Maybe they should learn how to debate in a civil/respectful manner and not just attack and ridicule, ya know, follow the rules of the forum.

;)

Now you're just taunting them KT!

I gave them a real pounding in the Marshall Law? topic, and I think they're actually giving our position some consideration now, I think.

There aren't too many people here any more though ya know..? I'm glad. Gives the boys at LTW the freedom from unneccesary distraction, which is all these forums are now.

What we need is that next release of Loose Change! I hope it's sooner, rather than later.

Nope, some of us are still here. Nice and civil as always.

Posting here is not the top priority in my life, however.

Hans

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Are you sure? That's weird... I could have sworn it was because nobody really bothered with replying to your post, which essentially boiled down to nothing more than your personal, and very limited, interpretation of a minor part of next years defence-budget.

I don't think "the boys" care much. I think you might be projecting your own frustrations at them.
I guess having your paranoia and personal pet-conspiracy theories disrupted by reason, facts and logic, can be pretty "distracting".

I'm still here, too.

I've seen attack and ridicule (as well as name-calling and other insults) coming from both sides of the fence. I've done my best to remain civil and respectful.

I haven't been posting simply because there's not much going on in these forums as of late. I've mostly kept to the "Skeptics" forums as instructed, and it's been fairly quiet in here.

I got banned for posting something about Jason Bermas at JREF. Shame, I wish I could have been given one post to explain why I posted what I posted. Emailed Dylan too but no reply, oh well, so goes the CTers.

So explain it so we don't have to ban you again. Actaully who are you?? and why were you banned??

Ban me if you want, but really I just want to have decent discussions in here.

I feel that a skeptic should be a the CTers best friend, because we're the ones you have to prove wrong. We're the ones that if you can win over, you've won a huge part of the battle that CTers face..

I didn't say I was going to ban you though I also can't say you won't be ban. I know why you were ban the first time. So now back to why you posted what got you ban??

I got banned for saying Bermas was back peddeling over at JREF.

Dylan was talking about how they're not allowed to apologize but Mark gets away with anything he says, but Dylan never gave MARK a chance to explain why he said what he said. Granted theres a huge chance he wouldn't have believe Mark's explanation but still.

I'm curious. What do you sceptics think about this

---------------------------

here's something I posted in the New Members forum to try to be helpful to people who are having difficulties sharing the truth.


Stick to one thing at first, and really NAIL it down. THE number ONE smoking gun is IMO, the free fall nature of the "global collapse". You can extract the salient points of the argument by going through my article posted at S911T.org

NIST and "The Foot Of God"
Robert Rice
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/NISTand...0FootOfGod.html

You can go more in depth with it by plucking things from here

NIST and the WTC: 'Science' at the Service of an Empire
by Sami Yli-Karjanmaa
http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html

and here

NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

But you shouldn't need to, since it's a simple thought experiment.

Here is the same argument (free fall physics), presented again
http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

Sources
http://www.st911.org/
http://www.911blimp.net/

What I added, in my "Foot of God Hypothesis" ;) is that the REALITY of the occurance reveals massive debris EJECTION, and therefore weight UNloading, leaving in effect, nothing but ATMOSPHERE above the remaining undamaged structure ie: increasing weight UNLOADING, as opposed to weight loading (the trash compactor model) which is refuted here, by Judy Wood of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory
by Judy Wood, Ph.D.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

To which they will of course respond that the mass of debris was in the CORE structure, and that while the cement and perimeter beams could be seen ejecting outwardly (be sure to point of to them the LATERAL projection with great force THROWING the beams 100's of feet outwardly), that the majority of the mass would have been HIDDEN from view (in which case draw their attention to the 47 steel columns), and again, talk about the debris plume moving down THROUGH the path of MAXIMUM resistence, at the rate of absolute FREE FALL in air, PROVING that all structural integrity beneath the debris wave MUST have been REMOVED. To which they will begin talking about a GRAVITY collapse, pulling everything down by gravity, at which point you've got them in your sights, because then you can start talking about Gallileo's law of falling bodies, and Newtons law of GRAVITATION and *INTERTIA* which states "unless acted upon by an opposing force" (ie: the 47 column steel structure itself remaining beneath what I aptly point out in my paper, is the nothingness remaining above - above a structure, which was OVERENGINEERED to uphold even more than the weight above, for the entire lifetime of the building!).

Stick on the free fall aspect, and spend some time researching Gallileo's Law of Free Falling Bodies (be sure also to mention "TERMINAL VELOCITY" due to AIR RESISTENCE, which brings about a FREE FALL time of precisely 13 seconds, or more depending on the mass and shape of the object) and Issac Newton's law of gravity and interia.

Leave with them the FACT that the towers decended from top to bottom, in 13 seconds and 14 seconds (within a single second of ABSOLUTE free fall in air alone), and FORCE them to consider, that the buildings were hit close to the top (see North tower info in my Scholars paper).

They cannot get around it, the truth and the reality.

THE TOWERS (+ WTC 7!) FELL TOO FAST AND WERE TOO THOROUGHLY DESTROYED (proof)

* THEY FELL THROUGH THE PATH OF MAXIMUM RESISTANCE IN WITHIN 1 SECOND OF FREE-FALL TIME!
* GOVERNMENT SAYS "GRAVITY DID IT"
* PBS NOVA SAYS "GRAVITY DID IT"
* POPULAR MECHANICS SAYS "GRAVITY DID IT"
* SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SAYS "GRAVITY DID IT"
* PHYSICS SAYS "GRAVITY'S NOT THAT STRONG"
Proof
http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

Really work to perfect this argument, because it's the very best one, involving as it does the very immutable laws of physics themselves, which are inescapable and unavoidable.

Final Thesis: Steel provides more resistence than mere AIR.

You are then ready to address the absurdity of the government's collapse *initation* hypothesis (while pointing out that they offer no physical explanation as to what then ensued except a vague description about an automatic and inevitable "pancake collapse") showing how the buildings should not have even BEGUN to collapse at all, and then even if they did, NON LINEAR momentum (uneven breaking and buckling) would have resulted in a toppling over if anything, and most certainly not a COMPLETE destruction of the entire building AT THE RATE OF FREE FALL through nothing but AIR!

Even if they disagree, they will be forced to contend with this argument, thus forcing the only logical and rational conclusion which is possible, that is, if they devote any amount of time to really thinking it all the way through.

Best,

Arrowhead

So does this look like cumulative weight loading, or a top down controlled demolition (the first of its kind)


--------------------------------

You seem to confuse "free fall" with "close to free fall speed".

See that material falling faster than the tower is collapsing? That's free fall.

And how much resistance do you expect in steel, that has hundreds of thousands of tons crashing down on top of it?

More than AIR!

Any freely dropped object from the height of the twin towers, would hit the ground in at least 13 seconds, factoring in terminal velocity due to air resistence. Absolute free fall time in a complete VACUUM is 9.2 seoncds. 9/11 Commission Report pegs the south tower collapse time at 10 seconds, and the NIST FAQ, the north tower in 9 SECONDS (though I'll admit that they were off by a BIT)

South tower went down in about 13 seconds, the north, about 14, so to within a mere SECOND, two MAX of absolute freefall in nothing but AIR alone.

One two

That is what you are arguing over. One two.

Think about it...

Oh and last question: What do you see above the remaining structure there. I see massive debris EJECTION thrown laterally, I don't know what you see...? Hundreds of thousands of tons of atmosphere maybe?

Increasing weight loading, or UNloading...?

Think about it...

This is why I refer to the government's account as "the foot of God hypothesis".

you mean like that?:

Come on Arrowhead, first show me your Ph.D. before i believe you such an extraordinary claim. :lol:

Arrowhead, actually you're wrong. At least if we believe the NIST, they claim steel delivers LESS resistance than air:

B)

edit: sorry, arrowhead, i was faster than free-fall in replying that i didn't catch your nist faq-statement. funny isn't it that they saying it went faster down than even most "conspiracy-theorists" do and that they don't see the contradiction in their ridiculous
statement. if this is the science the official version is lying on then there's no science.

What do you think about what I've put forth in terms of massive progressive debris EJECTION thrown outwardly, thereby OFFloading weight, as opposed to the official story, and that parroted by sceptics, that the "collapse" involved increasing weight LOADING. What I'm saying, is that once initiated, there was increasingly more NOTHING above the remaining undamaged structure, increasingly so, thus driving up the absurdity quotient in terms of their "science" right through the ROOF!
Half way down the "global collapse", with the core columns even tapered THICKER towards the bottom, as part of the building's OVERengineering (I believe it was designed to uphold 1.5 times the actual weight above, at all levels, all the way from bottom to top) wasn't the weight load REDUCED, rather substantially? So what force then, precisely (aside from the "foot of God") would account for this continual momentum, at the rate of free fall in NOTHING BUT AIR?!!!

What am I missing here? Sceptics, please help me out on this. To me, your position appears to be UTTER nonsense and an absurdity of maximal proportion..

Are you suggesting that all the mass from those upper floors was really not ejected at all, but that all of it was "squashed" down and "hiding" in the debris plume, and if so (which is not what is observed), then you are referring to the "trash compactor" model, but doesn't the law of intertia state that an object in free fall (or very close to it) will only continue with momentum (no matter what its mass) UNLESS ACTED UPON BY AN OPPOSING FORCE OF RESISTENCE?

Of course there are other factors involving the law of conservation of energy, and angular momentum, meaning that any non linear breaking or buckling, from the moment of collapse initiation, would result in a toppling over.

I don't know, but as far as I can tell, isn't this a problem for the official account, and isn't it interesting how NIST refers only to the first pieces to fall off the TOP of the building. How did the WHOLE BUILDING go down in the same amount of time (to within a second or two max) that any freely dropped object would fall from the same height in NOTHING BUT AIR?!!!

It's totally absurd, isn't it, this BIG LIE, this MYTH, about a fire induced collapse initiation resulting in an "automatic and inevitable" "global pancake collapse"?

It's total nonsense, and the government has offered NOTHING, except a vague "pancake collapse" label, to account for the actual occurance of the "collapse" itself.

Help us understand your position, and tell us why what we are saying is the rediculous assertion, that ONLY explosive demolition can account for the phenomenon of the towers descent, via the complete and total REMOVAL of the structure, from the top down.

Best,

Arrowhead

And please, don't resort to that one second faster than free fall in air is not TRUE free fall crap. People are smarter than that. People can count off a second, or two. One two. They fell at free fall speed. Everyone agrees on that.
The buildings were 110 story buildings, made of steel. And don't give us the question of "how long SHOULD they have taken to fall?" since they should NOT have fallen at all. There's a logical falacy there, based on a presupposition that the descent was "natural" and could not have been caused by explosives.

How would you account for the actual occurance of their total destruction, to within maybe a single second, or two MAX, of absolute free fall in nothing but AIR alone. It makes no sense.

it's funny when i remind a discussion where someone said: "i think it was a
controlled demolition because the towers felt into their footprint" and the sceptics said" you moron, it's obvious that most of the debris
felt outside the footprints". but if you say that that means an unloading of mass they just turn around and deny their own statement.

when it's said in loose change that the towers came down 'to the ground' we can take that literally. see this:




were's the volume of about 3 300 000m³ gone (V = 63m x 63m x 415m = 1 647 135m³)?
maybe we should look at further distance:



in loose change it's said that the core columns were 36 by 16 inches thick.
that's true for the inner columns of the core, the columns in the outer row of the core were 52 by 22 inches thick. here's one of it:


see such columns in the outer row here:




those columns deliver more resistance than air, whoever argues against that makes himself a moron.

I'm still here, and as far as I know, I haven't broken any rules.

I think if people were banned purely on their beliefs, rather than how they conveyed them, that would be stupid.

Care to comment Stan? No one's banning anyone.

I am responding to what Killtown said.

As in, I haven't broken any rules, and I have stated my beliefs.

If I were banned just for having different beliefs, that would be dumb.

Does that clear it up?

No no care to comment on the discussion, and partcularly about the "collapse" of the buildings..?

Actually, a lot of people have been banned. I'll probably get banned just for saying that.

I just got on here, but I used to read a lot of posts on here. Where are calcas, mayr, bubbers, and tsire, just to name a few of the ones that I remember. I know there were plenty more, too.

Speak for yourself.

Stop whining and comment on the facts.

Ah, nothing to debunk? Well, that's science, guys. Welcome to reality.

What you are missing here, and you haven't addressed, 1.5 times the actual weight, has nothing to do with force. Most buildings are designed to withstand static force, not dynamic force. That's my take on it at least.

The 1.5 times refers to the building when thge building is standing at full strength.

I would like you to tell me exactly how damaged the steel was. Also calculate the damage the plane's impact had on the building.

I don't think you are qualified to be sitting here telling anyone about the construction of buildings, because you aren't an expert.

What I'm asking you to show me is an expert, actually stating that this was not plausible. Steven Jones is not an expert. Jim Fetzer is not an expert.

Ah yes, JohnD is the voice of reason around here. His extensive research and study at a technical institute makes him right.

Again, produce me some experts who have done the calculations and ran HYPOTHESIS that were PEER REVIEWED, and I might be more inclined to believe you.

Generally, when you are not an expert on a subject (I'm not on the collapse of buildings), you should consult someone who is. I'm still waiting for you to produce one that has done any study about the above topic. Get me a structural engineer.



And then, why don't you explain to me how they planted the explosives? How did they rig the bombs with no one noticing? When did this happen. Over what period of time? How did they do a style of CD that has never been done (top to bottom), and on top of that, on buildings of this magnitude. Oh and of course, this was all done without anyone knowing about it.

I'm not a skeptic, but I have been gone for a while, because I'm in the middle of my final exams on college and I've been very busy. But it is true, the forum looks like a battlefield after the war. It's so calm.

You guys are so pathetic. Why can't you honestly reply to Arrowheads analysis? Why resort to that comment? I'm not against using an expert to back up his statement. But his statement is clear enough. Why can't you debate in a productive way?

NIST and FEMA didn't address it either, simply stating that what ensued from the point of "collapse initiation" was automatic and inevitable, labelling it as a progressive global collapse. In all of NIST's 10,000 page report, never ONCE was the timed duration of the descent even mentioned, and the only statement about descent time given by NIST was offered in the NIST FAQ where they pegged the North Tower fall time at 9 seconds. The 9/11 Commission report has the south tower fall time, at 10 seconds. Both of those are actually FASTER than free fall time in nothing but air alone, suggesing I suppose that a type of vacuum was created or something like that..

As soon as they get into any sort of resistence failure analysis, no matter who the expert, they are going to be forced to contend with the fact that there was no resistence encountered at all, not even through the breaking and buckling process. A grade 10 physics student could prove this, employing Gallileo's law of free falling bodies, combined with Issac Newtons 3 laws of motion, and ANY analysis, regarding forces of structural resistence. It's as simple as that. The reason the sceptics are not attempting to counter the essential argument, other than pointing to debris moving slightly past the descending debris wave, above which I might add again, was left nothing but atmosphere - is because they cannot counter it, without trying to make an appeal for experts.

Well, here is what the government experts said themselves, in their own report.

our analysis "does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached" (NIST 2005, p. 80, n. 12)

So I'll just refer then to Judy Wood's "trash compactor" analysis then.

A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory
by Judy Wood, Ph.D.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

And so you see that since there was no resistence encounterd, at all, then the only possible conclusion is that the structure was blown out from BENEATH the descending debris wave, which though it moved symetrically all the way down, was largely ejected in a fountain like cascade, meaning that there was increasing weight UNloading, not loading.

Well now I've become a bit curious. I've been looking at the front running argument of the "truthers" that the towers fell at almost free fall speed straight down to the the very base. Regardless of what you want to believe, that is simply extraordinary. Now of this, I have always been curious and I have hardly been enlightened beyond theory.
But what has sparked my curiosity atm is that I haven't seen any response to the best point the "truthers" make :

and

This is the only thing that irritates on these forums. I see many great points surface but instead of a response to that point, there is a subject change that turns the debate into pathetic, shallow stand-off. I see this more with the skeptics. That is why I would like to see their take on this point.
If you would, perhaps you could share your thoughts on this particular occurence on 9/11 too, instead of clinging to the NIST report, which is almost harder to swallow than the controlled demolition theory. I'm just curious as to how you viewed the situation with the evidence at hand before you read the official report. I for one have come to no certain conclusion on what I believe happened yet, but I know that with the official evidence on the WTC collapse it didn't add up.

Why do you keep claiming they fell at free fall speed when even the pictures you post yourself prove that they didn't? Why should anybody care to comment on why they fell at free fall speed when obviously they didn't?

And the NIST figures:

The first exterior panels to strike the ground! The FIRST. Those were the ones that fell outside the building, and yeah, I do believe they fell at free fall speed. What should have kept them from doing that?

However, that is something entirely different from the time it took for the whole structure to collapse.

Hans

Um, have you like watched the videos of the structures collapsing?

Like I said, you are arguing over maybe two seconds. One two

Try watching the video of the south tower, and use a stopwatch to do the countdown.

Out of fairness, I'll restate as NEAR absolute free fall time in nothing but air (to within a second, or two, max).

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03...emolition-3.avi (does this link work?)

bump forward.

toe tapping, anxiously awaiting a reply to the various points made in this thread...

I say the number ONE "smoking gun" of 9/11, in light of the actual observable phenomenon of "collapse", is the "mere" absence of those buildings from the NYC skyline.

They should still be there, as a multi billion dollar asbestos albatross around the neck of the NYC Port Authority..

Unbelievable the extent and magnitude of this crime, including the two wars perpetrated in violation of international law.

Sounds like an open and shut case, Arrowhead. No need to tap your toes and wait for the skeptics.

I suggest you perform the calculations showing the impossibility of the collapse, and submit it to a peer-reviewed structural engineering journal. It appears that the engineering community has failed to see what you suggest is obvious.

If you feel that this is beyond your breadth of knowledge, then seek out a structural engineer with your research. If I knew of a "smoking gun" that implicated someone in the murder of thousands, I wouldn't hang around a web forum daring other laymen to debunk me. I'd take the "smoking gun" to someone in the respective field - someone with knowledge and experience - to validate my hypothesis, rather than assuming I know more than someone in their respective field.

Good luck, and be sure to let us know how you make out.

Sly

Yep. I see debris raining down ahead of the collapse.

Like we ended up agreein in the other thread, it's more like 2-4 seconds.

You can't. The last part is obscured by dust.

Hans

In progress, hopefully.

Time will tell regarding this proof.

Fantastic!

Can I ask you how far along in progress you are? Have you contacted a structural engineer?

No not yet, I sent it to Jones' new group to work on for the time being. Most Structural Engineers do not want to put their P.E. designation on the line, at least not yet. We'll get there. Of course any structural engineering analysis would have to factor in forces of resistence, beyond air, and take into consideration the increasing weight UNloading throughout the progression of the "collapse". Some day history itself is going to collapse on the historical observation of the demise of those buildings, including WTC7. Hang tight. What's needed is a scientific paper on this aspect to place in front of those engineers. I'm all for it, what you are suggesting.

What did you send to Joness group?

I disagree. The collapse of the twin towers is one of the most studied structural failures in recent history. Unless you are an engineer yourslef, you probably do not have access to peer-reviewed journals, or even trade publications.

Which is why I suggested speaking with a structural engineer.

So far, the experts agree that structural famage + fires brought the towers down.

I'd like to see that. Although many folks claim that explosives were used, I have not seen anything that has been submitted and peer-reviewed. Most of the conspiracy papers skip this step and appeal to the masses, which, in my opinion, is bad science.

I'm suggesting that you talk to a professional structural engineer. You seem very certain that the towers were brought down with explosives. If you talked to a structural engineer, it's possible that he/she may be able to explain to you where you may be over-simplifying or mistaken, if that is the case.

A collapse and failure of this size is not a simple thing. Even the structural engineers have disagreed on the exact mechanism, yet they all agree that it was a combination of fire and structural damage. (much like biologists who disagree on certain aspects of evolution, yet agree on the Theory of Evolution as a whole).

I am only suggesting that there are people out there who are better educated with more experience who might be able to answer your questions. You may find that what you think is obvious is actually the exact opposite.

Here's an example for you. Two houses exist in the same neighborhood. Both of the houses are the exact same size (24' x 36') with one difference - one houses roof peak is 3' high, while the other has a steeper roof which extends 9' into the air. Here's the question: A hurricane hits the neighborhood... which roof is more likely to get blown off the house? Why?

Well I do know what increasing weightlessness (fountain like debris ejection leaving nothing above it) cannot crush a structure designed to withhold everything that was above it, and more, at the rate of almost absolute free fall in air, all the way to the ground. That much is plainly obvious.

Oh and neither NIST nor FEMA addressed the issue satisfactorily, or even at all. And it was the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) who handled the FEMA report.