Fox News: much more open-minded about explosive devices bringing down 7 World Trade

[LunarRay]

I said I won't waste my time trying to have a conversation on the matter with you, but I'll continue refuting misrepresentations of fact regardless of who spews them.

IF you read what and how I comment you'd not use the term fact because I don't... but feel free to present facts to refute my proffers of speculation... I've not seen too many facts supporting what anyone says... Facts are truths... Theories are not facts but can be supported by reasonable deductions until they hit a wall... IF you continue to maintain as truth what is only speculation or extrapolate from a fact to a conclusion that is not itself a fact you've done nothing but fostered a theory. I don't argue against someone Else's theories but rather, present my view which I consider plausible....

I think although there are many wanna be brilliant thinkers in JREF forum there are quite a few real live masters of the science under discussion. Go there and submit as fact what is only speculation and bring back the result... or propound your facts as they relate to this issue and get their approval... I'd be glad to have their input on this. I guess I already have though...

I'd not have used the Conservation of Angular Momentum argument for the top of WTC 2 not continuing to fall over as you have... that is not an accurate reflection of what should occur. That is an example of using a physical science term (law) to misconstrue an event by stating as fact some event without all the related dynamics involed being applied and submit that a law was not obeyed. I don't or at least hope I don't do that kind of posting...

 

[LunarRay]

Exactly, except I don't even think they would make it into the court room, no competent lawyer would use anything like that as "evidence".

I don't think they would use it either. They may but at a risk...

They have the building collapsing... They have expert opinion as to the most probable causation (NIST)... AND they have the absence of normally found evidence of detonation occurring... as in other controlled demolitions.... lots of easily heard visually seen and with out doubt connected sounds of blasts occurring and that empirical evidence garnered from a safe distance away... not to mention the nexus being the always found detonation device remnants and the observed explosive events...

Can't really argue against that, I don't think.

 

[BeauJangles]

hey beujingle. you ready to own up to the fact you claimed there were no pre collapse explosions for months, then proceeded to own yourself by stating the supposedly non existant explosions were "in fact, other explosions"? after all, you disappeared from the thread for good after i nailed you to the wall.

feel free to acknowledge you owned yourself, then we'll continue. 😀

The context of my comments was regarding eye witnesses being incorrect about what they see or hear and YOU assuming that what people see or hear is reality. There were explosions within the WTC complex -- the Jet fuel that ignited in the lobby of one of the buildings, the battery backups within the office buildings, backup generators full of diesel fuel, etc, etc... the comment that you've run wild with is simply that there are hundreds of other explanations for the noises people heard on 9/11 and it would behoove you to provide more proof than simply, "people heard them, so it must be true."

That's like saying, "Mommy, the magician really did make the bird disappear." Do you also believe that magic is real or can you understand the disconnect between what you see and what is actually going on?

Anyway, because you're such a pompous moron I know you're going to continue to run with one completely out of context quote and ignore everything that I say. Despite that, I'd remind you that I left you with tons of unanswered questions in that thread that you have and had no answer for.

Just to clarify:

My point in those sentences you will relentlessly quote is that there is a disconnect between HEARING explosions and there actually being explosives. There are many other things that cause explosions or explosion-like sounds that are not the work of terrorists

I'd also appreciate if you'd drop the insults and the condescension. Neither is appreciated, nor warranted.

In case you ever feel like going back to it, you couldn't must enough intellectual mustard to answer anything else in the last post I made in the other 9/11 thread, but the link is here when almighty intellect is ready to roll again. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30322200&postcount=1289

As for not responding, I left you with a ton of information to deal with and you ignored it all. That was the eighth or ninth time you simply disregarded 95% of what I said to focus on the one thing that made sense to you and, quite frankly, it gets old after a while. I'd have happily responded if you'd bothered to address any of the rest of my post, but of course you never will because you'll get caught in an infinite loop over explosives.

 

[Ns1]

Typical Al981 idiocy.

The context of my comments was regarding eye witnesses being incorrect about what they see or hear and YOU assuming that what people see or hear is reality. There were explosions within the WTC complex -- the Jet fuel that ignited in the lobby of one of the buildings, the battery backups within the office buildings, backup generators full of diesel fuel, etc, etc... the comment that you've run wild with is simply that there are hundreds of other explanations for the noises people heard on 9/11 and it would behoove you to provide more proof than simply, "people heard them, so it must be true."

That's like saying, "Mommy, the magician really did make the bird disappear." Do you also believe that magic is real or can you understand the disconnect between what you see and what is actually going on?

Anyway, because you're such a pompous moron I know you're going to continue to run with one completely out of context quote and ignore everything that I say. Despite that, I'd remind you that I left you with tons of unanswered questions in that thread that you have and had no answer for.

Just to clarify:

My point in those sentences you will relentlessly quote is that there is a disconnect between HEARING explosions and there actually being explosives. There are many other things that cause explosions or explosion-like sounds that are not the work of terrorists

I'd also appreciate if you'd drop the insults and the condescension. Neither is appreciated, nor warranted.

In case you ever feel like going back to it, you couldn't must enough intellectual mustard to answer anything else in the last post I made in the other 9/11 thread, but the link is here when almighty intellect is ready to roll again. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30322200&postcount=1289

As for not responding, I left you with a ton of information to deal with and you ignored it all. That was the eighth or ninth time you simply disregarded 95% of what I said to focus on the one thing that made sense to you and, quite frankly, it gets old after a while. I'd have happily responded if you'd bothered to address any of the rest of my post, but of course you never will because you'll get caught in an infinite loop over explosives.

Typical denier. Of course that's explosions MORAN. If you need further proof just listen to the audio clip again. There is no denying that the sounds can be nothing other than explosions created by a controlled demolition. none.

 

[BeauJangles]

i'm not ignoring anything. i've already addressed that issue. again, read above. at least you've admitted that you don't have the balls to acknowledge the audio 😀😀😀

edit: audio isn't real evidence? you better alert the police and fbi. no longer can they ever use wiretaps or any voices/audio ever recorded 😀😀😀😀

Considering that there is no supporting evidence for your audio actually being explosions, no your audio isn't proof of anything.

Remember those pesky seismographs that were functioning all around Lower Manhattan that failed to detect your mystery explosion?

All aboard the failboat!

 

[LunarRay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0

Oh Boy! I will keep that link... and use it instead of my typing my thoughts generated over many months of thinking on that bit...
Guess I underestimated the amount of Thermate needed to produce Jones' Iron theory by a factor of 7 or so... but then I'm conservative...😀

Thanks for that link!

 

[xj0hnx]

All aboard the failboat!

Al981 doesn't have to board the failboat, he is the live on captain.

 

[xj0hnx]

Oh Boy! I will keep that link... and use it instead of my typing my thoughts generated over many months of thinking on that bit...
Guess I underestimated the amount of Thermate needed to produce Jones' Iron theory by a factor of 7 or so... but then I'm conservative...😀

Thanks for that link!

Glad you enjoyed it. Yea, it's pretty preposterous once you consider the logistics of it. Even if it was just a single ton it would be ridiculous, much less 60 tons, but then again this is the kind of brain power these guys are working with ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys&feature=related

 

[LunarRay]

Typical denier. Of course that's explosions MORAN. If you need further proof just listen to the audio clip again. There is no denying that the sounds can be nothing other than explosions created by a controlled demolition. none.

We can test for that, I think...

Find the next controlled demolition and position the mike(s) the same distance away and ideally there would be buildings around to reflect the sounds and echo them in some similar manner. Then compare the sounds!
I tried this by using a video someone provided here that showed a controlled demolition... didn't sound or look the same to me.

I think the sound recordings you point to are proof of what they purport to be... Conversations and or background sounds that may be of an explosive nature but not of what caused them or from where they came. I don't think it is fair to indicate a sound heard is easily linked to an event simply cuz they occurred assuming they are what you state they are.

A more persuasive evidence might be a visual of the explosive events, the sounds of those events recorded in the time frame appropriate to the visual and the resulting affect that had on something.. (building collapse). Then if someone wanted to insure the explosive events were not a video hoax they might collect the the other tangible evidence like detonator bits and the like.

 

[BeauJangles]

First, in what I said above I never said a jetliner could not destroy steel beams. This is the problem with your type of people. You counter an argument with a totally non-related item and think that makes you right.

My point was if you believe ordinance could not, then how could just a random event like a jetliner.


I have a few issues with this. Most of it stems from so many loose ends. Like I have stated time and time again I am not promoting any 'reason', just that I think the research done has far too many loose ends and has been second-guessed too many times.

These amateur pilots recieved a lot of training, much of it done here in florida. A modern jetliner goes where you tell it too, with the right input it will practically fly itself.

My biggest concern is the fact that not only for the first time one skyscraper fell, but three...one of which was not even hit.

Yes, I realize all the explainations given for how this created the 'perfect storm', but the science and write up behind it is severely lacking. A lot of what is explained has nothing at all to do with the actual event much like how your responses have nothing to do with the comment I made.

"Go off on a tangent, post unrelated facts, facts provide truth, thus the original statement must be wrong."

This is how much of our world works today. No one wants to question anything, those that do are looked at as shamans and zealots.

If I misread your posts and attributed your previous demeanor regarding 9/11 (in our other thread) incorrectly to this thread, then I apologize.

For your information, aluminum does glow orange. And yellow.

 

[LunarRay]

Glad you enjoyed it. Yea, it's pretty preposterous once you consider the logistics of it. Even if it was just a single ton it would be ridiculous, much less 60 tons, but then again this is the kind of brain power these guys are working with ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys&feature=related

hehehehehehhehe, That fellow did not attend Northwestern U's, Bazant class on experimental Civil Engineering physics and it is obvious.

I was initially perplexed over how anyone could produce an analysis in two days of an event like Bazant did... It must have taken at least a day or two to gather the data in my thinking... My first thought was: Is he really that brilliant or did he have those thoughts for how those towers could react if a plane hit them or a fire occurred... My second thought was: Can I 'see' what he indicates happening happen... using only my limited knowledge of Civil Engineering and the Physics but with understanding of his math principles and equations. IOW, are the mechanisms possible and would the actual events precipitated by those mechanics be as we can observe - although the view is limited in reality.

My conclusion is that I CAN 'see' how it can occur as Bazant indicates. I don't need a plane hit either... just a nice long fire but the plane hit makes it easy. The floor bits are the mechanism that does it for me... Of course my fire sans plane hit would have to last long enough to get past the fire proofing and cause the floor truss assy to bend and do the pulling in of the exterior and then fall to the next floor and so on... the only bit I've a problem with is the core structure... I can't quite get that to break apart... but I'm working on it...🙂

 

[LunarRay]

Considering that there is no supporting evidence for your audio actually being explosions, no your audio isn't proof of anything.

Remember those pesky seismographs that were functioning all around Lower Manhattan that failed to detect your mystery explosion?

All aboard the failboat!

In my reality, the one where I've endeavored to edify folks not what to think but, rather, how to think, I've always tried to stress the notion to take observations back through the conduit of laws and rules that we all agree are the current state of affairs... whether it be a Social Science like Economics or a Physical Science like Civil Engineering... Find the causation(s) that trip supports but then operate outside the 'box' and see if the rules or conduit might be a bit off... Does that outside the 'box' trip invoke a miracle or is there something potentially wrong with the rules/laws governing the topic...
The latter endeavor requires substantial understanding of the considerations involved.
It seems to me, the argument regarding the sounds being definitely linked to WTC 7's cause of demise does neither. It appears to be simply called obvious and in need of no further analysis by those who'd like to link them and called simply sounds of something by those who, like me, can go no further in either direction... They are sounds is as far as I can get...

 

[Analogsoul]

Have any of these Truthers ever heard of occam's razor? Way to make something convoluted and illogical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

 

[WelshBloke]

Theres no way I'm reading through 6 pages of this so someone may have mentioned this already, if so sorry.

So are the truthers saying its a coincidence that the planes hit the towers at the moment the government was going to blow it up, or do they think the government crashed the planes into the towers as well as blowing them up, or that the planes didn't exist and were an optical illusion caused by the sun reflecting of a weather balloon or something? :\

 

[kylebisme]

Have any of these Truthers ever heard of occam's razor?

Invoking Occam's Razor to defend the notion that impact damage and fires brought the buildings down is akin to arguing that since ground around you appears fairly flat, the Earth couldn't be round.

So are the truthers saying...

It's more complicated than your question suggests, as unlike those who simply vest their faith in what our government says. truthers are individuals who hold a range of positions based on their own understandings of the evidence.

 

[WelshBloke]

It's more complicated than your question suggests, as unlike those who simply vest their faith in what our government says. truthers are individuals who hold a range of positions based on their own understandings of the evidence.

OK so give me some of the more widespread positions then.

 

[LunarRay]

Theres no way I'm reading through 6 pages of this so someone may have mentioned this already, if so sorry.

So are the truthers saying its a coincidence that the planes hit the towers at the moment the government was going to blow it up, or do they think the government crashed the planes into the towers as well as blowing them up, or that the planes didn't exist and were an optical illusion caused by the sun reflecting of a weather balloon or something? :\

Well.... It seems folks who support an Alternative Conspiracy theory differ in some of the events you mentioned but all agree that the 9/11 event is not how the Official Conspiracy theory explains it.

The key bit about it all that the ACT folks suffer with is they seem to point to one anomalous event as support or proof of another and both anomalous events thereby are forever linked as truth hidden or contorted in an attempt by the OCT folks to blame the matter solely on 19 Terrorists and OBL... when it was something else entirely in their view.

In truth, however, there is not enough evidence to convince - at least me - that if that evidence is treated fairly it can't point to anything beyond what the OCT folks conclude. At this point in time...

I would like to see a proper investigation done, however... after all it was a crime and there are some issues in my estimation needing resolution... one way or another.

 

[CycloWizard]

Invoking Occam's Razor to defend the notion that impact damage and fires brought the buildings down is akin to arguing that since ground around you appears fairly flat, the Earth couldn't be round.


It's more complicated than your question suggests, as unlike those who simply vest their faith in what our government says. truthers are individuals who hold a range of positions based on their own understandings of the evidence.

I think your truncation of WelshBloke's statement, as well as your avoidance of his question, are pretty typical of how you've handled this thread. If you really have any understanding of your own, you should have no problem answering such a specific question. Instead, throughout this thread, you simply cut out most of the response in your quote and avoid addressing the redacted bits altogether. Then, the points you actually quote are danced around. As I've said, I'm hardly one for trusting government, but you aren't lending your position any credence because A) you can't tell me what your position is and B) you can't tell me why alternative explanations are incorrect. Thus, I can only conclude that you hold some opinion which conflicts with the official account based on your general distrust for government, rather than any understanding of the specifics of this case - a classic case of poisoning the well.

 

[kylebisme]

OK so give me some of the more widespread positions then.

Well, in regard to your questions; most of us have no doubt the planes were real, or that whoever was behind rigging the buildings to come down also arranged the planes to crash into them. For a broader overview, I recommend this interview.

 

[WelshBloke]

Well, in regard to your questions; most of us have no doubt the planes were real, or that whoever was behind rigging the buildings to come down also arranged the planes to crash into them. For a broader overview, I recommend this interview.

Why bother crashing the planes into the building at all though?

If you've got them rigged to blow up it seems a bit unnecessary.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I think your truncation of WelshBloke's statement, as well as your avoidance of his question, are pretty typical of how you've handled this thread. If you really have any understanding of your own, you should have no problem answering such a specific question. Instead, throughout this thread, you simply cut out most of the response in your quote and avoid addressing the redacted bits altogether. Then, the points you actually quote are danced around. As I've said, I'm hardly one for trusting government, but you aren't lending your position any credence because A) you can't tell me what your position is and B) you can't tell me why alternative explanations are incorrect. Thus, I can only conclude that you hold some opinion which conflicts with the official account based on your general distrust for government, rather than any understanding of the specifics of this case - a classic case of poisoning the well.

It's not hard to notice a certain pattern amongst truthers, particularly the ones that infest this forum. Nearly to a man they patently refuse or ignore requests to detail their specific theories about what actually happened on 9/11.

Even more amazing, if you ask 50 truthers to explain in general their own beliefs concerning 9/11, you'll get a number of disparate, often wildly divergent explanations about what happened (see micronukes for just one such example). otoh, those who aren't truthers, have looked at the evidence thoroughly, and have come to their own conclusions all seem to come to the very same conclusion. There's something telling about that.

 

[kylebisme]

I think your truncation of WelshBloke's statement, as well as your avoidance of his question, are pretty typical of how you've handled this thread.

That it is, but not how you suggest. Rather, I generally avoid going very far from the thread topic, in this thread or any other.

Thus, I can only conclude that you hold some opinion which conflicts with the official account based on your general distrust for government, rather than any understanding of the specifics of this case...

It seems you must have a rather short memory to reach such a conclusion, as I explained my understanding of the specifics of the case to you previously in this thread, and you ducked out of that discussion after my response to you here.

 

[kylebisme]

Why bother crashing the planes into the building at all though?

If you've got them rigged to blow up it seems a bit unnecessary.

The planes provided 19 dead patsies to frame the attacks on, and by extension bin Laden, al Queda, the Taliban, Saddam, and even Arabs and/or Islam as a whole to some. The planes also served to focus the population's attention on the buildings so we would be traumatised by the shock of watching them come down, and to get the buildings mostly evacuated so there would be less victims family members and friends demanding a proper investigation into the people who actually did have the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out such a sophisticated false flag attack.

 

[LunarRay]

Why bother crashing the planes into the building at all though?

If you've got them rigged to blow up it seems a bit unnecessary.

To cover up the rigging bit, I suppose is the reason... WTC 7 apparently was a target of the evil doers as well and apparently the grand scheme to down that building during the chaos of the Towers collapsing apparently failed until much later when it became more apparent due to the later collapse that it too was rigged.
That argument seems to follow some logic, I must admit.
Inducing the airliners into the buildings and Pa and the Pentagon is somehow linked because it happened too.

We or at least any reasonable person would conclude that if it were only the 19 hijackers and OBL's Al Qaeda behind it all then the rigging did not occur... It or that is beyond their capability or need for that matter given their objective was to simply crash planes into buildings... IMO.

However, if this conspiracy extends beyond those Al Qaeda folks to US bad guys then rigging buildings and all that must have some incremental benefit to those perps. I can't imagine what that might be, however...

Evidence, therefore, should provide the answer and we don't have much to look at that can point beyond what the Official Theory is... There ARE anomalous events that if seen in total make one wonder but individually and in their context do not especially make that same condition occur to most folks.

I'd be willing to spend 50 or so million $ to get this sorted out though...

 

[SphinxnihpS]

See, herein lies the problem you people have.

I see molten metal. NIST says it wasn't hot enough to melt steel, so I say what was that then.

NIST says, it didn't have any bearing on the collapse, ignore it.

I say, but look at that stuff now on camera spewing out of the building. Look at all the accounts of those first on the scene that repeat that.

NIST says, ahh that...that is just aluminum. You know all those diet coke cans and high end gaming cases they had. Also look at those people first on the scene, they are hardly highly educated....they were stressed, maybe the fumes had them hallucinating.

I say, lolwut...aluminum burns yellow-orange? Seasoned fire fighters confused on what they see burning? Only an idiot would buy this.

NIST says, ahh that...well you know all that office furniture and plastics...well if you knew what we did you would know once you mix those compounds you get an experience much like sitting at your fireplace. Think about your fireplace, relax...



So since I don't like the explaination given suddeningly I believe it must be some government conspiracy?

Perhaps they can't explain WTF happened and since the PEOPLE demand to know something, they provided it.

You are fucking clueless. God you truthers make me want to puke.