|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
What I am calling attention to is the fact that there isnt an official hypothesis for the events that occured after initiation of collapse. those events are very curious for many reasons. i've repeated those reasons throughout this post. the collapse pattern after initial collapse resembles contoled demolition. There is strong evidence that supports it. I've provided the evidence and professional opinion and testimony. It can't be blanketed. |
Meaning that the controlled aspect of the demolition had to be timed exactly with the natural collapse of the towers? Why go to the trouble of totally demolishing the towers after you've already hit them with planes? (assuming the same group was responsible for both).
I've briefly scanned your posts and haven't seen any links to a reputable journal. What peer-reviewed article(s) support the controlled demolition theory? |
If I support demolition for the collapse of WTC after inititation, then i obviously support demolition for the collapse cause. geez
what i meant was, the NIST theory for collapse is plausible within the data vales they put into the computer models they used but that is where it ends. what about the other 10-14 seconds?
It would serve the truth movement no value to lie about evidence on their wesites. ae911truth.org and the bunch. popular mechnics takes their hypothesis seriously enough to write a book trying to debunk it. isn't that good enough? So i consider the observations on these websites valuable. Proffesors and proffesionals wrote all papers...engineers/architects/etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
hey Huff
I couldnt find any good sources for the sheetrock. I have a general idea but no basis to comment fully.
Can you gimme a link?
Also, was sheetrock present in WTC7??? That may work as a control subject....pesky little WTC7 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
hey Huff
I couldnt find any good sources for the sheetrock. I have a general idea but no basis to comment fully.
Can you gimme a link?
Also, was sheetrock present in WTC7??? That may work as a control subject....pesky little WTC7 |
Read the discussion here:
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-58851.html
Also mentioned here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
| Quote: |
| Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
If I support demolition for the collapse of WTC after inititation, then i obviously support demolition for the collapse cause. geez |
So why the differentiation? You seem to be making the events even more complicated. Instead of just flying one place into one tower, we now have four planes, three towers, and the Pentagon involved. The FAA, NORAD, and demolition crews are also involved. Now we've got two separate demolition mechanisms that must not only be installed, but they need to survive the initial plane strike and resulting fires, as well as still be activated with precision timing.
I don't see it. Too many variables, too many cards stacked too high. A operation of this size would either require a super genius mastermind or a complete idiot with amazing luck.
| Quote: |
| It would serve the truth movement no value to lie about evidence on their wesites. ae911truth.org and the bunch. |
Every truther web site I've read consistently repeats misinformation.
| Quote: |
| popular mechnics takes their hypothesis seriously enough to write a book trying to debunk it. isn't that good enough? |
No. Popular != scientific.
| Quote: |
| So i consider the observations on these websites valuable. Proffesors and proffesionals wrote all papers...engineers/architects/etc. |
None of the articles I see on 911research are attributed. Most (it looks like all, but maybe there are a few exceptions) of the engineers on ae911truth.org are engineers who deal with things like residential, sewers, irrigation, and network (?!) engineering. Architects don't deal with structural capabilities.
Almost every article I've seen merely regurgitates the assertions and assumptions of other like minded articles. There is not real scientific discovery or method involved. No testing and no analysis.
Without peer review, their articles are pretty much unacceptable in a scientific discussion. An unbiased person needs to review the math and validate the basic assumptions presented. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
If I support demolition for the collapse of WTC after inititation, then i obviously support demolition for the collapse cause. geez |
So why the differentiation? You seem to be making the events even more complicated. Instead of just flying one place into one tower, we now have four planes, three towers, and the Pentagon involved. The FAA, NORAD, and demolition crews are also involved. Now we've got two separate demolition mechanisms that must not only be installed, but they need to survive the initial plane strike and resulting fires, as well as still be activated with precision timing.
I don't see it. Too many variables, too many cards stacked too high. A operation of this size would either require a super genius mastermind or a complete idiot with amazing luck.
| Quote: |
| It would serve the truth movement no value to lie about evidence on their wesites. ae911truth.org and the bunch. |
Every truther web site I've read consistently repeats misinformation.
| Quote: |
| popular mechnics takes their hypothesis seriously enough to write a book trying to debunk it. isn't that good enough? |
No. Popular != scientific.
| Quote: |
| So i consider the observations on these websites valuable. Proffesors and proffesionals wrote all papers...engineers/architects/etc. |
None of the articles I see on 911research are attributed. Most (it looks like all, but maybe there are a few exceptions) of the engineers on ae911truth.org are engineers who deal with things like residential, sewers, irrigation, and network (?!) engineering. Architects don't deal with structural capabilities.
Almost every article I've seen merely regurgitates the assertions and assumptions of other like minded articles. There is not real scientific discovery or method involved. No testing and no analysis.
Without peer review, their articles are pretty much unacceptable in a scientific discussion. An unbiased person needs to review the math and validate the basic assumptions presented. |
I was trying to say exactly that earlier in this thread.
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
If I support demolition for the collapse of WTC after inititation, then i obviously support demolition for the collapse cause. geez |
So why the differentiation? You seem to be making the events even more complicated. Instead of just flying one place into one tower, we now have four planes, three towers, and the Pentagon involved. The FAA, NORAD, and demolition crews are also involved. Now we've got two separate demolition mechanisms that must not only be installed, but they need to survive the initial plane strike and resulting fires, as well as still be activated with precision timing.
I don't see it. Too many variables, too many cards stacked too high. A operation of this size would either require a super genius mastermind or a complete idiot with amazing luck.
| Quote: |
| It would serve the truth movement no value to lie about evidence on their wesites. ae911truth.org and the bunch. |
Every truther web site I've read consistently repeats misinformation.
| Quote: |
| popular mechnics takes their hypothesis seriously enough to write a book trying to debunk it. isn't that good enough? |
No. Popular != scientific.
| Quote: |
| So i consider the observations on these websites valuable. Proffesors and proffesionals wrote all papers...engineers/architects/etc. |
None of the articles I see on 911research are attributed. Most (it looks like all, but maybe there are a few exceptions) of the engineers on ae911truth.org are engineers who deal with things like residential, sewers, irrigation, and network (?!) engineering. Architects don't deal with structural capabilities.
Almost every article I've seen merely regurgitates the assertions and assumptions of other like minded articles. There is not real scientific discovery or method involved. No testing and no analysis.
Without peer review, their articles are pretty much unacceptable in a scientific discussion. An unbiased person needs to review the math and validate the basic assumptions presented. |
I don't see it. Too many variables, too many cards stacked too high. [b]A operation of this size would either require a super genius mastermind or a complete idiot with amazing luck. [/b]
couldn't this be said about anyone trying to do what happened on 9/11?
why doesn't this apply to the luck the 'official story' would need? 4 hijackers with box cuters? 6 years later, no one has been officially charged? 3 totally pulverized buildings. Pentagon hit. One fails. 3000 dead.
are you kidding me? how many questions still remain? too many!
Where is the video showing the plane hitting the pentagon. Release more than 4 frames running at a frame a second.
That would be a huge hit to the truth movement...it would have me reconsider for sure. but they won't release it? why not? national security?
here something i found...scientific observation only.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/Images/IMSBiedermanA2.pdf
analysis of eroded flange beam from WTC7.
How can you dispute that? Or explain it under the official gravity collapse theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
are you kidding me? how many questions still remain? too many!
|
911myths.com
What did they miss? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Huff: oh, and you mention real science needs peer review.
Who peer reviewed FEMA and NIST? Where is REAL science for the official story?
Show me? NIST and FEMA?...those reports are hillarious.
Provide me with a reference to an article from a 'respected' journal that refutes demolition as a theory. And then we can look at its peer review and judge if the science holds up ourselves.
Show me I'm out of my league on this one.
Last edited by loose_ends on Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:13 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
are you kidding me? how many questions still remain? too many!
|
911myths.com
What did they miss? |
There is a book called "Debunking 911 Debunking".
Ever read it? here is a review, notice who reviewed it.
"David Ray Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods. This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations? International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen."-Bill Christison, (former senior official of the CIA.)
here is another.
"Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics."-Paul Craig Roberts, (Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration.)
http://911truthstore.com/911truth/product.php?productid=11279&cat=0&page=1
read the book. make up your own mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| screwloosechange.com will destroy all 9-11 conspiracy theories. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
why doesn't this apply to the luck the 'official story' would need? 4 hijackers with box cuters? 6 years later, no one has been officially charged? 3 totally pulverized buildings. Pentagon hit. One fails. 3000 dead. |
How could they be charged? They're all dead or living in a cave in Afghanistan.
I find 19 crazy Arabs who would give their lives much more credible than believing hundreds, if not thousands, of American citizens were complicit and have remained silent. Luck? Sure. That's why they hijacked four planes. Because they were probably hoping for just one strike. Why would a plan with inside help need to factor in that margin of error? Especially when it exponentially increased the number of people involved. Just get five or six hijackers to grab a plane flying into JFK and send it into Manhattan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
why doesn't this apply to the luck the 'official story' would need? 4 hijackers with box cuters? 6 years later, no one has been officially charged? 3 totally pulverized buildings. Pentagon hit. One fails. 3000 dead. |
How could they be charged? They're all dead or living in a cave in Afghanistan.
I find 19 crazy Arabs who would give their lives much more credible than believing hundreds, if not thousands, of American citizens were complicit and have remained silent. Luck? Sure. That's why they hijacked four planes. Because they were probably hoping for just one strike. Why would a plan with inside help need to factor in that margin of error? Especially when it exponentially increased the number of people involved. Just get five or six hijackers to grab a plane flying into JFK and send it into Manhattan. |
thanks for links, I will check them out soon.
I can't have an arguement about the odds of being able to pull of something this within the government or why it was set up the way it was. I'm not addressing that dialogue for a reason. There are no facts to discuss. It is all speculation. I'm sorry.
will get back to you about your links |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
are you kidding me? how many questions still remain? too many!
|
911myths.com
What did they miss? |
There is a book called "Debunking 911 Debunking".
Ever read it? here is a review, notice who reviewed it.
"David Ray Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods. This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations? International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen."-Bill Christison, (former senior official of the CIA.)
here is another.
"Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics."-Paul Craig Roberts, (Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration.)
http://911truthstore.com/911truth/product.php?productid=11279&cat=0&page=1
read the book. make up your own mind |
The author, David Ray Griffin, is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology.
Anyway, the main points of 'Debunking 911 Debunking' are summarized by someone on Amazon and those queries have been explained satisfactorily for me by the 4 or 5 debunking sites I'm familiar with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
