9/11 truth now!

lol you just compared the bombing of Hiroshima to 9/11, fail.

perhaps, just maybe, this isn't why they didn't topple over then the moment they were hit. And perhaps, just maybe, the combination of collision along with fire on the support structure, as nearly all respected engineers have said including the people who built the towers is what lead to their collapse.

http://www.science-writing.org/id29.html

 

I finally got around to looking over the link you provided when I came across the following piece of disinformation :

"The most consequential designs that were not included in the Twin Towers were sufficient fire-suppression systems and fireproofing. Even though the towers were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner, they were not designed to withstand and remain standing during A FIRE OF SUCH GREAT MAGNITUDE (my emphasis)."

Now, if the article is wrong about the magnitude of the fires which took place inside the Twin Towers before they exploded into dust on live national television (and it most definitely IS wrong), then it would seem quite probable that the article is also wrong about other things, too, such as the ability of the Towers to withstand the force of impact, which appears to be grossly underestimated in this article.

 

And you know this because how? Again, YOU say the fires weren't that intense, yet building engineers, and people who are experts both in physics and fire control say the opposite.

Also, the article's point was the towers were designed to withstand the impact, as they did, so your point?

 

I am not the only one who says that the fires on 9-11 were weak. In fact, there was an article that appeared in the journal "Fire Engineering" which stated that the fires on 9-11 were weak, so I would guess that it all depends on which "experts" you're listening to. I happen to know from first-hand experience that thick black smoke is an indication of a weak oxygen-starved fire. It's the same as with any other issue of contention: If an "expert" comes along and says something that I know is contrary to my experience and to my common sense, I am going to dismiss him.

 

So, "I don't care about the facts because I like my idea better"

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20060710222004/http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

"In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types..."

 

I'd like to know what you'd suggest that we should do in cases of controversy in which there are two (2) different groups of "experts" who are in conflict with each other ? Let's say, for example, that there are two conflicting groups of "experts" who are both giving out advice on how to best maintain an internal combustion engine. Group A says that your engine is going to run "just fine" when you add a couple of quarts of brake fluid to your crankcase. Group B says that it's positively harmful when you add brake fluid to your crankcase.

Which group are you going to believe ?

 

A yellow star is also only a medium sized star but it doesn't mean the sun isn't fucking hot. Or that if you put flames in enclosed areas the energy of the heat tends to collect.

 

Generally the group that has the most science behind it.

 

It goes without saying that fire is hot by its very nature, but that's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the fire was hot enough to have taken down three (3) enormous skyscrapers in less than eight hour's time.

 

Let's say that "Group A" produces a much more prolific body of scientific research because it has a much greater level of funding behind it, while - on the other hand - "Group B" has only a few scattered and isolated advocates who are hardly ever known to produce any research in support of their position. So what you're saying then, in effect, is that in any matter of controversy we can best determine the truth of the matter simply by examining the level of funding which has gone into a given scientific hypothesis ! So, when you take this peculiar way of thinking to its logical conclusion, it means that we should be willing to accept any random falsehood as representing the "truth" of the matter, but only on the condition that it has a greater level of funding and more fanatical voices behind it ! In that way, in a case where some incredibly wealthy financier should ever decide that he wants to hire a team of scientists in an effort to foist some dubious theory onto the public, then - as a direct consequence of your way of thinking - it follows by logical necessity that we simply MUST accept their conclusions as representing the "truth" of the matter, if only because the "other side" was lacking in terms of its ability to field a large enough group of well-funded advocates. In that way, falsehood wins by default ...

 

He said science, not funding.

The 911 Truth movement has produced precious little science.

 

Basically this.

 

To the contrary, there's actually an impressive body of science that effectively debunks the lies which have been disseminated by the newsmedia. The official story simply doesn't make any sense, and it never really made any sense. The story is so full of holes that even a child can see through it. The greatest problem that's facing the 9-11 truth movement right now is that people have been brainwashed into accepting information that comes from a variety of dubious official sources and vested interests.

The perpetrators who carried out 9-11 were able to commit mass murder with impunity, first by committing the crime and then by overseeing the ill-advised national response to that crime. The criminals are still at-large, and they continue to occupy key positions in the government and in the newsmedia. Most scary of all is that they could be in the process of planning to bring about yet another crime of similar or even greater proportions.

 

In practical terms, the two are inextricably linked, i.e. without funding there can be no science.

The people who produce "science" are usually doing so in the service of those who are paying them.

I don't need any "science" to convince me that the official 9-11 story is nonsense.

The story is so patently absurd that it stands in dire need of all sorts of "scientific apologia."

 

That is a statement of opinion that has been repeated endlessly. So lets move on to something more interesting.

There are two questions that no conspiracy theorist has ever been able to answer for me.

1. Please suggest one piece of evidence which could prove OBL was behind 9/11 which I could not flippantly reject by claiming it was faked/planted/etc.

2. Pleas tell me your theory for what happened that day, how the conspiracy worked. If you want to say "oh i don't know, just asking questions" prepared to be laughed at for having nothing to show after 8 years of 'investigation'.

 

It's really quite fascinating the way you started out talking about "conspiracy theorists" and then - without wasting a single breath - how you then started talking about a fictional comic-book character named "OBL" who is quite obviously a figment of the news-media's collective imagination ! Well ... on second thought, it could be that maybe there really WAS a man who went by that name at one time, but the real man appears to have been lost in both time and space, and it's long since gotten to the point where he is now living on in the realm of pure fantasy !

I have no intention of launching into any discussions about "OBL" and whether he exists or not, because - as I see it - it's rather like arguing about the existence or the non-existence of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. All that I'm really asking you here is that you PLEASE REFRAIN from demonstrating the usual idiotic contempt for "conspiracy theories" while you yourself continue to go along on your merry way ... spewing an unlikely conspiracy theory of your own !

I have already stated my position and I don't like repeating myself.

 

OK I'll add you to the list of conspiracy theorists that cannot answer those two simple questions.

 

That's fine with me. I have no intention of engaging in fantasy conversations with you about non-existent or imaginary constructs.

 

Good strategy - don't engage with anyone who isn't a believer.