Bush admits explosives were used in 9/11

[Achilles]

I would also like to recommend Zeitgeist. You can watch it for free at Zeitgeistmovie.com

I've seen parts of it. I don't care for very much for the style in which is was done. If that sounds snobbish, let me expand by saying that I found it incredibly distracting to the point that it was difficult to watch.

 

No, I'm not saying that at all.

I'm sure it's not your intent, however that is how it is coming across.

 

What I am saying is that LooseChange (I believe you're asking about LooseChange) are not only asking questions (questions are fine) but they are supplying answers to their own questions. The problem is with that is that SOME of their answers have been wrong... And therefore they should get their answers RIGHT before answering their questions..

Which comes back to my point about what to do when you find new evidence. Kinda hard to know what you don't know. Which still sounds like "don't ask the question until you know the answer" (or more specific to what you've added here "don't put forth something as a possible explanation until you've already refuted it" ).

 

I think what you're proposing makes sense in an ideal situation, however the larger problem here is that not all the information is available.

 

I never meant for it to sound like I thought it was all garbage. I just thought that people should keep it in-mind so they are not as confused/upset as I was after watching the third installment.

I agree that healthy skepticism is required for all sides of the story especially because not everything is known.

 

I don't really have a problem for the movies to cost money.since it takes money to make the film in the first place.However, the money they may make from merchandising may be different in its-self.

Agreed, however as I stated, none of the films I've seen have required money. I know Loose Change does have merchandising, and that does add some question marks, however it's entirely optional, so...

[Totenkopf]

I know Loose Change does have merchandising, and that does add some question marks, however it's entirely optional, so...

 

 

And that makes a difference how? All merchandising is entirely optional when it comes to the consumer.

[Ray Jones]

What do you mean "separately"? There was one continuous collapse. The collapse started, continued, then ended.

 

collapse A

 

The part below the crashed plane collapses top-to-bottom (destruction happens at the top) due to its mass bearing on itself, gravitating down and creating pressure from above. This part of the building is not moving itself, it's height decreases by the time from the height of where the plane crashed into the building to the final height of the pile of debris. All that happens within approximately 10 seconds with a velocity v(4).

 

 

collapse B

 

The part above the plane collapses bottom-to-top (destruction happens at the bottom) due to the mass of itself and the thrusts working against the structure every time the whole thing is crushing upon the top of the lower part of the building. This upper part, as it is located on the lower part of the tower with decreasing height, is moving down as a result. That movement's velocity v(2) is equal to the downward velocity v(4) of collapse A's "roof".

 

If we'd place that upper part of the tower on the ground the whole thing would go down (collapse) with a velocity of v(3). The height of that second collapse is the distance from where the plane crashed into the building up to the roof. All that happens within 10 seconds as well.

 

The total velocity v(1) of the upper block relative to the ground is a result of the velocities of both, the moving vector and the crushing vector. However, that does not change the height where it's coming down from, namely where the plane crashed into the building.

 

 

 

So, what *really* was going on were two separate collapses happening simultaneously within the same 10 seconds. Neither collapse is happening at free fall speed, because we have two lesser heights (both with far lesser free fall times) but still a 10 seconds time frame. That one collapse happens to a structure which is also moving at a (starting from 0 and increasing) velocity v(2) as a whole is irrelevant in this case.

 

 

Now what you do with your free fall comparison is that you take all those separate processes and throw them into one pit, and take *only* the total height and time making it statistically look like a free fall process, which it is not.

 

 

 

Which leads us to Mistake 2: believing in statistics

[Jae Onasi]

I know Loose Change does have merchandising, and that does add some question marks, however it's entirely optional, so...

And that makes a difference how? All merchandising is entirely optional when it comes to the consumer.

 

Ooooh, look!!! I can get a t-shirt, a hoodie, a baseball cap, and even an 'Investigate 9/11!' rubber stamp!! And if I order in the US, I'll even get a free bumper sticker!! What a deal from a company with no other motive than to let innocent, uninformed people like me know Teh Truth!!!

 

Edit: Ray--here's an academic paper describing what you're trying to describe above. And before anyone screams, yes, it's hosted on a conspiracy debunking site which has a section devoted to just the demolition theories and myths. However, there are links to a lot of academic papers that you can then confirm via other sources.

[Achilles]

collapse A

 

The part below the crashed plane collapses top-to-bottom (destruction happens at the top) due to its mass bearing on itself, gravitating down and creating pressure from above. This part of the building is not moving itself, it's height decreases by the time from the height of where the plane crashed into the building to the final height of the pile of debris. All that happens within approximately 10 seconds with a velocity v(4).

Except that even the photos you sourced yourself in post #122 don't reflect this. "Collapse B" happened first.

 

And the total time for both "Collapse A" and "Collapse B" (i.e. from the time the structures started falling to the time they stopped) is approximately 10 seconds.

 

 

collapse B

<snip>

The total velocity v(1) of the upper block relative to the ground is a result of the velocities of both, the moving vector and the crushing vector. However, that does not change the height where it's coming down from, namely where the plane crashed into the building.

So we just ignore the fact that the buildings were 1350/1360 feet tall why?

 

So, what *really* was going on were two separate collapses happening simultaneously within the same 10 seconds. Neither collapse is happening at free fall speed, because we have two lesser heights (both with far lesser free fall times) but still a 10 seconds time frame.

 

The building came down in approximately 10 seconds. Free fall would have been approximately 9.2 seconds. So again, you can call it one collapse, two collapses, 110 collapses or whatever number of collapses that you would like to, the building came down at nearly free fall speed.

 

Now what you do with your free fall comparison is that you take all those separate processes and throw them into one pit, and take *only* the total height and time making it statistically look like a free fall process, which it is not.

Think of it like trying to break a world relay record. You may try to argue that some legs of the race were faster than others (source please) or slower than others (also, source please) however if the total time is not less (or in this case more) than the record (i.e. the rate of free fall) then you don't win.

 

And before anyone screams, yes, it's hosted on a conspiracy debunking site which has a section devoted to just the demolition theories and myths. However, there are links to a lot of academic papers that you can then confirm via other sources.

*Reads this*

*Reads post #67*

*Reads this again*

[Ray Jones]

Except that even the photos you sourced yourself in post #122 don't reflect this. "Collapse B" happened first.

No, they happen simultaneously.

 

So we just ignore the fact that the buildings were 1350/1360 feet tall why?

Physics.

 

 

The building came down in approximately 10 seconds. Free fall would have been approximately 9.2 seconds. So again, you can call it one collapse, two collapses, 110 collapses or whatever number of collapses that you would like to, the building came down at nearly free fall speed.

I do not argue that most of the towers came down in 10 seconds. The point is that the story by story collapse took place at a lower rate/speed than free fall, what actually results in some time/place for resistance coming from the stories, which you were asking for. I just tried to give you some explanation regarding the physics behind it.

 

You are of course entitled to your belief that someone managed to bomb every single story away with the correct timing so it won't look like someone did actually use explosives. No way that thousands of tons of steel and concrete are able to cause what happened, especially after a plane did some good job in weakening the structures. No way physical models are correct. The planes were just part of some strategy to obfuscate what's really going on - a plan to cause the WTC to free fall collapse and make everyone pull out models and formulas which will prove it happened on its own because of the planes. How evil.

 

 

Think of it like trying to break a world relay record. You may try to argue that some legs of the race were faster than others (source please) or slower than others (also, source please) however if the total time is not less than the record (i.e. the rate of free fall) then you don't win.

Bad example. A better one: walking up an escalator. If you're walking as if you would walk up the stairs, you still need less time for the same way.

[Achilles]

No, they happen simultaneously.

Again, this is where your refusal to familiarize yourself with the subject does you a disservice.

 

Physics.

If the upper portions of the building remained intact, I might think that you had a point. However since they did not, I'm still left to wonder how you are getting your conclusions.

 

I do not argue that most of the towers came down in 10 seconds.

Oh? Ok.

 

The point is that the story by story collapse took place at a lower rate/speed than free fall, what actually results in some time/place for resistance coming from the stories, which you were asking for.

Well of course Ray. The buildings didn't fall in a vacuum. I think this is why everyone refers to it as "nearly free fall". However you've yet to address the matter of resistance, even though you claim here that you have.

 

I just tried to give you some explanation regarding the physics behind it.

I must have missed it. All I saw was a bunch of guessing based on...I'm not sure what.

 

You are of course entitled to your belief that someone managed to bomb every single story away with the correct timing so it won't look like someone did actually use explosives.

Thank you. It means a lot to have your permission

 

P.S. Explosives wouldn't have been necessary on every floor. I believe professional demolition crews only use explosives on every other floor. Not being a demolitions expert, I don't know what kind of set up would have been required here.

 

No way that thousands of tons of steel and concrete are able to cause what happened, especially after a plane did some good job in weakening the structures.

I'm sure there's a way. I just haven't seen an explanation that doesn't violate some law of physics or insults my intelligence. Perhaps if one were made available I would be inspired to set some portion of my skepticism aside.

 

No way physical models are correct.

Which physical models, Ray? Source please.

 

The planes were just part of some strategy to obfuscate what's really going on - a plan to cause the WTC to free fall collapse and make everyone pull out models and formulas which will prove it happened on its own because of the planes. How evil.

Interesting.

 

Bad example. A better one: walking up an escalator. If you're walking as if you would walk up the stairs, you still need less time for the same way.

Oh. So something was actually propelling the debris down? Like little rockets affixed to the beams to make them fall faster than free fall? Well who snuck in and attached the rockets to the beams, Ray? Who ever it was, I'm sure it will make for one great conspiracy theory.

 

P.S. Just so we're clear, it's not a bad example. If I drop two object from a specific height and they both hit the ground at about the same time, then they are falling at rough the same rate. If one of those objects (the one that hits the ground first) encounters nothing but air as it falls and the other encounters 110 stories of welded steel frame,concrete floors, etc, then I would expect that second object to take significantly longer.

[Ray Jones]

If the upper portions of the building remained intact, I might think that you had a point. However since they did not, I'm still left to wonder how you are getting your conclusions.

Huh? They don't have to stay intact.

 

 

Well of course Ray. The buildings didn't fall in a vacuum. I think this is why everyone refers to it as "nearly free fall". However you've yet to address the matter of resistance, even though you claim here that you have.

The fact that you don accept my explanation doesn't mean I didn't gave some explanation regarding the resistance, nor that I'm wrong.

 

 

Which physical models, Ray? Source please.

#126

 

 

Oh. So something was actually propelling the debris down? Like little rockets affixed to the beams to make them fall faster than free fall?

Faster?

 

 

Well who snuck in and attached the rockets to the beams, Ray?

Maybe the same person that snuck in and placed the explosives on every other story.

 

Alternatively, since we're talking about 10 seconds for 1350 feet, gravity should be a sufficient explanation for the go down of the upper section.

[KinchyB]

Opinions...

 

found this video clip on the second site Ray had posted for some pictures...

 

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/videos/wtc1-collaps.MPE

 

Now, is it just me or does the bottom of the WTC actually appear to give out without the top of the tower actually collapsing? (keep an eye on the movement of the antennae at the top in the smoke).

 

I don't have the best eyes (eye) in the world and the picture is granny but would appreciate some thoughts on the video.

 

 

Thanks!!

 

Edit: And if you watch the right side of the building closely you can actually tell when it hits the ground.

[Achilles]

Huh? They don't have to stay intact.

Of course they do if your "we only calculate free fall based on the height of the impact" argument is to carry any weight. Like I said, otherwise I'm not sure how you're getting that.

 

The fact that you don accept my explanation doesn't mean I didn't gave some explanation regarding the resistance, nor that I'm wrong.

But you haven't Ray.

 

You can say that you have all you want, but that isn't going to help.

 

#126

The post where you said you were leaving and then didn't? Oh, the paper! The paper isn't a physical model, Ray. And they didn't use a physical model either (which is why I asked you way back in post #130 if you had read it). Also, the author's seem to think that the top fell intact (Fig. 1), so either your source is wrong or you are.

 

Faster?

Indeed, as the person on the escalator would be moving through space faster than the person using the traditional stairs. Or did you not consider that/mean to demonstrate something else with your "better" example?

 

Maybe the same person that snuck in and placed the explosives on every other story.

Maybe.

 

Alternatively, since we're talking about 10 for 1350 feet, gravity should be a sufficient explanation for the go down of the upper section.

I'm assuming that was supposed to be "10 seconds"? Yes I agree...if it had nothing underneath it offering resistance. I certainly hope that you'll agree that this has been my point all along.

[Ray Jones]

Now, is it just me or does the bottom of the WTC actually appear to give out without the top of the tower actually collapsing? (keep an eye on the movement of the antennae at the top in the smoke).

What I say.

 

 

 

 

Achilles, I'm done laying out my points. You asked where there's place for resistance, I offered a possible explanation, you reject it, fine.

 

Have fun there with your little invisible pink unicorn.

[Nedak]

Agreed, however as I stated, none of the films I've seen have required money. I know Loose Change does have merchandising, and that does add some question marks, however it's entirely optional, so...

 

My concluding point is that as long as a conspiracy movie doesn't require for people to pay, I would say it makes it more credible.

 

I guess all my questions have been answered relating to Loose Change. However, if they ever try to make any other documentary I will keep my eye open, as I would any other documentary.

[Achilles]

What I say.

Even though you yourself posted pics showing the opposite.

 

My concluding point is that as long as a conspiracy movie doesn't require for people to pay, I would say it makes it more credible.

I agree. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any (but that doesn't mean that they don't exist).

 

I guess all my questions have been answered relating to Loose Change. However, if they ever try to make any other documentary I will keep my eye open, as I would any other documentary.

As would I. They called their last film "Final Cut" so I would be very suspicious of another film.

[Nedak]

As would I. They called their last film "Final Cut" so I would be very suspicious of another film.

 

Who knows. As you've said, there is always new evidence.

 

 

Also Ray,

 

I didn't see the collapse point bellow the top of the tower like Kinchy hinted to. However, if you agree with Kinchy on the collapse point then you would have proven yourself wrong on your own opinion of the collapse point.

[Jae Onasi]

Here's the bottom line--there's a ton of solid evidence supporting the theory that the WTC collapsed without explosives. There's no evidence of explosive residue found in the debris that I know of to the degree required for building demolition--and there would have to be a lot of explosives for that. Yes, there are things that the reports don't explain adequately. There are things we may never know because we didn't have the engineering knowledge to predict such a unique event, and the science and advanced math is still being worked on for that. However, there's far less evidence and far less engineering science to back up the conspiracy claims.

 

You'd have to have a perfectly trained pilot who, while flying through a city at 590 mph, could fly into exactly the right floor of the WTC required so that everything would work right for demolition. On top of that, for the top sections of the buildings, you'd have to have the explosives wired just right so that they'd still explode correctly even when the electricity/wiring to them got severed by the planes crashing into floors below them. If the planes sever the connections, no explosions happen in the affected section(s). You're telling me that the conspiracy folks managed to cross wire redundant detonation systems in to account for the possibility that the planes might not hit the planned floor?

 

Building demolition is a precise and very controlled process. Flying 767s into the buildings completely screws up that precise control. Build me a model where you have the buildings wired up for demolition and then simulate a plane flying into them, along with all the other variables on that day such as wind speed and direction, in order to recreate the building's collapses in just the same way, and I might consider such a conspiracy more seriously. Surely that's not too hard for the conspiracy people to do, is it?

[Achilles]

Here's the bottom line--there's a ton of solid evidence supporting the theory that the WTC collapsed without explosives.

No there isn't and that's the point.

 

None of the sources that you or Ray have put up as evidence can answer this very simple question: How did the buildings come down at nearly free-fall speed?

 

No one has put forth a computer simulation that can reproduce the conditions that "the experts" tell us "must have" occurred. No one has put forth a physical model that behaves this way. No one can even point to examples of similar phenomenon, even though we do have examples of plane hitting buildings, steel frame buildings on fire, and buildings that have experienced a pancake collapse.

 

What we have is a bunch of people starting with a conclusion and trying to shoe-horn the facts to fit. Science doesn't work that way.

 

There's no evidence of explosive residue found in the debris that I know of to the degree required for building demolition--and there would have to be a lot of explosives for that.

That you know of. Does that mean you'd be willing to take a look at some sources or does that mean that you're inclined to try to prove a negative.

 

Yes, there are things that the reports don't explain adequately. There are things we may never know because we didn't have the engineering knowledge to predict such a unique event, and the science and advanced math is still being worked on for that. However, there's far less evidence and far less engineering science to back up the conspiracy claims.

And you feel comfortable saying this because you've exhaustively researched the other claims and found them to be lacking? If you say you have, then we can certainly have a discussion about that, however everything you've said here leads me to suspect that you haven't seen any of the video that are available or visited any of the websites. If my suspicions are correct, then I'm not clear how it is that you hope to counter an argument that you don't understand.

 

You'd have to have a perfectly trained pilot who, while flying through a city at 590 mph, could fly into exactly the right floor of the WTC required so that everything would work right for demolition.

How does that work? If the building was already rigged with explosives, then the pilot could have struck the building anywhere.

 

Please help me understand how you came to this conclusion.

 

On top of that, for the top sections of the buildings, you'd have to have the explosives wired just right so that they'd still explode correctly even when the electricity/wiring to them got severed by the planes crashing into floors below them.

Computer-controlled timers? Redundant wires? Or simply run the wires through a part of the building that wouldn't have taken much damage from the impact (i.e. the cores)? Radio controlled demolitions on a timer?

 

How do you rule these out?

 

If the planes sever the connections, no explosions happen in the affected section(s). You're telling me that the conspiracy folks managed to cross wire redundant detonation systems in to account for the possibility that the planes might not hit the planned floor?

I'm saying it makes a lot of sense to cross-wire (or some equivalent alternative) if there is no "planned floor".

 

Building demolition is a precise and very controlled process. Flying 767s into the buildings completely screws up that precise control.

Really? Why?

 

Build me a model where you have the buildings wired up for demolition and then simulate a plane flying into them, along with all the other variables on that day such as wind speed and direction, in order to recreate the building's collapses in just the same way, and I might consider such a conspiracy more seriously. Surely that's not too hard for the conspiracy people to do, is it?

You go first.

[Ray Jones]

None of the sources that you or Ray have put up as evidence can answer this very simple question: How did the buildings come down at nearly free-fall speed?

You haven't either. Even less, all you have done is proposing some idea, without delivering at least some kind of document that supports your claim that only explosives can bring a building down at free fall speed.

 

No one has put forth a computer simulation that can reproduce the conditions that "the experts" tell us "must have" occurred. No one has put forth a physical model that behaves this way. No one can even point to examples of similar phenomenon, even though we do have examples of plane hitting buildings, steel frame buildings on fire, and buildings that have experienced a pancake collapse.

You neither came up with a computer simulation to underline your claim or to prove ours wrong.

 

Science doesn't work that way.

It doesn't work your way either. Deliver proof/evidence/sources that eliminate doubt that we need explosives to have a WTC event. Everything else is alike to waving the bible to proof god exists.

 

Does that mean you'd be willing to take a look at some sources or does that mean that you're inclined to try to prove a negative.

If we only had seen some source...all we have is the fact that two towers crashed within 10 seconds.

 

You asked how that can be possible when there should be resistance coming from each floor. I delivered you a whole document about the physics behind such type of collapses, it dealt with the timings, the forces, the whole mechanics behind it. It shows very well that the whole process doesn't need explosives.

 

So far you came up with nothing but "you're wrong", which carries not much substance for any argument. You have not even tried to point out WHY you think I'm wrong.

 

So, I'd say you should give us some hard core evidence that make your claim not only useful but also possible. I'm afraid your video evidence is not enough here. We need studies about how buildings (construction type a la WTC) behave when they are demolished using explosive on every floor. We need studies on how these buildings behave when you fly a plane into them.

Give me a reliable source that supports (even mentions?) your claim, and that shows me that the WTC (or a similar building) had not come down at free fall speed without explosives.

 

If you don't then I am afraid all that's coming from you is basically "it only can be this way, every other explanation is wrong/unlikely, don't you see this?"

 

And seriously that does sound like some freaking religious nut.

[The Source]

Building demolition is a precise and very controlled process. Flying 767s into the buildings completely screws up that precise control. Build me a model where you have the buildings wired up for demolition and then simulate a plane flying into them, along with all the other variables on that day such as wind speed and direction, in order to recreate the building's collapses in just the same way, and I might consider such a conspiracy more seriously. Surely that's not too hard for the conspiracy people to do, is it?

:lol:

How big do you want the model?

 

I know for a fact that Santa Claus exists. I have pictures.

:lol:

[Achilles]

You haven't either. Even less, all you have done is proposing some idea, without delivering at least some kind of document that supports your claim that only explosives can bring a building down at free fall speed.

I need to provide evidence for skepticism?

 

You neither came up with a computer simulation to underline your claim or to prove ours wrong.

Burden of proof, Ray. The official story is that the planes and subsequent fires alone caused the buildings to collapse. It's not on me to disprove this story. I have lots of reasons to be skeptical. Thus far I've only focused on the one and no one here has been able to satisfy that.

 

It doesn't work your way either. Deliver proof/evidence/sources that eliminate doubt that we need explosives to have a WTC event. Everything else is alike to waving the bible to proof god exists.

Burden of proof, Ray.

 

If we only had seen some source...all we have is the fact that two towers crashed within 10 seconds.

Yes, we certainly have observed an event. I think the point here is that we're trying to determine what caused it.

 

Arguing that the observation is evidence for your explanation kinda sorta skips over the part where you have to the actual explaining

 

You asked how that can be possible when there should be resistance coming from each floor. I delivered you a whole document about the physics behind such type of collapses, it dealt with the timings, the forces, the whole mechanics behind it. It shows very well that the whole process doesn't need explosives.

No it did not. I'll ask you one more time: did you actually read the document, Ray?

 

P.S. As I already point out above, they authors didn't even accurately represent the collapse

 

So far you came up with nothing but "you're wrong", which carries not much substance for any argument. You have not even tried to point out WHY you think I'm wrong.

You've spent the last several pages trying to argue against the "why" and now you're saying it was never presented. Nicely done.

 

So, I'd say you should give us some hard core evidence that make your claim not only useful but also possible. I'm afraid your video evidence is not enough here. We need studies about how buildings (construction type a la WTC) behave when they are demolished using explosive on every floor. We need studies on how these buildings behave when you fly a plane into them.

Just cause I like saying it: Burden of proof, Ray.

 

Give me a reliable source that supports (even mentions?) your claim, and that shows me that the WTC (or a similar building) had not come down at free fall speed without explosives.

Prove a negative, eh?

 

If you don't then I am afraid all that's coming from you is basically "it only can be this way, every other explanation is wrong/unlikely, don't you see this?"

Please don't hold it against me that I recognize that your sources don't answer the question even if you do not.

 

And seriously that does sound like some freaking religious nut.

Ooo, please don't turn this into a theism/atheism thread, Ray. Jae doesn't like it when people do that.

 

Take care.

[Ray Jones]

I need to provide evidence for skepticism?

And yet you do so eagerly pull out evidence supporting your scepticism in any religious debate I have seen you take part in. Are you trying to have it both ways?

 

 

Burden of proof, Ray. The official story is that the planes and subsequent fires alone caused the buildings to collapse. It's not on me to disprove this story. I have lots of reasons to be skeptical. Thus far I've only focused on the one and no one here has been able to satisfy that.

Reasons, Achilles, reasons.

 

Reasons.

 

You say the official story is wrong because you have reasons?

 

OK then that's great -- because all I have to say then is *you* are wrong because *I* have reasons. What now?

 

 

No it did not. I'll ask you one more time: did you actually read the document, Ray?

Of course I did. What's your point?

 

 

P.S. As I already point out above, they authors didn't even accurately represent the collapse

It's an article from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and presents a scientifically correct established model about the physics behind WTC like collapses. It cites a ton of sources, and deals with a great of questions regarding this process and is made by people (read: engineers) who know much about this entire matter in particular.

 

So as long as you don't specify what about it is wrong, and, more important, why, ideally supported with some sources, your personal denial of it alone means nothing, nada, rien.

 

 

Please don't hold it against me that I recognize that your sources don't answer the question even if you do not.

Quick to say for someone who has not delivered but one source.

 

 

Ooo, please don't turn this into a theism/atheism thread, Ray. Jae doesn't like it when people do that.

I'm sure the LF staff is able to take care of my actions pretty well, thank you.

 

 

 

Admit it, Achilles, you have nothing to support your claim. You have delivered no single source about the physics of collapses of building controlled or uncontrolled, or about how the model I presented is wrong, or about how to make a "cross wiring" plane proof. Instead you now go and say the burden of proof is on me. It is not, because at least it is on you to prove that a you can demolish a building at free fall speed using explosives, which you did not until now. And until you can make at least this plausible, your argumentation has the consistence of wet toast at best and you know this, otherwise you would not weasel around providing sources or evidence like you do.

[Achilles]

If nothing else, we've been able to establish that when you say you're finished, you don't really mean it.

And yet you do so eagerly pull out evidence supporting your scepticism in any religious debate I have seen you take part in. Are you trying to have it both ways?

Not at all, Ray. As I've pointed out repeatedly, no source has been able to explain how the buildings were able to collapse at nearly free fall speed. I am skeptical of the "official story" because it has yet to put forth a working hypothesis for how this could happen.

 

At this point, sir, it seems that you're arguing in circles.

 

Reasons, Achilles, reasons.

 

Reasons.

 

You say the official story is wrong because you have reasons?

Indeed. I think the "official story's" inability to provide a working explanation for what happened a pretty good reason for doubting it.

 

OK then that's great -- because all I have to say then is *you* are wrong because *I* have reasons. What now?

I suppose we could evaluate each others reasons. I suppose we could look at the evidence and have a discussion about the basis for each others reasons.

 

Is there some cause for impasse that I am not aware of?

 

Of course I did. What's your point?

Because you seem rather unfamiliar with what it says as evidenced by the fact that it's models don't match yours. So as I stated several posts ago, either you are mistaken or your source is. Which is it?

 

(hint: this question is not rhetorical).

 

It's an article from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and presents a scientifically correct established model about the physics behind WTC like collapses. It cites a ton of sources, and deals with a great of questions regarding this process and is made by people (read: engineers) who know much about this entire matter in particular.

Yet it doesn't match the video (and the pictures you sourced). I guess the video (and the pictures) must be wrong then

 

So as long as you don't specify what about it is wrong, and, more important, why, ideally supported with some sources, your personal denial of it alone means nothing, nada, rien.

Ray, I've repeatedly invited you to watch the footage. Why do you insist on refusing to do so?

 

Quick to say for someone who has not delivered but one source.

One source for what? That the buildings came down at nearly free fall speed? I've repeatedly invited you to watch the videos with a stop watch. I've provided you with freeware tool to help you calculate the rate of free fall. You stated yourself a few posts ago that you didn't argue that the buildings came down in approximately 10 seconds (even though anyone following this thread can clearly see that you spent several days doing precisely that).

 

You'll have to do better, sir.

 

I'm sure the LF staff is able to take care of my actions pretty well, thank you.

Just pointing out that Mama Jae no likey.

 

Admit it, Achilles, you have nothing to support your claim. You have delivered no single source about the physics of collapses of building controlled or uncontrolled, or about how the model I presented is wrong, or about how to make a "cross wiring" plane proof. Instead you now go and say the burden of proof is on me. It is not, because at least it is on you to prove that a you can demolish a building at free fall speed using explosives, which you did not until now. And until you can make at least this plausible, your argumentation has the consistence of wet toast at best and you know this, otherwise you would not weasel around providing sources or evidence like you do.

The rules regarding burden of proof haven't changed since my last post, Ray. So long as you continue to support the official story, the burden of proof is on you to support it. I've already provided my reasons for doubting it (which is not the same thing as making a claim). You're free to present as many sources to support your argument as you would like, however until one of them provides a plausible explanation for how the buildings could have come down at nearly free fall speed (and matches the evidence that we do have) I am under no obligation to roll over and accept any of them as gospel.

[Ray Jones]

If nothing else, we've been able to establish that when you say you're finished, you don't really mean it.

I said I am done laying out my points, which is true, since I can't remember extending my argumentation in any way. I can't remember saying I'll stay out of this thread as well. As you might notice this is not so much about the thread's topic but about the way you put your "arguments" regarding it.

 

Be assured, I say it, I mean it.

 

 

Not at all, Ray. As I've pointed out repeatedly, no source has been able to explain how the buildings were able to collapse at nearly free fall speed. I am skeptical of the "official story" because it has yet to put forth a working hypothesis for how this could happen.

Poppycock. You're sceptical of both (religion & WTC) official stories, and while you provide tons of evidence to support one scepticism with no end, you refuse to provide something useful supporting the other. Thus you are trying to have it both ways.

 

 

Indeed. I think the "official story's" inability to provide a working explanation for what happened a pretty good reason for doubting it.

I'd on the other hand say that your "unofficial story's" inability to provide a working explanation for what happened is a good reason to doubt it.

 

 

I suppose we could evaluate each others reasons. I suppose we could look at the evidence and have a discussion about the basis for each others reasons.

 

Is there some cause for impasse that I am not aware of?

Your source/evidence please? To say "just look at the video it takes 10 seconds" is only evidence it took those 10 seconds, a fact we are both clear about already.

 

I already delivered a qualified document giving a plausible, physically correct model that shows involvement of explosives is not necessary for the event as it took place.

 

Yes, yes, we all know, 10 seconds, free fall equivalent, rana, rana, rana. I think we have established that.

 

Maybe you want to provide something that makes it plausible how those 10 seconds and the whole scenery of the incident, and even the free fall analogy inevitably point us towards the use of explosives. And by "providing" I do not mean that you now cant another "if you drop a ball..." or "the video shows..."

 

I want something that stands against the document I linked to, ideally it should once for all render it's content utter nonsense.

 

 

Because you seem rather unfamiliar with what it says as evidenced by the fact that it's models don't match yours. So as I stated several posts ago, either you are mistaken or your source is. Which is it?

What doesn't match? The fact that I put a simplified version of it? Saying they don't match is not enough I'm afraid. Point out what you're having difficulties with to abstract, and I'm more than willing to clarify. However since you continuously refuse to specify what your concerns are I have reasons to doubt there are any incompatibilities/uncertainties and assume you're just trying to cover the fact that you are unable to rebut using foul tactics once more.

 

 

Yet it doesn't match the video (and the pictures you sourced). I guess the video (and the pictures) must be wrong then

Again, what doesn't match? The pictures show clearly that the top part crashed down the way the document describes. Please, don't let this get so silly that I have to gpaint the obvious into those pictures.

 

 

One source for what? That the buildings came down at nearly free fall speed? I've repeatedly invited you to watch the videos with a stop watch. I've provided you with freeware tool to help you calculate the rate of free fall. You stated yourself a few posts ago that you didn't argue that the buildings came down in approximately 10 seconds (even though anyone following this thread can clearly see that you spent several days doing precisely that).

I said more than once and pretty clear what kind of source you'll have to provide. I'm *not* going to repeat this but once more.

 

 

The rules regarding burden of proof haven't changed since my last post, Ray. So long as you continue to support the official story, the burden of proof is on you to support it.

So far, I've have yet to state something like that.

 

If I remember correctly I merely tried to give you some clue about how the WTC could come down in 10 seconds without the use of explosives, nothing else.

 

 

You're free to present as many sources to support your argument as you would like, however until one of them provides a plausible explanation for how the buildings could have come down at nearly free fall speed (and matches the evidence that we do have)

Have you provided a plausible explanation how the only possible explanation is the use of explosives?

No.

 

 

 

 

 

Achilles, due to the fact that you refuse to underline your argumentation with some evidence/source/material so inherently, I reckon you either have no source or are not willing to provide one, burden of proof or any of your silly attempts to weasel out put aside.

 

I mean, that kind of proof coming from your side could have ended this discussion pages ago, and it would be only in your interest, so why bother us with burden of proof crap? That's right - again - you either have no source or are not willing to provide one.

 

Whatever it is, it does not support your argumentation that the only possible explanation for the WTC to collapse in this time frame is the use of explosives, thus all you have offered is your opinion and personal interpretation of facts, which is not enough, as you have stated so often in the countless threads (here and in the Chambers) you participated in.

 

You continuously refuse to give substance to your arguments, and are rather repeating yourself, and, even worse, make me repeat myself over and over again. Furthermore you chose to deny the credibility of my sources, but cannot or are not willing to underline in a constructive manner how you came to that conclusion. Simply saying so is something you would not accept as well (as you have also stated that in the threads you participated in).

 

Furthermore, as long as you do not change your argumentation to something that can actually be worked with I consider your "thesis" of explosives being the only possible explanation for the 10 second time frame of the WTC collapse as refuted and thus untrue.

 

Finally, should you continue to babble about burden of proof, sandbagging others to repeat themselves in every other post or use any other of your questionable strategies (which we all know so well now) with the more than obvious goal *not* to add the necessary substance to your argumentation within the next post, I'll more than happily file a closure request for this thread to Mama Jae as it currently gets more silly every time you post.

[Jae Onasi]

Mama Jae's standard comment on religion: Religious discussions belong in the relevant religion threads. Thanks.

 

Achilles, if you're only arguing that the official report does not answer all the questions, then the burden of proof is on the gov't officials who wrote the report. However, you're also making the allegation that only explosives could bring down the WTC. In that case, you/the conspiracy people do have a burden of proof. Any criminal investigation would require proof of explosives to support that claim. The pile of rubble is still out in whatever dump NYC took it to--finding 40-odd floors' worth of explosive residue (assuming every other floor was wired) shouldn't be too hard if it's true. Speculation and analysis of the video is all well and good, but without the physical forensic evidence, it's still just speculation. If conspiracy folks want the explosive theory taken seriously, finding significant amounts of that residue would be the best and most damning evidence. They haven't been able to do that in almost 7 years.

[KinchyB]

Achilles, Ray...and everyone else I suppose

 

Ummm...isn't this whole thread kind of the point? No stories really have enough evidence to support what took place. You have the "explosions" theory which more accurately would account for the way the buildings fell. Then there is the fire weakening the building theory, however, science seems to contradict this explanation as the fire shouldn't have technically made the buildings fall the way they did.

 

Personally, I think a giant penguin organized the whole thing to try and stop global warming. You can't prove me wrong as maybe the Giant Penguin was working with the terrorists...or maybe...Bin Laden is a Giant Penguin!! Bet no one thought of that now did you?! And, best of, this is a valid theory as no one can prove a giant penguin wasn't involved.

 

Quite honestly...I really don't care how the buildings fell. The simple fact of the matter is that they did, whether it's by plane or maybe a deeper plot by terrorists than anyone is willing to admit...Who knows...but the end result is the same. Over 3000 people lost their lives and in some strange way this got wrapped up into thousands more people losing their lives in Iraq. It's an unfortunate tragedy and that's how it will be remembered.

 

P.S. - My last post was more of a question than a statement, so if anyone has a link to a better video of the event, it would be appreciated. Thx!

[Achilles]

Poppycock. You're sceptical of both (religion & WTC) official stories,

Correction: I'm skeptical of all the hypothesis, as none of them have the complete story. There are some aspects of the various explanations that deserve more skepticism than others.

 

and while you provide tons of evidence to support one scepticism with no end, you refuse to provide something useful supporting the other. Thus you are trying to have it both ways.

Huh? Is the former comment a reference to religion? I've provided "evidence"? Or do you mean to say I've presented arguments?

 

Because I will contend that I've been pretty consistent with the latter.

 

I'd on the other hand say that your "unofficial story's" inability to provide a working explanation for what happened is a good reason to doubt it.

Burden of proof, Ray.

 

Your source/evidence please? To say "just look at the video it takes 10 seconds" is only evidence it took those 10 seconds, a fact we are both clear about already.

Okay, so we both agree that the building came down at nearly free fall speed. Now let's have a discussion as to why/how this happened.

 

I'm assuming that you're going to want to go with the progressive collapse story, however I'm going to point out that progressive collapse should have taken significantly longer than ~10 seconds because progressive collapse would imply that parts of the building would have encountered resistance from the floors below as they fell. The fact that they fell at nearly free fall speed means that there was no resistance (the alternate theory, which you're welcome to present evience for, is that resistance was present and that the various building parts were therefore propelled downwards, thereby making up the "lost time").

 

I already delivered a qualified document giving a plausible, physically correct model that shows involvement of explosives is not necessary for the event as it took place.

No you didn't, Ray. The document you provided explained a collapse scenario that doesn't match any of the video evidence or the pictures you yourself posted. You've already asserted that you read the document (after I asked twice), so now I'm left to wonder if you understood what it said.

 

Yes, yes, we all know, 10 seconds, free fall equivalent, rana, rana, rana. I think we have established that.

Thank goodness for that.

 

Maybe you want to provide something that makes it plausible how those 10 seconds and the whole scenery of the incident, and even the free fall analogy inevitably point us towards the use of explosives. And by "providing" I do not mean that you now cant another "if you drop a ball..." or "the video shows..."

Ray, it's physics man. I thought we were past the point that you wanted to debate physics.

 

Nearly free fall is nearly free fall.

 

I want something that stands against the document I linked to, ideally it should once for all render it's content utter nonsense.

How about the fact that the collapse hypothesis it suggests doesn't match the video or photographic evidence.

 

Going back to your MS Paint scenario, it suggests that "Collapse B" happened last. You suggest that "Collapse B" happen simultaneously (which made me ask if you read the document). The video evidence show that "Collapse B" happened first (which made me ask why you're arguing something you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about).

 

Therefore the document that you provided is garbage because it tries to explain a collapse that didn't happen. That means it's not useful.

 

What doesn't match? The fact that I put a simplified version of it? Saying they don't match is not enough I'm afraid. Point out what you're having difficulties with to abstract, and I'm more than willing to clarify. However since you continuously refuse to specify what your concerns are I have reasons to doubt there are any incompatibilities/uncertainties and assume you're just trying to cover the fact that you are unable to rebut using foul tactics once more.

The fact that you and your source provide differing collapse scenarios. Generally, when things aren't the same, we consider them to be different or we say that they "don't match". I hope that helps.

 

Again, what doesn't match? The pictures show clearly that the top part crashed down the way the document describes. Please, don't let this get so silly that I have to gpaint the obvious into those pictures.

No, it doesn't. I now have no choice other than to believe that your previous assertion that you read the document is not true.

 

I said more than once and pretty clear what kind of source you'll have to provide. I'm *not* going to repeat this but once more.

Good news is that you don't have to repeat it at all

 

So far, I've have yet to state something like that.

 

All those links and posts weren't yours, huh? Someone else posting from your account? You should have someone look into that for you.

 

If I remember correctly I merely tried to give you some clue about how the WTC could come down in 10 seconds without the use of explosives, nothing else.

Let me know when you get around to doing so.

 

Have you provided a plausible explanation how the only possible explanation is the use of explosives?

No.

Burden of proof, Ray.

 

 

Achilles, due to the fact that you refuse to underline your argumentation with some evidence/source/material so inherently, I reckon you either have no source or are not willing to provide one, burden of proof or any of your silly attempts to weasel out put aside.

Burden of proof requires a claim, Ray. Skepticism isn't a claim (as I've pointed out about three times now).

 

I mean, that kind of proof coming from your side could have ended this discussion pages ago, and it would be only in your interest, so why bother us with burden of proof crap? That's right - again - you either have no source or are not willing to provide one.

Proof/source for what? That the buildings came down a nearly free fall speed? You keep saying that you aren't contesting this, but then you turn around and bring it up again.

 

Whatever it is, it does not support your argumentation that the only possible explanation for the WTC to collapse in this time frame is the use of explosives, thus all you have offered is your opinion and personal interpretation of facts, which is not enough, as you have stated so often in the countless threads (here and in the Chambers) you participated in.

What I've offered, Ray, is my skepticism of the "offical story" on the basis that it doesn't match reality. This is the same "argumentation" that I've used here and in the Chambers. Perhaps it isn't me that's being inconsistent in their reasoning.

 

You continuously refuse to give substance to your arguments, and are rather repeating yourself, and, even worse, make me repeat myself over and over again. Furthermore you chose to deny the credibility of my sources, but cannot or are not willing to underline in a constructive manner how you came to that conclusion. Simply saying so is something you would not accept as well (as you have also stated that in the threads you participated in).

My apologies for assuming that you actually read the source you provided. I attempted several times to verify this with you, however you ignored my first few tries. Now that it is obvious that you did not, I understand your confusion. I've offered my explanation above. I hope that you find it helpful.

 

Furthermore, as long as you do not change your argumentation to something that can actually be worked with I consider your "thesis" of explosives being the only possible explanation for the 10 second time frame of the WTC collapse as refuted and thus untrue.

Please direct me to the post where I asserted this.

(anyone offering odds that this part of my post is ignored in subsequent responses?)

 

Finally, should you continue to babble about burden of proof, sandbagging others to repeat themselves in every other post or use any other of your questionable strategies (which we all know so well now) with the more than obvious goal *not* to add the necessary substance to your argumentation within the next post, I'll more than happily file a closure request for this thread to Mama Jae as it currently gets more silly every time you post.

I'm sorry you feel as though you're being sandbagged, Ray. Having participated in many debates in which you actually took the time to understand the subject matter first, I'm sure that you're aware that people that get "sandbagged" generally do it to themselves a vast majority of the time.

 

As far as the rest goes, feel free to do whatever you feel you have to.

 

"If you can't beat 'em, get the thread closed"

 

Achilles, if you're only arguing that the official report does not answer all the questions, then the burden of proof is on the gov't officials who wrote the report.

Correct, or anyone offering that claim as an explanation.

 

However, you're also making the allegation that only explosives could bring down the WTC.

Really? Where?

 

I certainly do think that the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction, however without the complete story, a better understanding of chemistry, and/or a certification in demolitions, I certainly wouldn't try to argue that position as my own.

 

In that case, you/the conspiracy people do have a burden of proof.

Indeed, the people putting forth specific claims certainly do have the burden of proof. "Official story" skeptics are under no such obligation though.

 

Any criminal investigation would require proof of explosives to support that claim.

Indeed. And once evidence that supports that claim was provided, then party defending the official story would be responsible for counter-arguing the claim or accepting it (assuming that the evidence was reasonably persuasive).

 

I'd be more than happy to discuss what evidence is available, however it seems as though the discussion is still stuck on this first point. There is nothing to be gained by introducing other parts of the argument until this one has been resolved.

 

The pile of rubble is still out in whatever dump NYC took it to--

You mean "China"? That's where we shipped the steel to...for recycling. FEMA hung on to about 200 beams for their examination, and it just so happens that some people argue that they have explosive residue on them.

 

finding 40-odd floors' worth of explosive residue (assuming every other floor was wired) shouldn't be too hard if it's true.

Indeed and are you quite certain that none was found?

 

Speculation and analysis of the video is all well and good, but without the physical forensic evidence, it's still just speculation.

 

If conspiracy folks want the explosive theory taken seriously, finding significant amounts of that residue would be the best and most damning evidence. They haven't been able to do that in almost 7 years.

Again, are you quite certain of this?

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Quite honestly...I really don't care how the buildings fell.

I disagree. I think how (why?) they fell is incredibly important.

 

If it was the result of a fire, then we have a major public safety issue on our hands that has been known about and ignored for the past (almost) 7 years.

 

If it was the result of explosives then we need to investigate how they got there and bring the people responsible to justice. If those people are from within our own government, then I think that's indicative of a much bigger problem.