ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory

Reply
Old 26th December 2006, 03:48 PM   #41
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,068
Originally Posted by PerryLogan View Post
What conspirator would be dumb enough to break the laws of physics? Wouldn't that totally give away the plan?
That's what I always thought, until I found out who in the NWO was the Minister in Charge of Leaving Terribly Obvious Clues ! Now I wonder ...

Of course, no "laws of physics" were broken on 9/11. What is broken is the CTers understanding of these laws. But this has been covered more than enough on this forum.
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 03:51 PM   #42
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"PerryLogan - What conspirator would be dumb enough to break the laws of physics? Wouldn't that totally give away the plan?"

You CAN'T break the laws of physics...... You can assist them in performing their task, but you can't break them.

You can't simple decide that you are going to make a building fall in 1 second when it would take 3 seconds to fall in a vacuum.

Perhaps I mis-understood your statement?

As far as your second part of the question. No! If you are a criminal, you want people to doubt that you would be capable of doing something like this. You want people to argue amongst themselves, because if they are arguing with each other you are free to continue stealing.

That is what Iraq is about! Stealing, not Liberation or any other cause. In chaos they can steal, and boy have they stole.
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 03:53 PM   #43
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,331
Originally Posted by Firestone View Post
Of course, no "laws of physics" were broken on 9/11. What is broken is the CTers understanding of these laws. But this has been covered more than enough on this forum.
How can you break that which was never intact?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 03:58 PM   #44
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
Again PerryLogan, Physics was not broken! It was assisted! The laws CANNOT be broken.

Do you have some piont, or are you going to just keep stating the same nonsense? I have already answered you, yet you simply re-type the same rhetoric.
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 03:59 PM   #45
PerryLogan
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 980
That was Horatius quoting me. Horatius is obviously a man of taste and breeding.

I meant that a hoax depends on verisimilitude. The perps want their cover story to go down smoothly, with no questions asked. If the cover story contains an impossibility--i.e., a violation in the laws of physics--it's a bad cover story that no one would use. Such a plan would never get off the drawing board.

As for the administration's ability to bring off 9/11, it would be the one and only thing they've done right. What are the chances?

Frankly, I don't think any administration or goverment on the face of the earth could have brought 9/11 off as a subterfuge. Looks like militant Muslims to me.

Last edited by PerryLogan; 26th December 2006 at 04:04 PM.
PerryLogan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 03:59 PM   #46
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
Again PerryLogan, Physics was not broken! It was assisted! The laws CANNOT be broken.

Do you have some piont, or are you going to just keep stating the same nonsense? I have already answered you, yet you simply re-type the same rhetoric.
do you even knwo who your replying to?

anyway, this is mainly in response to the CTer claims that the towers fell faster than freefall
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:03 PM   #47
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"defaultdotxbe - anyway, this is mainly in response to the CTer claims that the towers fell faster than freefall"

Here is another reason why the "CTers" are accused of many things that are not TRUE!

I am a "truther" and I have YET to see anyone claim that the towers fell faster than "free fall". We do claim that they fell at "NEAR Free Fall", which is IMPOSSIBLE without some outside assistence. The buildings did not have enough Kenetic Energy to destroy themselves in mid air.
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:06 PM   #48
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"defaultdotxbe - anyway, this is mainly in response to the CTer claims that the towers fell faster than freefall"

Here is another reason why the "CTers" are accused of many things that are not TRUE!

I am a "truther" and I have YET to see anyone claim that the towers fell faster than "free fall". We do claim that they fell at "NEAR Free Fall", which is IMPOSSIBLE without some outside assistence. The buildings did not have enough Kenetic Energy to destroy themselves in mid air.
really? i hear it a lot

BTW how near is "near?" did you know that 1 second slower than freefall would result in an energy equal to over 40 tons of TNT per tower? was that enough to destroy the towers? if not, how did the conspirators get over 40 tons of TNT into the towers without anyone noticing?
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:06 PM   #49
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
This person can clearly not read!!! The reply was not to "ordinary folks" it was to the US GOVERNMENT! I guess this is what's wrong with our country these days, as someone above posted, our schools are not teaching the basics. He/She cannot clearly read!
We can read quite well, thank you.

"Ordinary folks" who disagree with your nonsensical gibberish are routinely accused, tried, convicted and sentenced of being with the government and subsequently informed that their sentences will be carrried out at the earliest possible opportunity.

I myself have been convicted of being CIA/CENTCOM over at 911blogger despite the fact that I am a canadian citizen living in canada. When I pointed this out, no one cared. You idiots are appearantly going to come for me anyway.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:07 PM   #50
PerryLogan
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 980
Quote:
I am a "truther" and I have YET to see anyone claim that the towers fell faster than "free fall". We do claim that they fell at "NEAR Free Fall", which is IMPOSSIBLE without some outside assistence.
The JREF ninjas can set you straight on that.

But you have a logical problem, no matter what the technical facts. You're saying the the planners set up a scenario which is impossible. They would never do that, because people would ask questions, and they would be caught.

Last edited by PerryLogan; 26th December 2006 at 04:11 PM.
PerryLogan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:08 PM   #51
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"defaultdotxbe - anyway, this is mainly in response to the CTer claims that the towers fell faster than freefall"

Here is another reason why the "CTers" are accused of many things that are not TRUE!

I am a "truther" and I have YET to see anyone claim that the towers fell faster than "free fall". We do claim that they fell at "NEAR Free Fall", which is IMPOSSIBLE without some outside assistence. The buildings did not have enough Kenetic Energy to destroy themselves in mid air.
Really ? are you even qualified to make this statement?

please show your maths that back up your claim.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:09 PM   #52
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
BTW, heres truther hero killtown claiming WTC7 fel faster than freefall

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/...t=0&#entry1082

im sure i could dig up more if i wanted to spend the time looking
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:10 PM   #53
Dr. Lao
Critical Thinker
 
Dr. Lao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 415
Re the 40 tons of TNT.

Duh, they snuck it in there at night.

They are crafty!

LOL

So many kooks, so little logic.
Dr. Lao is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:11 PM   #54
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
PerryLogan, yes it was the government! Perhaps you missed the memo from the mid 1960's called Operation Northwoods???? It outlines a very similar case for attacking Americans to gain support for a war with Cuba.

Perhaps you missed that the OKC bombing was something other than a little terrorist called Timmothy McVei??? The bomb squad pulled 3-5 bombs out of the building later in the day that FAILED to explode. You gonna tell me that Tim was able to get into the building and plant those bombs and knew where to plant them?

Now to 911. Bush was warned by 11 + countries. He had the FBI jumping up and down about something about to happen. Minutes after being told of the attack it is pinned on OBL.

This is the very type of tactic that is used by a government to point the evidence toward someone else.

Another FACT! In MANY instances during a "terrorist" attack, the government is usually performing exercises for the very thing that happens. Examples:

OKC: the bomb squad was just down the street and had to turn it into a live exercise.

911: Multiple exercises, including a "live fly" that included targets that were attacked.

7/7 London bombing: They were practicing for the very thing, the exact same train and bus route when the terrorists attacked.

The evidence is there! I have looked at the information, I have anylized photos and I have heard witnesses state that they heard and saw explossions taking place before the collapse.

It's not a paranoid thing, its a FACT based thing. I take the data, analyze it, and draw conclusions based upon the FACTS.
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:13 PM   #55
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"I myself have been convicted of being CIA/CENTCOM over at 911blogger despite the fact that I am a canadian citizen living in canada. When I pointed this out, no one cared. You idiots are appearantly going to come for me anyway."

And you wonder why people attack you??????

Perhaps if you did not attack them they would not do the same?

I know that I generally don't attack someone UNTIL they attack me first, much like what you have done by calling me an "idiot"!
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:13 PM   #56
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
PerryLogan, yes it was the government! Perhaps you missed the memo from the mid 1960's called Operation Northwoods???? It outlines a very similar case for attacking Americans to gain support for a war with Cuba.

Perhaps you missed that the OKC bombing was something other than a little terrorist called Timmothy McVei??? The bomb squad pulled 3-5 bombs out of the building later in the day that FAILED to explode. You gonna tell me that Tim was able to get into the building and plant those bombs and knew where to plant them?

Now to 911. Bush was warned by 11 + countries. He had the FBI jumping up and down about something about to happen. Minutes after being told of the attack it is pinned on OBL.

This is the very type of tactic that is used by a government to point the evidence toward someone else.

Another FACT! In MANY instances during a "terrorist" attack, the government is usually performing exercises for the very thing that happens. Examples:

OKC: the bomb squad was just down the street and had to turn it into a live exercise.

911: Multiple exercises, including a "live fly" that included targets that were attacked.

7/7 London bombing: They were practicing for the very thing, the exact same train and bus route when the terrorists attacked.

The evidence is there! I have looked at the information, I have anylized photos and I have heard witnesses state that they heard and saw explossions taking place before the collapse.

It's not a paranoid thing, its a FACT based thing. I take the data, analyze it, and draw conclusions based upon the FACTS.
wow, thats everything weve discussed and debunked here in the past week or so, lol
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:14 PM   #57
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Dr. Lao View Post
Re the 40 tons of TNT.

Duh, they snuck it in there at night.

They are crafty!

LOL

So many kooks, so little logic.
And don't forget the thousands upon thousands of interior renovations tradesmen who were brought in to repair and replace all the drywall, cieling tiles, floor coverings and fixtures that were damaged and/or removed while the sapper teams were planting the tens of thousands of charges need to bring down the towers.

All done without the tens of thousands who work in the WTC ever noticing a thing.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:16 PM   #58
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"defaultdotxbe - BTW how near is "near?" did you know that 1 second slower than freefall would result in an energy equal to over 40 tons of TNT per tower? was that enough to destroy the towers? if not, how did the conspirators get over 40 tons of TNT into the towers without anyone noticing?"

Now you are really showing your ignorance! Did you know that you CANNOT get an object to FALL faster than it can in a vacuum??? Unless you shoot it with some high power force. Explossions are high power, but they do not DRIVE the building into the ground they destroy the support so the building still falls at a free fall speed.

Please do some research on what you are trying to talk about, you just make yourself look stupid.
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:16 PM   #59
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,698
Originally Posted by clarsct View Post
Ohhhhh...
I like this guy!!!

Welcome Dr. Lao!
Dr. Lao. Loved your circus.

Welcome.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:17 PM   #60
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"defaultdotxbe - BTW how near is "near?" did you know that 1 second slower than freefall would result in an energy equal to over 40 tons of TNT per tower? was that enough to destroy the towers? if not, how did the conspirators get over 40 tons of TNT into the towers without anyone noticing?"

Now you are really showing your ignorance! Did you know that you CANNOT get an object to FALL faster than it can in a vacuum??? Unless you shoot it with some high power force. Explossions are high power, but they do not DRIVE the building into the ground they destroy the support so the building still falls at a free fall speed.

Please do some research on what you are trying to talk about, you just make yourself look stupid.
and you just made yourself look liek you cant read

pay very close attention to the bolded words
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:18 PM   #61
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"But you have a logical problem, no matter what the technical facts. You're saying the the planners set up a scenario which is impossible. They would never do that, because people would ask questions, and they would be caught."

Kind of short sighted arent you??? So then we don't have any bank robbers??? We have no crime what so ever because someone can "figure it out"????

Your the one not very logical! All they need to do is spoon feed a few people who can't think for themselves and the rest will happen natually.
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:20 PM   #62
Dr. Lao
Critical Thinker
 
Dr. Lao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 415
Yadda yadda yadda, just throw out as much crap to try to make something stick.

Like I said, its easy to be a conspiracy theorist, you never have to be right, you just throw out every goofy idea, and when proven wrong on one point, you chose another point and then accuse others of being part of the mysterious "Them".

Why do CT's have to endlessly point to other unproven conspiracys to make their case? And why is the Goverment always this amazingly accurate evil set of technically astute people when they want it to prove their point, but a bunch of complete oafs when they want it to prove another point.

Oh well, the X Files were always more fun to watch than the science channel, I mean, what is sexy and scary about learning and reason and logic?
Dr. Lao is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:20 PM   #63
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"and you just made yourself look liek you cant read

pay very close attention to the bolded words"

My appologies.... I did in fact mis read your post.
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:21 PM   #64
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"Yadda yadda yadda, just throw out as much crap to try to make something stick."

So when do you actually say something of value??

When do you actually debate????

When do you actually provide EVIDENCE to support your side?

Cue the Jepordy theme...
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:23 PM   #65
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
PerryLogan, yes it was the government! Perhaps you missed the memo from the mid 1960's called Operation Northwoods???? It outlines a very similar case for attacking Americans to gain support for a war with Cuba.
Indeed it was terrible, it was so sad when they announced it on the news, oh wait they scrubbed it as unworkable
Quote:
Now to 911. Bush was warned by 11 + countries. He had the FBI jumping up and down about something about to happen. Minutes after being told of the attack it is pinned on OBL.
Source?

Quote:
This is the very type of tactic that is used by a government to point the evidence toward someone else.
source?

Quote:
Another FACT! In MANY instances during a "terrorist" attack, the government is usually performing exercises for the very thing that happens. Examples:

OKC: the bomb squad was just down the street and had to turn it into a live exercise.

911: Multiple exercises, including a "live fly" that included targets that were attacked.
What other massive multiple terrorist attacks?
Quote:
7/7 London bombing: They were practicing for the very thing, the exact same train and bus route when the terrorists attacked
Excuse me? practicing WTF are you talking about ? 7/7 was not a practice , real people died.

Quote:
The evidence is there! I have looked at the information, I have anylized photos and I have heard witnesses state that they heard and saw explossions taking place before the collapse
Hearing explosions inside burning building is not the same as explosions being planted inside the building beforehand.

Please bring forward a single eyewitness that says the explosions were contributed to explosives. Just one.

Quote:
It's not a paranoid thing, its a FACT based thing. I take the data, analyze it, and draw conclusions based upon the FACTS.
Yes it is, it is stupid absurd claims whereby you accuse your fellow countrymen of mass murder. Proud of yourself?
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:23 PM   #66
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"did you know that 1 second slower than freefall would result in an energy equal to over 40 tons of TNT per tower?"

Provide the math and proof of this..... There is a great deal of kenetic energy in the towers, but not enough to destroy the concrete into "FINE" powder and to completly destroy the core. Not to mention create molten pools of steel.

Let's see your evidence to the 40 tons.
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:24 PM   #67
Dr. Lao
Critical Thinker
 
Dr. Lao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 415
OK bush, I'll start posting like a CT.

All the CT's are sheeple! They are being fed disinformation from people pretending to be truthers, but in actuality they are..............THE GOVERNMENT!....

That's right, the evil government is corrupting all the CT folks minds, and making them into sheeple.

Its all a conspiracy, everyone is in on it but you.



(Carl Sagan once said "incredible claims require incredible proof", CTs want the non conspiracy minded to prove that something didn't happen the way they say it did, never providing the proof to support their points)

Hey Bush, eat some more bran.
Dr. Lao is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:25 PM   #68
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"stateofgrace" are you really that ignorant???

"Excuse me? practicing WTF are you talking about ? 7/7 was not a practice , real people died."

They were on an exercise for the EXACT thing that happened on that day just like our MILITARY was doing on 9/11.

Ignorance is bliss, but yours is dangerous.
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:27 PM   #69
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"did you know that 1 second slower than freefall would result in an energy equal to over 40 tons of TNT per tower?"

Provide the math and proof of this..... There is a great deal of kenetic energy in the towers, but not enough to destroy the concrete into "FINE" powder and to completly destroy the core. Not to mention create molten pools of steel.

Let's see your evidence to the 40 tons.
No this is not how it works, remember, this question.............

Originally Posted by stateofgrace View Post
Really ? are you even qualified to make this statement?

please show your maths that back up your claim.
In response to this post.................

Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"defaultdotxbe - anyway, this is mainly in response to the CTer claims that the towers fell faster than freefall"

Here is another reason why the "CTers" are accused of many things that are not TRUE!

I am a "truther" and I have YET to see anyone claim that the towers fell faster than "free fall". We do claim that they fell at "NEAR Free Fall", which is IMPOSSIBLE without some outside assistence. The buildings did not have enough Kenetic Energy to destroy themselves in mid air.
The burden of proof is on you , now show me your vast understanding of these buildings, please.
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:27 PM   #70
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"Dr. Lao" still waiting for some actual evidence! Not lip service, I can get that from my wife.

Provide something of substance! ANYONE, even someone as ignorant as you, can just type stuff. It's the evidence that provides validity to what you type!

Play it again sam.
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:28 PM   #71
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"stateofgrace" are you really that ignorant???

"Excuse me? practicing WTF are you talking about ? 7/7 was not a practice , real people died."

They were on an exercise for the EXACT thing that happened on that day just like our MILITARY was doing on 9/11.

Ignorance is bliss, but yours is dangerous.
Well light me up please, show me what is happening in this world.

Tell you what my friend what happened on 911?
stateofgrace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:29 PM   #72
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"and you just made yourself look liek you cant read

pay very close attention to the bolded words"

My appologies.... I did in fact mis read your post.
undertsandable

anyway, back to my question

how fast did the towers fall?

how much energy is required to account for the destruction observed?
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:31 PM   #73
Dr. Lao
Critical Thinker
 
Dr. Lao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 415
Bush, there are reams of evidence here. Read up, you may learn something.

All you have is a bunch of nutty patriots that pull conspiracies and run around paranoically yelling and screaming about evil government.

Several questions were asked of you here, you have answered none. I have yet to see the CT's provide me experts in the field of demolition to explain how the towers were brought down (guess the evil gubment got to them?).

Even you have to laugh at the hundreds of outrageous claims made by the CT's, don't tell me you are so deluded you will believe anyone, just as long as he is anti government.

Oh, BTW

Tubel Cane
Dr. Lao is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:32 PM   #74
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,068
So we now have:
  • Near freefall
  • The wargames
  • JFK
  • Oklahoma City
  • London 7/7
  • Towers reduced to fine powder
  • molten pools of steel (sic)
  • Operation Northwoods
Maybe I forgot some.

I wonder if this time we will get some real evidence, or if it will be the usual game of jumping from one (mostly irrelevant) item to the other ...


Oh yes, please, RemoveBush, use the QUOTE-function of this forum.
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:33 PM   #75
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"did you know that 1 second slower than freefall would result in an energy equal to over 40 tons of TNT per tower?"

Provide the math and proof of this..... There is a great deal of kenetic energy in the towers, but not enough to destroy the concrete into "FINE" powder and to completly destroy the core. Not to mention create molten pools of steel.

Let's see your evidence to the 40 tons.
i posted this in a thread a few weeks ago: (with one correction, it was not over 40 tons, it was nearly 40 tons, i think it was like 39.97)

Quote:
Givens:

Gravity was the only force accelerating the towers downward. This is consistent with either a collapse or demolition theory

The towers weighed 450,000,000kg at an average height of 206.5m

Free fall time from the top of the towers would have been 9.225 seconds

A ton of TNT contains 4,184,000,000 joules


Faster than free fall:
This is a violation of the laws of physics as no energy is present to accelerate the mass beyond that provided by gravity.

At free fall:
Surprisingly, this is again a violation of the laws of physics, as sections of the tower (those below the collapse section that did not move until the collapse section reached them) would have to be accelerated at a faster rate than gravity can provide

Near free fall:
To properly analyze these claims you must answer 2 questions, first; How near is near? And second; How near is suspicious?

The total GPE for the towers was 860,072,500,000 joules, so the question is how much of that energy would remain to damage the structure of the towers at various collapse times?

At one second slower than free fall the acceleration on the towers would have been 7.9m/s^2, this would have required 693,323,750,000 joules, leaving 166,748,750,000 joules to do work, or nearly 40 tons of TNT

5 seconds slower than free fall would have required an acceleration of 4.1m/s^2 (this is less than half the acceleration of gravity) and would have required 359,826,250,000 joules leaving 500,246,250,000 joules (nearly 120 tons of TNT) for other work.

10 seconds longer would require an acceleration of 2.2m/s^2 and 193,077,500,000 joules, which would leave 666,995,000,000 (roughly 160 tons of TNT) for destroying the towers.
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:35 PM   #76
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"Indeed it was terrible, it was so sad when they announced it on the news, oh wait they scrubbed it as unworkable"

Yes they did because they had a MORAL person in charge then.

Source?
911timeline DOT net

source?
Google! Type in OKC and bombsquad. You will find old new reports of the bomb squad pulling several bombs.
Look for 7/7 and London and you will find that they were performing a "training" exercise for the trains and bus route used for the attacks.
Look at 9/11 and you will see that there were several exercised being performed and that one was scheduled to be performed in October, but Cheney moved it to 9/11.

"Hearing explosions inside burning building is not the same as explosions being planted inside the building beforehand."

Excuse me?? If there were bombs going off, as several firefighters, ems, police, and reporters state then they had to of been planted before hand.

Not to bright are you? You seem to think that they ran into the buildings and planted them as things were happening.
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:40 PM   #77
PerryLogan
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 980
Yea, the folks at this forum are really dumb. Calling them dumb is a really effective way to debate them.

What would be the point of scheduling simultaneous training exercises--to leave more clues for conspiracy guys?

We can discount the words of firemen, because they work for the government. If Truthers can do it, we can do it.

[Perry blows raspberry.]
PerryLogan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:41 PM   #78
Dr. Lao
Critical Thinker
 
Dr. Lao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 415
Bush
Which conspiracy are you on now, OKC, Cheney, 9/11, London?

Focus like a laser beam, you are trying to blow all your mega conspiracies in one shot, and by doing so, you are living up to every CT stereotype out there.


I think you are a government plant, its true! I don't have proof, but I demand that you prove me wrong!
Dr. Lao is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:41 PM   #79
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"The burden of proof is on you , now show me your vast understanding of these buildings, please."

There were 47 steel columns in the center that were tied together through a structual support structure. The building floors were attached by bolts that were welded to the core. They attacked to Steel hollow tubes that made up the outside facade.

The core was the strongest part of the bulding and it did infact support most of the buildings weight. The thickest part was 6" thick, and the thinnest was a little over 3". From bottom to top respectfully.

The designers stated that the buildings were designed to withstand a FULLY LOADED 707 and it would be like a masquito puncturing a screen. A 707 is actually larger and heavier than a 757, so I would say that the damage by a 757 would be as less detrimental to the structual integrity of the building.

Anything else?
RemoveBush is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2006, 04:42 PM   #80
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
and the boobs they just keep coming.

listen "removebush" they already debated all your nonsense over and over again. do a search of this site. here is just one post that addresses your free fall fallacy

from PVT1863's post http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=236

The total collapse of the buildings was inevitable because of the immense weight of the upper floors that were falling. In order to give you an idea of how much force was involved here are a few calculations... I was the original author of at least part of that calculation. I posted it on the IMDB board for World Trade Center about six months ago. The thread has since been deleted. I didn't realize it had been saved by anyone or reposted elsewhere.

I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that the equation I used was wrong. I realized this after the thread was deleted, so I didn't point it out. I might have if I would have realized it would turn up again. I also had a factor of ten error that appears to have been corrected, though this error did not carry through to the force ratios since it was applied equally to the collapsing force and the normal force.

The good news is that this error caused me to severely underestimate the force ratio necessary to stop the falling floors.

The correct equation for the force is:

F = (-1/2) * (v^2 * m)/(dstop)

Substituting for v, it becomes:

F = -(h * m * g)/(dstop)

F = force
v = velocity with which the upper floors strike the undamaged one
m = mass of the falling floors
dstop = the distance over which the falling floors are decelerated (the distance of deflection)
h = the distance the upper floors fell
g = the acceleration due to gravity

Here is the derivation (I figured I should show this since I screwed up last time).

The floor must come to rest, so the final velocity, vf, must equal zero. If an acceleration, a, is constantly applied to an object with an initial velocity vi, then

vf = vi + a*t

Since vf = 0 for the object to stop, we can set it to zero and solve for t.

0 = vi + a*t

-vi = a*t

t = (-vi)/(a) Call this equation (1).

So the time it takes to stop a moving object through the constant application of an acceleration is (-vi)/(a). The negative sign is there because the acceleration must be in the direction opposite that of the initial velocity if the object is to stop.

Basic kinetics tells us that the final position, xf, of an object is a function of its initial position xi, its initial velocity vi, its acceleration a, and the time duration t.

xf = xi + vi*t + (1/2)*a*t^2

If we define the original position to be x=0, then xi=0.

xf = 0 + vi*t + (1/2)*a*t^2

Now we substitute equation (1) in for t and rearrange.

xf = 0 + vi*(-vi/a) + (1/2)*a*(-vi/a)^2

xf = -(vi^2)/a + (1/2)*vi^2/a

xf = -(1/2)*(vi^2)/a Call this equation (2)

Next we address the most basic equation of Newtonian physics, F = ma

F = m*a

a = F/m

We plug this in for a in equation (2) and rearrange to get

xf = -(1/2)*(vi^2)/(F/m)

F = -(1/2)*(vi^2*m)/(xf)

In this equation, xf is the distance it takes to stop and vi is the initial velocity. In our particular application xf=dstop and vi=v. So

F = -(1/2)*(v^2*m)/(dstop) Call this equation (3)

This is sufficient to solve, but it would require the calculation of v. For the sake of simplicity, we can insert the calculation of the initial velocity based on free-fall into this equation. It is known that the time it takes to free-fall a distance h from rest is

t = sqrt((2*h)/g)

It is also known that the final velocity, vf, of a free-falling object that has no initial velocity is

vf = g*t

Rearranged, that is

t = vf/g

When we substitute that into the equation for time of free-fall and rearrange, we get

vf/g = sqrt((2*h)/g)

vf = g * sqrt((2*h)/g)

vf = sqrt((2*h*g^2)/g)

vf = sqrt(2*h*g)

This gives us the velocity of a falling object that had no initial velocity after falling a distance of h. Since the v we use in our calculation as the velocity of the falling floors is equal to the velocity of the floors after falling from their original position at rest, vf=v. So

v = sqrt(2*h*g)

We can now plug this into equation (3) and rearrange to get

F = -(1/2)*([sqrt(2*h*g)]^2*m)/(dstop)

F = -(1/2)*(2*h*g*m)/dstop

F = -(h*g*m)/dstop

Now we can start plugging in values.

h = -10 feet; the damaged floors traveled 10 feet downwards
g = -32.2 ft/s^2; the acceleration due to gravity
m = 3,387,916 lbm; the approximate mass of 12 floors
dstop = 1/6 foot; the 2 inches I used for the allowable deceleration region

F = -(h*g*m)/dstop
F = -[(-10 feet)*(-32.2ft/s^2)*(3387916 lbm)]/(1/6 foot)
F = 6,505,713,457 lbs

That is six and a half billion pounds of force (it appears my original calcuation underestimated the force by a factor of approximately six). This is the force that the undamaged floor would have to impart on the collapsing floors during the entire duration of the deceleration (while the falling floors traveled those two inches)

If we use the same calculation of the normal load on one floor, we get approximately nine million tons per floor. If all of the force I calculated above falls on one floor, the ratio of the force needed to stop them to the normal load on that floor is:

~6,500,000,000/~9,000,000 = about 722.

So if the first undamaged floor had to stop the falling floors by absorbing all of the force they would strike it with in this theoretical situation, the floor would have to impart an upward force approximately 722 times larger than that it had to impart under normal conditions.

Now, of course, this calculation is not accurate. It calculates a theoretical maximum since it assumes no losses and assumes that the entire force of the upper floors, acting as a rigid body, fall on the lower floors. This is untrue. Some of the force will bear down on the external and core supports. Some of the force will be consumed in the destruction of structures. Some of the weight of the upper floors will not apply to the first floor struck because they will not remain rigidly attached to the lowest floor in the falling region. The acceleration will be slowed by air resistance and deformation of crumpling materials, so it won’t be quite as high as g. Some mass might be lost as the collapsing floors fall.

For the calculation to be truly conservative, all of these would have to be accounted for. I tried to do this in my previous calculation by assigning penalties to certain values which would decrease the total force. I have here changed a few:

-50% reduction in mass. This accounts for the fact that the upper floors might be lighter than the lower ones, that some mass might be lost while falling, and that the upper floors might not be rigidly attached to the lower ones in the collapsing region (and thus their mass won’t contribute). This makes m about 2,700,000 lbm.
-50% reduction in acceleration. This accounts for a slowing
-200% increase in deceleration region. This allows for a slower deceleration. The new value for dstop is 6 inches (.5 feet).
-20% reduction in free-fall distance. This accounts for the fact that the mass will not all fall 10 feet before striking the floor of the first undamaged floor. The new value for h is 8 feet.

If we plug these into our equation, we get

F = -(h*g*m)/dstop

F = -(8ft)*(-16.1ft/s^2)*(-2700000)/-.5

F = 695,520,000 lbs

That is still more than 77 times the normal load on one floor, even with conservative assumptions.

We can even go so far as to calculate the force on a floor if ony the floor directly above it falls on it. We will ignore all the floors which are higher up. If the force of just the floor immediately higher is enough to collapse a floor, then it follows that the collapse will progress downwards indefinitely because the additional force of the upper floors is not needed. So our mass for one floor is 282,326lbm. We will lose 50% of this for the above stated conservatism, giving us an m of 141,163lbm.

F = -(h*g*m)/dstop

F = -(8ft)*(-16.1ft/s^2)*(-141163)/-.5

F = 36,363,588 lbs

That is, on its own, four times the normal load on a floor. So a floor would have to be built with a safety factor of five (four for the falling floor and one for its own weight) to survive the collapse of the above floor, even with some conservative assumptions. And that does not account for the fact that the mass of the falling floors increases as more floors collapse.

DISCLAIMER
For the sake of intellectual integrity, I must point out that this is an unverified back-of-the-envelope calculation. As such, it should not be taken as gospel regarding the forces involved. There are assumptions and values here which I believe are approximately correct, but which I cannot verify specifically. The largest problem is clearly the estimation of the deceleration region. This factor is what makes impact analysis difficult because one has to have a good value for the distance or time over which the impact took place to calculate a good value for the force. I simply chose what I believe to be an overly-large value. If the impacted floor deflected downwards six inches, it is probably a safe assumption that they would have failed. Of course, that, in turn, leads to the assumption that the impacted floor acted rigidly, which is another problematic assumption. I'm simply pointing this out to show that this is not by any means a perfect analysis. But it is still a heck of a lot better than anything I have seen from the CT side.

I merely wanted to estimate so that the sheer magnitude of the forces involved could be demonstrated, and I feel that I have been successful in that endeavor. We are talking about hundreds of millions (or even billions!) of pounds of force when we talk about the collapsing WTC towers. That is not something which is easily comprehended when one approaches the collapse with intuition-based science.

Feel free to discuss, denounce (with good reason), or correct my calculations.[/quote]
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:24 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.