is from 5 seconds of free fall?

Tecshare, please answer this.  WHY do you believe the mass of the object is so important?

There is no difference in the result if I take a children's slide and roll from the top -

1.  A tennis ball.
2.  A bowling ball.
3.  A solid iron cannon ball.

The objects all will clock at the same speed, and will go the same distance forward after reaching the end of the slide. 

That's about first semester college physics. 

[bumpk1nK]

It was not us gouv.. It was jews and aribs who did 9-11.
this is all over youtube. Just search 9-11 theories

[Spendulus]

It was not us gouv.. It was jews and aribs who did 9-11.
this is all over youtube. Just search 9-11 theories

Way earlier in this thread some guys were trying to push the "jews did it" meme.

Seemed they could not actually come up with any supporting facts, though.

Now that was interesting.

[btcusury]

@BADecker,

You understand that the buildings were demolished and that therefore (and for many other reasons as well) the event was a false flag operation... but what evidence do you actually have that it was done by people in the US "government"? I've never been able to find any significant evidence.

Also, do you believe for a moment that you have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the people/egos you are arguing against that they are gullible fools?

Of course you are right. The evidence is reverse-evidence: the military not taking care of the air space by accident; the Twin Towers not withstanding the forces they were made to withstand by accident; the government not responding to all the reports by all the building engineers who say that the Towers' collapse could not have happened the way the formal report says, all by accident.

This is the best way to make your report strong. Suggest it was all an accident.

What I was hinting at is that there is more evidence of it being an Israeli operation than a USG-only one.

@BADecker,

You understand that the buildings were demolished and that therefore (and for many other reasons as well) the event was a false flag operation... but what evidence do you actually have that it was done by people in the US "government"? I've never been able to find any significant evidence.

Also, do you believe for a moment that you have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the people/egos you are arguing against that they are gullible fools?

I wondered that too, in my vain effort to understand conspiracy theories on 911.  How does always wind up being the US government?  

But I'll stick to the physics and chemistry, since I'm not seeing much but junk science there.

The exact same question applies to the proposition that it was somehow done by Muslims. The difference is of course that no group of Muslims have the capability, whereas groups operating with USG+MSM resources do. If your cognitive dissonance is so strong that you feel unable to consider anything but the control system's narrative (a "conspiracy theory" of angry Muslims seeking revenge), then yes, of course your "effort" to understand anything will be in vain.

@BADecker,

You understand that the buildings were demolished and that therefore (and for many other reasons as well) the event was a false flag operation... but what evidence do you actually have that it was done by people in the US "government"? I've never been able to find any significant evidence.

Also, do you believe for a moment that you have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the people/egos you are arguing against that they are gullible fools?

I wondered that too, in my vain effort to understand conspiracy theories on 911.  How does always wind up being the US government?  

But I'll stick to the physics and chemistry, since I'm not seeing much but junk science there.

That's one of my problems as well, it's similar to convicting a person for murder with no evidence whatsoever, but with a strong motive and lack of alibi.

Rather than concentrating on loads of tiny, supposed anomalies, and trying to compound them together to prove some fantastical plot, I wish these truthers would find some evidence of the ACTUAL PLOT.

I mean, just look above. Someone is saying that a steel beam travelled "too far away", so explosives 100% must have been used. They were probably told this by an "internet expert", so now they refuse to believe there is even a small chance that this could have happened with no explosives.

Now I'm not an architect, but it's pretty obvious to me that there are ways that this could have happened with a normal collapse. They may be unlikely, but certainly not impossible. I mean you have thousands of tons of beams and concrete under all sorts of pressures, there may have been deflections as someone said above, there may have been torsional, catapulting type impacts. Anyway, even if it's a 0.1% chance, it still could have happened.

So we end up getting stuck on a fallacious "appeal to authority", where a supposed expert says an obviously false thing (that something is 100% impossible when it clearly isn't), and this anomaly somehow matches with the initial US Gov false flag theory.

These truthers would make terrible detectives.

Find me some ACTUAL evidence of a plan and we'll talk, in the meantime stop linking totally unrelated little things and fitting them to your own story of what happened.

Pro tip - multiple unlikely things occuring do not make the final evidence any stronger, unless the things are directly linked.

So, let's say the chance of the beams going too far without bombs is 10%, the probability of the Pentagon incident being a missile is 50%, and prob of Building 7 collapsing without bombs is, say 1%. Now, these three events being unlikely, but still all happening, does not make the probability of the attack being a US Gov false flag any higher, because the events are not linked. (even though it seems like it would, it's your mind playing tricks.) It's counterintuitive, humans are shit at this sort of thing.

You are making some absurd assumptions -- ALL of which are based on appeal to authority, subtle as many of them may be. Observe firstly that the idea is that the plot was covert/secret, thus it's unreasonable to require evidence of a plan. That's as silly as finding a loaded gun at the crime scene (such as WTC7, LOL) and ignoring it because there's no evidence of a plot! Your probability estimations are also absurdly assumptive -- even if granting the validity of the application of probability theory to complex events with hidden variables (unknown unknowns, as Rummy would say). Free your mind from reductionism! Look around!! Notice how bizarre the world around you actually is, and how much of what is is lost when reducing it to description/language/symbols.

Have you ever heard of this guy? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=terence+mckenna - This is how we should all be thinking. (How, not what).

[BADecker]

Have you ever heard of this guy? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=terence+mckenna - This is how we should all be thinking. (How, not what).

What? Now we should meditate ourselves into figuring out who did 9/11?

I didn't see any 9/11 videos of McKenna listed.

[Bitcoin Buyer Reload]

BADecker did

[BADecker]

BADecker did

I was trying to imagine what a 911 dispatcher job would be like.   

[btcusury]

Have you ever heard of this guy? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=terence+mckenna - This is how we should all be thinking. (How, not what).

What? Now we should meditate ourselves into figuring out who did 9/11?

I didn't see any 9/11 videos of McKenna listed.

That would be what to think about. We have so many assumptions built into our thinking that we can go an entire lifetime in a state of subtle enslavement without ever noticing. The use of false flag operations is just one layer of the game. Notice the many assumptions the egos that you are arguing with in this topic are making that you see as obvious and absurd, but which they remain completely oblivious to. If you know of a more effective human deconditioning voice than Terence McKenna, I'd love to know about it...

[Spendulus]

What I was hinting at is that there is more evidence of it being an Israeli operation than a USG-only one.

There is zero "evidence" of 9/11 being an Israeli operation.

There is zero "evidence" of 9/11 being anything but an operation by fanatical Muslim terrorists.

I wondered that too, in my vain effort to understand conspiracy theories on 911.  How does always wind up being the US

But I'll stick to the physics and chemistry, since I'm not seeing much but junk science there.

The exact same question applies to the proposition that it was somehow done by Muslims. The difference is of course that no group of Muslims have the capability, whereas groups operating with USG+MSM resources do. If your cognitive dissonance is so strong that you feel unable to consider anything but the control system's narrative (a "conspiracy theory" of angry Muslims seeking revenge), then yes, of course your "effort" to understand anything will be in vain.

The group of Muslims who trained to fly airliners straight and level at US pilot schools, but who didn't bother to learn to take them off or land, is of course the group of Muslims that had the capability to do exactly that - fly airliners straight and level into buildings.  Duhh....

[BADecker]

Have you ever heard of this guy? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=terence+mckenna - This is how we should all be thinking. (How, not what).

What? Now we should meditate ourselves into figuring out who did 9/11?

I didn't see any 9/11 videos of McKenna listed.

That would be what to think about. We have so many assumptions built into our thinking that we can go an entire lifetime in a state of subtle enslavement without ever noticing. The use of false flag operations is just one layer of the game. Notice the many assumptions the egos that you are arguing with in this topic are making that you see as obvious and absurd, but which they remain completely oblivious to. If you know of a more effective human deconditioning voice than Terence McKenna, I'd love to know about it...

Yeah. Once we gain some experience, we often even assume that our assumptions are incorrect.

[BADecker]

What I was hinting at is that there is more evidence of it being an Israeli operation than a USG-only one.

There is zero "evidence" of 9/11 being an Israeli operation.

There is zero "evidence" of 9/11 being anything but an operation by fanatical Muslim terrorists.

I wondered that too, in my vain effort to understand conspiracy theories on 911.  How does always wind up being the US

But I'll stick to the physics and chemistry, since I'm not seeing much but junk science there.

The exact same question applies to the proposition that it was somehow done by Muslims. The difference is of course that no group of Muslims have the capability, whereas groups operating with USG+MSM resources do. If your cognitive dissonance is so strong that you feel unable to consider anything but the control system's narrative (a "conspiracy theory" of angry Muslims seeking revenge), then yes, of course your "effort" to understand anything will be in vain.

The group of Muslims who trained to fly airliners straight and level at US pilot schools, but who didn't bother to learn to take them off or land, is of course the group of Muslims that had the capability to do exactly that - fly airliners straight and level into buildings.  Duhh....

And such experience comes naturally, first time, to some Muslims.

 

[Spendulus]

What I was hinting at is that there is more evidence of it being an Israeli operation than a USG-only one.

There is zero "evidence" of 9/11 being an Israeli operation.

There is zero "evidence" of 9/11 being anything but an operation by fanatical Muslim terrorists.

I wondered that too, in my vain effort to understand conspiracy theories on 911.  How does always wind up being the US

But I'll stick to the physics and chemistry, since I'm not seeing much but junk science there.

The exact same question applies to the proposition that it was somehow done by Muslims. The difference is of course that no group of Muslims have the capability, whereas groups operating with USG+MSM resources do. If your cognitive dissonance is so strong that you feel unable to consider anything but the control system's narrative (a "conspiracy theory" of angry Muslims seeking revenge), then yes, of course your "effort" to understand anything will be in vain.

The group of Muslims who trained to fly airliners straight and level at US pilot schools, but who didn't bother to learn to take them off or land, is of course the group of Muslims that had the capability to do exactly that - fly airliners straight and level into buildings.  Duhh....

And such experience comes naturally, first time, to some Muslims.

 

Sure.  Sort of like the experiment where researchers taught monkeys to fly US fighter aircraft.

[alch1mista]

It has been Al Qaeda. Stop tricking yourselves with strange theory, stop asking for negative demonstrations: not in logic, neither in law, they have any value.

A lot of researchers did investigate on the happenings. Stop listening to the profit-driven idea of 911profit, i mean, 911scam, whatever, 911truth.

[BADecker]

What I was hinting at is that there is more evidence of it being an Israeli operation than a USG-only one.

There is zero "evidence" of 9/11 being an Israeli operation.

There is zero "evidence" of 9/11 being anything but an operation by fanatical Muslim terrorists.

I wondered that too, in my vain effort to understand conspiracy theories on 911.  How does always wind up being the US

But I'll stick to the physics and chemistry, since I'm not seeing much but junk science there.

The exact same question applies to the proposition that it was somehow done by Muslims. The difference is of course that no group of Muslims have the capability, whereas groups operating with USG+MSM resources do. If your cognitive dissonance is so strong that you feel unable to consider anything but the control system's narrative (a "conspiracy theory" of angry Muslims seeking revenge), then yes, of course your "effort" to understand anything will be in vain.

The group of Muslims who trained to fly airliners straight and level at US pilot schools, but who didn't bother to learn to take them off or land, is of course the group of Muslims that had the capability to do exactly that - fly airliners straight and level into buildings.  Duhh....

And such experience comes naturally, first time, to some Muslims.

 

Sure.  Sort of like the experiment where researchers taught monkeys to fly US fighter aircraft.

... first time.   

[BADecker]

It has been Al Qaeda. Stop tricking yourselves with strange theory, stop asking for negative demonstrations: not in logic, neither in law, they have any value.

A lot of researchers did investigate on the happenings. Stop listening to the profit-driven idea of 911profit, i mean, 911scam, whatever, 911truth.

There are loads of qualified engineers who say that much of 9/11 could be nothing other than an inside job. The coincidences say the same.

[Spendulus]

It has been Al Qaeda. Stop tricking yourselves with strange theory, stop asking for negative demonstrations: not in logic, neither in law, they have any value.

A lot of researchers did investigate on the happenings. Stop listening to the profit-driven idea of 911profit, i mean, 911scam, whatever, 911truth.

There are loads of qualified engineers who say that much of 9/11 could be nothing other than an inside job. The coincidences say the same.

Appeal to authority.  And WTF?  An appeal to coincidences?

Here's my appeal to coincidences.

Radical Islamic Terrorists - said they did 9/11.  
Radical Islamic Terrorists - trained to fly exact same type aircraft.
Radical Islamic Terrorists - Photographed going into the airports and getting on the planes.
Radical Islamic Terrorists - reported by people on the planes as being the hijackers.

Aw....that's just all coincidences!

How about you state the argument and defend it.   No, wait, you have tried to do that in this thread.

And you've failed.

Well, tell you what.  You go get a boatload of those "qualified engineers" and tell them to git over here and git educatified.