Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

Thread: Fox News Buisiness host says 9/11 couldn't possibly have been done how we're told

  1. #11
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,941

    Re: Fox News Buisiness host says 9/11 couldn't possibly have been done how we're told

    The relevance of stating that truther sites have also lied or misrepresented data is you can't believe them. This is the stance you have taken against the govt. report by stating it lied.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  2. #12
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Fox News Buisiness host says 9/11 couldn't possibly have been done how we're told

    Quote Originally Posted by usda select View Post
    No need exists, in the real world, for any sort of new investigation.
    Now that is just an absurd statement. Anyone who even bothers looking at all the evidence would have to agree that there are things that merit looking into. It is one thing to say there is no conspiracy, but it is another entirely to suggest the previous investigation resolved everything.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fox News Buisiness host says 9/11 couldn't possibly have been done how we're told

    Quote Originally Posted by 505 View Post
    Seriously, stop with this one. You sound retarded. "The laws of physics changed, wah"... "they're rewriting physics". Trying learning about physics first, then maybe you can grasp something as complex as the WTC collapses.



    So. With that in mind, tell me why a PORTION of the building falling at freefall is "out of the ordinary". What law of physics is being broken and/or rewritten? If the north face is being pulled down by the internals and the south side, it can even EXCEED g. The above video shows how and why.
    I sound retarded and THIS is your explanation why it's ok that the building collapsed within 3% of gravity??

    As for your example : first, nothing fell 'faster then g', that's impossible without an extra force. Second, this example does not have any 'work' being performed (aside from the work of pushing the air out of the way). Third... well, you're getting the idea.

    Again, what is the problem with a PORTION of the building falling at freefall? What?
    This is so simple I'd be embarrassed to pass this off if I had any expertise in physics whatsoever (something I'm not claiming, I claim to have a high school level grasp of physics).

    G - 3% = acceleration of the collapsing structure for 17 floors that could be measured accurately with the film footage (there are angles where that could increase to 25-30 floors, but the video is so shaky that it'd be nearly impossible to measure accurately).

    That was of the building collapsing through itself... in other words work was being performed to pulverize concrete, break support structure, etc.. SO, NIST is telling the world that for a mass to pulverize concrete only uses the energy equivalent of 3% of gravity.

    I can't quantify the energy it takes to pulverize concrete, but I've WATCHED a 1ftX1ftX1ft pile of concrete be pulverized into dust and rocks... and THAT took close to 20 man hours working with a jackhammer.

    Now, since you claim that NIST is correct, do you have ANY video evidence which supports their story?? That the building collapsed from East->West progressively ? (The direction is more arbitrary, the point being from one side to the other progressively).

    Now, how does that fit in with previous examples; like, how come the OKC building didn't collapse completely?? There was collapse of the structure that was damaged, but everything else remained structurally sound (though hardly safe)... and that was a MUCH bigger hole then was broken into the side of the WTC building.

    Finally, this concession ALSO proves that they were previously lying in their analysis ANYWAY because they claimed that the building collapsed within 40% of free-fall (an extra 5 seconds of collapse time)... the way they performed this was PROVEN to be that NIST had used an ARTIFICIAL collapse start time in order to get the 40% resistance.

    End of story, they have lied, it doesn't matter which angle you take... they either lied about the length of the collapse, the acceleration rate of collapse, or they just lied by creating a computer simulation that was based on the desired results rather then any actual scientific investigation...

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Fox News Buisiness host says 9/11 couldn't possibly have been done how we're told

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    The relevance of stating that truther sites have also lied or misrepresented data is you can't believe them. This is the stance you have taken against the govt. report by stating it lied.
    I'm not talking about ANY truther sites... I was talking about the concession that was forced on NIST by 'truthers'. So, it doesn't matter any more how many hookers a truther might have hired, NIST conceded the flaw in their analysis WITHOUT discussing the implications of that concession.

    It's like someone poisons your dog and the dog dies, then to get a person who denied poisoning the dog to say 'ok, fine I poisoned your dog, but I still had nothing to do with the dog dieing.' COME ON.

    Let's push this a step further : Why do you find it acceptable that NIST is being shown to be corrupt, YET it is completely unacceptable for a true expert in a relevant field to point out that corruption without being blanket slander because someone else that's pointed it out before once punched a hooker??

    (The statements about hooker hiring / punching is to demonstrate the ad hom and not a statement in support of hiring or violence against hookers)

  5. #15
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,941

    Re: Fox News Buisiness host says 9/11 couldn't possibly have been done how we're told

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    I'm not talking about ANY truther sites... I was talking about the concession that was forced on NIST by 'truthers'. So, it doesn't matter any more how many hookers a truther might have hired, NIST conceded the flaw in their analysis WITHOUT discussing the implications of that concession.

    It's like someone poisons your dog and the dog dies, then to get a person who denied poisoning the dog to say 'ok, fine I poisoned your dog, but I still had nothing to do with the dog dieing.' COME ON.

    Let's push this a step further : Why do you find it acceptable that NIST is being shown to be corrupt, YET it is completely unacceptable for a true expert in a relevant field to point out that corruption without being blanket slander because someone else that's pointed it out before once punched a hooker??

    (The statements about hooker hiring / punching is to demonstrate the ad hom and not a statement in support of hiring or violence against hookers)
    A better comparison, imo, is the police find a dead body with a gunshot wound and a knife wound. Original findings was the gs wound was fatal. Later it was decided that the knife wound was the fatal blow. Either way the person was dead.

    BM, I like your thoughts, but if I was to wager, you have never ever investigated a major accident. If you had you would not go down some of the thought trails that you do. I read some of your points, yet the are so minor in the final outcome. Until proven otherwise, Jets hit building, building burned, building collapsed, people died. end of story.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: Fox News Buisiness host says 9/11 couldn't possibly have been done how we're told

    Quote Originally Posted by MissLToe View Post
    I cannot believe how much energy 9/11 Truthers put into this conspiracy theory. Waste of time.
    unlike the rest of us, they have little to fulfill their lives, give them purpose and meaning... so they latch onto crap like this. Sad really.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 08:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    930

    Re: Fox News Buisiness host says 9/11 couldn't possibly have been done how we're told

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Now that is just an absurd statement. Anyone who even bothers looking at all the evidence would have to agree that there are things that merit looking into. It is one thing to say there is no conspiracy, but it is another entirely to suggest the previous investigation resolved everything.
    What should have been written above:

    Now that is just an absurd statement. Anyone who even bothers looking at all the opinions and believes them would have to agree that there are things that merit looking into. It is one thing to say there is no conspiracy, but it is another entirely to suggest the previous investigation resolved everything.
    100% of all that is rendered by truthers are opinions

  8. #18
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Fox News Buisiness host says 9/11 couldn't possibly have been done how we're told

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    Until proven otherwise, Jets hit building, building burned, building collapsed, people died. end of story.
    Except the story does not begin with the jets hitting the building. You should seriously look into the background of Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Midhar, especially look at the circumstances of their activities in the U.S. This involves some of those facts that demand further investigation.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  9. #19
    Professor
    I_Gaze_At_The_Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bonnie Scotland !!!
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 06:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,078

    Re: Fox News Buisiness host says 9/11 couldn't possibly have been done how we're told

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    No, what is fact is that NIST finally conceded that for 17 floors the WTC building fell AT freefall speeds (within 3%).
    What complete and utter guff B'man ... this whole thing comes about from Chandler and truther sites claiming (falsely as it happens) that they "forced" NIST into conceding this information.

    But the simple REALITY is that NIST had ALREADY put that infomation out ... Chandler and truther promotors are outright LYING when they say they were the authors of that ... and because, once AGAIN, you automatically believe their claims you take it as gospel and do not check up first.

    For if you did check up B'man ... it is easy to see that NIST had already made mention of this freefall period in even the DRAFT version of NCSTAR 1-9 published in AUGUST 2006 inviting public comment.

    Draft Report NIST NCSTAR 1-9: “Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7”, issued August 21st 2006 ... NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 Chapter 12.5.3 ... to be exact ...

    •In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the North face, as seen in Figure 12-62. By 1.75 s, the North face had descended approximately 7 ft.

    In Stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75 s and t=4.0 s.

    •In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the North face encountered resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the Northwest corner fell an additional 130 ft.


    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...%20Vol%202.pdf

    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_News_Briefing_082008.pdf

    Chandler brought up this point during the PRESS CONFERENCE which was AFTER publication of the DRAFT, a draft report which took years to collate, so this information was ALREADY at NIST's hand and being looked into ... yet Chandler first spoke of it on August 28th during the press conference ... a full SEVEN DAYS later !!!

    Have you ever realized that Chandler was ONLY responding to information ALREADY out there ... and that he is outright lying when he says he forced them to admit it ... it is shown in his OWN words when he made reference to the draft itself !!!

    But please, do feel free B'man to show how it is possible to "conceed" information already in existance ... show exactly how Chandler forced them to conceed information already published to the public ???

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    They did not concede the implications of that fact, which was EITHER, their models were WRONG, or the laws of physics somehow changed.
    What implications B'man ... now I know that you run away from such specifics all the time ... use science B'man for this is ABOUT science and, as such, waffling esoteric about stuff does not answer specifics ... science deals with facts and calculations ... so show them.

    You've got your great "expert" high school teacher, the erstwhile Chandler, whom should have made it easy for you ... so how about explaining EXACTLY what implications there supposedly were and how YOU take from that the NIST models are wrong or that laws changed.

    Do you just automatically believe "because" it is truther claims or have you genuinely examined them in detail and with at least a little understanding of the science involved ...

    Somehow I suspect the former !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    End of story.
    For Chandler ... yes !!!

    Does it not strike you that this man (in common with all twoofies) has such compelling and damning "evidence" and yet does NOTHING with it except whine on the internet ???

    Surely such important information SHOULD be presented firstly to legitimate scientific scrutiny first ... outside the US to guarantee impartiality would be a good first step ... so WHY has he NOT done than ???

    Surely such important information SHOULD be used in lawsuits and such like instead of endlessly just paraded across multiple YooToob accounts doing nothing real but massaging the self-congratulatory egos of truthers ???

    This is something else you entirely dodge B'man the WHYS of how your movement is doing NOTHING about all its information and "evidence" ... YooToob, blogs and forums ... how exactly is that progressing what you ultimately want, which is Bush & Co's heads on plates ???

    What does endless internet bleating actually achieve at the end of the day ... even just personally B'man you have spent years passionately arguing this here and what have you achieved ... has ANYBODY ever been persuaded by your arguments ... are you (personally and as a movement) ANY closer to what you want ???

    The answer is NO !!!

    So do you still not think that as a movement it would serve you better to get more real than internet whining ... it hasn't actually got you very far after all ... so would appealing to more authorative people not be a better strategy ... would actually, instead of you whining here, would it not serve your cause more to contact them and try to get a more professional, more co-ordinated impetus going ... would you not be doing something more real and worthy by contacting the various disparate little groups and getting them organized to get REAL scientific backing for all their sciency claims ???

    If this is such an important cause for you why are you wasting time and effort trying to convince people you never will be able to ... ever ... of the veracity of your claims ???

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    NIST lied.
    Where ???

    Please point out these "lie"s then ... pages and paragraphs ... should be a dawdle since your so adamant ... show these lies or admit you are regurgitating without double-checking what conspiracy sites tell you ???

    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf

    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf

    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf

    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf

    Have you actually read the report proper B'man ... or just the FAQ's bits ???

    Give it a read ... show the moral and intellectual courage to actually FULLY read what you so readily call as wrong ... it's well sourced and referenced, has a thorough table of contents and a logical flow to its organization.

    It'll take you about a week ... it's worth it, and even has a logical explanation of WHY that freefall period occured !!!

    AE911Truth.INFO : Freefall Speed





    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    So, there's NO official explanation except what was pushed in the media, and what fills the debunker websites.
    What official explanation ... just how would you catagorize a 10,000 document full of calculations and mathematics if not as a piece of research ...

    How do you find it so easy to dismiss such a huge investigative report done by over 200 PhD's from across many disciplines ... from far and wide and private and federal companies ... instead preferring amateurs such as Chandler and Gage ???

    Is it just because NIST's report is too difficult so rather than try fully understand it, it is easier to dismiss ???

    Personal ignorance is no grounds for dismisal of information that you clearly cannot make head or tail of ... perhaps B'man the fault lies with yourself for letting personal ignorance deny reality as it preserves ego ???

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    That alone justifies a new investigation.
    Please explain how you falling for false information and errant claims of truthers is a justification for a new investigation ???
    Parva leves capiunt animas !!!

  10. #20
    Mildly Hostile
    505's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    11-20-17 @ 03:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,363

    Re: Fox News Buisiness host says 9/11 couldn't possibly have been done how we're told

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    first, nothing fell 'faster then g', that's impossible without an extra force.
    What? The cup fell faster than the ball... g.

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    G - 3% = acceleration of the collapsing structure for 17 floors that could be measured accurately with the film footage (there are angles where that could increase to 25-30 floors, but the video is so shaky that it'd be nearly impossible to measure accurately).
    8 floors bub. You sure love taking half truths and running with them, don't ya?
    Disclaimer: If you are offended by the above post, and you aren't a SJW or truther, grow a pair.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •