Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

9 / 11 Mysteries
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:00 am Post subject:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

It is also telling that the buildings were pulverized. If it was pancaking, then ground zero should have been floor upon floor layered upon itself, like a plate of pancakes. They would have spilled over onto the surrounding area. Instead, it all fell into a nice little hole at the bottom, thanks to the basement columsn being blown out, and the 110 stories of concrete and steel being pulverized by demolition.

"should have," "would have" - based upon what? Why should the basement levels have supported 100 stories of debris collapsing down upon them?

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:11 am Post subject:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8VMKL1ww

Bulsajo and g a j, leaves you speechless, I bet. close your mouth.

Okay, so let's say it was a controlled demolition of WTC7.

Who ordered it? When did they order it? Why did they order it?
Who rigged the building? When did they rig it?
Are there any witnesses to the rigging? Any actual evidence of explosives besides circumstantial video evidence?

So you're saying that you must have all of these answers to have a valid theory that the buildings were demolited? It's two different things.

Not all, but most. The government has given us their answers to most of these questions. Where are yours?

Quote:

There are many theories about the why. My point from the start of this thread, and in viewing the 911 mysteries video, was that the buildings came down due to demolition, not due to a raging carpet/drapery/silk plant fire. Call me crazy, but I just don't think a potted plant and a persian rug will burn well enough to melt steel.

First, who ever said steel melted? If you don't believe fire can do that kind of damage to steel, then why do you think they insulate steel buildings?

Quote:

In answer to the who, how, and are there witnesses, that is in the 911 mysteries video extensively. The Brit in the vid talks about the power down, and of seeing men coming in with big boxes and cables. Also, of bomb sniffing dogs being removed, and security cameras turned off.

A lot of very speculative evidence that I haven't seen a lot of solid evidence for.

Quote:

There were countless witnesses to bombs going off in all three buildings.

Witnesses you thought they heard bombs going off.

Quote:

The evidence of explosives that is not circumstantial, as you put it, is the temperature of ground zero months after, and the pools of molten metal, which can not be explained by a kerosene fire.

And nobody has explained how thermite would leave pools of molten metal 3 weeks after it was used.

Quote:

Also not circumstantial is the pictures of shaped-charge blown core columns in the basement, which are all perfectly diagonally symetrical.

Which you can prove do not correspond to the original weld seams from when the towers were constructed?

blaseblasphemener

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:23 am Post subject:

huffdaddy wrote:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

"should have," "would have" - based upon what? Why should the basement levels have supported 100 stories of debris collapsing down upon them?

First, if 100 stories of metal fall, they aren't going to fit nicely into a few stories deep hole. That's why demolition teams blow out the basements, as well as to bring down the base first.

Second, they were pulverized into dust. Why? And since they were pulverized, how did they have enough mass to force floor after floor down at an equal speed to an unencumbered object?

blaseblasphemener

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:38 am Post subject:

huffdaddy wrote:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8VMKL1ww

Bulsajo and g a j, leaves you speechless, I bet. close your mouth.

So you're saying that you must have all of these answers to have a valid theory that the buildings were demolited? It's two different things.

Not all, but most. The government has given us their answers to most of these questions. Where are yours?

Really? The government has given us their answers? I got the feeling they didn't even want to investigate it, then they gave us the 911 report, with a whole 40 pages about the how, and they gave us the NIST report, after 5 years, and they still haven't released the WTC7 report. Did you see the quote from NIST along the lines of how he couldn't figure out why people wanted to know how the building came down?

Quote:

First, who ever said steel melted? If you don't believe fire can do that kind of damage to steel, then why do you think they insulate steel buildings?

I said a ten minute fire, then a fire of office rugs, couldn't be enough. You can see people standing in the building were the plane entered, if you want to see evidence of no fire. They say it spread, but I don't believe a fire of office furniture would be hotter than a kerosene explosion of jet fuel.

Quote:

A lot of very speculative evidence that I haven't seen a lot of solid evidence for.
I haven't seen any rebuttals of these assertions. I would welcome hearing if there are any, to the power down, to the security camera claims, and to the bomb-sniffing dogs being pulled.

Quote:

There were countless witnesses to bombs going off in all three buildings.

Witnesses you thought they heard bombs going off.

Dude, we're talking about dozens of people in the buildings who saw it, heard it, and felt it. From what I've read, some people want to attribute it to things exploding in the buildings, from the fire. Believe what you will. Sounds highly, highly improbable that that many explosions were a coincidence. Not to mention witnesses reporting flashes coming from the building, a sign of charges.

Quote:

The evidence of explosives that is not circumstantial, as you put it, is the temperature of ground zero months after, and the pools of molten metal, which can not be explained by a kerosene fire.

And nobody has explained how thermite would leave pools of molten metal 3 weeks after it was used.

but it still doesn't explain all that molten metal.

Quote:

Also not circumstantial is the pictures of shaped-charge blown core columns in the basement, which are all perfectly diagonally symetrical.

Which you can prove do not correspond to the original weld seams from when the towers were constructed?

I'm taking what the demo guys say in the 911 mysteries video. They show it being down, how it is done, and then they show ground zero. identical.

blaseblasphemener

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:43 am Post subject:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8VMKL1ww

Bulsajo and g a j, leaves you speechless, I bet. close your mouth.

So you're saying that you must have all of these answers to have a valid theory that the buildings were demolited? It's two different things.

Not all, but most. The government has given us their answers to most of these questions. Where are yours?

Quote:

Really? The government has given us their answers? I got the feeling they didn't even want to investigate it, then they gave us the 911 report, with a whole 40 pages about the how, and they gave us the NIST report, after 5 years, and they still haven't released the WTC7 report. Did you see the quote from NIST along the lines of how he couldn't figure out why people wanted to know how the building came down?

Quote:

There were countless witnesses to bombs going off in all three buildings.

Quote:

The evidence of explosives that is not circumstantial, as you put it, is the temperature of ground zero months after, and the pools of molten metal, which can not be explained by a kerosene fire.

And nobody has explained how thermite would leave pools of molten metal 3 weeks after it was used.

but it still doesn't explain all that molten metal.

Quote:

Also not circumstantial is the pictures of shaped-charge blown core columns in the basement, which are all perfectly diagonally symetrical.

Which you can prove do not correspond to the original weld seams from when the towers were constructed?

I'm taking what the demo guys say in the 911 mysteries video. They show it being down, how it is done, and then they show ground zero. identical.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:51 am Post subject:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

"should have," "would have" - based upon what? Why should the basement levels have supported 100 stories of debris collapsing down upon them?

Ignoring your simplified mischaracterizations for now, what should the resulting damage have been? If the results don't fit your expectations, then there are two possibilities. One, the sequence of events is different than in your model. Or two, your model is wrong. You focus on the former. Have you considered the possibility of the latter?

blaseblasphemener

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:52 am Post subject:

huffdaddy wrote:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

"should have," "would have" - based upon what? Why should the basement levels have supported 100 stories of debris collapsing down upon them?

Of course, how could I not consider I'm wrong. I watched the buildings fall. I didn't even know there was a conspiracy theory until years later. Most people didn't.

But now, I've seen pictures of demo buildings and pancaked buildings. pancaked buildings stack. the floors fall one on top of another, like a deck of cards. when they get to the bottom, they pile up. In a demo, so this doesn't happen, they blow out the basement, they blow the columns, and they blow the floors. big difference.

Now, are you telling me that you honestly believe that ground zero 1,2, 7 look like a pancake collapse? Or, does it look like a bomb went off? I think that the answer to that question is obvious. Also, do you think the way the builidings fell looked like pancaking, or a demo? Oh, but the "experts" say it wasn't. Ok, so then I should take these questionable experts over my own common sense, and what my eyes are telling me, and what dozens of eye witnesses are telling me, and what people who have been demoing all their lives say clearly looks like textbook demos of all three buildings.

Now, going beyond that, look at the unanswered questions. I know that doesn't satisfy you or the debunkers, so that is the where we butt heads.

It's like in the book Blink, at the beginning of the book, they tell the story of a statue the Getty Museum bought for 10 million dollars. It supposedly came from Greece and was 2000 or so years old. It had all the right papers of authenticity. It was scientifically tested and passed with flying colours. But, later, after making the offer to purchase it, they showed it to the experts, immediately it was met with aversion. They said it just didn't "look right". Some said it looked too clean. Others said the fingernails weren't right. One expert in New York said he always took note of the first word to pop into his head when he first looked at a piece of art. The word for this old statue dug out of the ground was "fresh". This got the Getty people understandably very worried. As it turned out, the house of cards did fall. There was a bogus postal code on a letter of authenticity. Further tests proved the statue was bogus. But, if the Getty had just asked a few other experts first, their gut reactions were immediately "this is not right".

See, to me, it's like when they have a trial, and the defense gets an expert witness, and the prosecutor gets an expert witness. You can get the right expert to prove what you need to prove. You can ask only certain questions. It can be done, we all know this.

Well, I'll stick with my gut on this one, huffdaddy, even if there are many "experts" who want to say otherwise. It ain't unanimous, and there are many, many things that don't jive with the official story. And, even if Bush wasn't involved in it, which personally, I don't think he was, he's too dumb. Cheney, probably. Bush Sr. maybe. Who knows? They all benefitted incredibly, including the Bin Ladin Family, with the Carlyle Group. We know that Bush was not at all interested in capturing those responsible. He asked about Iraq, not Al Queda, on Sept. 12. What the hell? The worst foreign attack on your country ever, 3000 people die, and the next day your thinking about how to link this to Iraq? They ignored the intelligence on this. They let this happen. And, elements of the American military complex helped the bombers do it. Hell, bin laden could still be on the payroll of the CIA. He's been the best thing to happen to the U.S. military complex since the Cold War. And Bush just let him go. Gave him a two month head start. Sent over a whopping 11,000 troops to find him. Then said he didn't think about catching Bin Laden, not on his mind as he said.

Believe what you will huff daddy. I'll believe my gut on this one.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:28 am Post subject:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

You asked me to provide an expert, and I did. You were a pompous arse for 12 pages, so I gloated a bit. Take it like a man.

Hey, I'm still a pompous arse and you've gotten no further in your investigation than when this thread started 14 pages ago- you're still a fool.

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:46 am Post subject:

Quote:

I think it's funny to watch the Dutch demo expert. His reaction is priceless. Of course it's a demolition, what else could it be? textbook. If you're not convinced by that, or don't at least say to yourself that his reaction is noteworthy, than that surprises me, alot.

You're convinced by that pathetic video because you're a soft-headed conspiracy theorist. Like you said, you're thinking with your gut, not your head. Your standards for evidence that supports what you 'feel' is right are almost non-existant, while you refuse to accept anything that contradicts your point of view. Case in point. You describe a reaction shot of an anonymous Dutch engineer's reaction to a short video as convincing, but what are the odds that you will dismiss this peer reviewed paper without even reading it?

A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

blaseblasphemener wrote:

I listed that link in response to bulsajo's request for an expert that said the towers fell due to demolition. The Swiss professors met bulsajo's request. I didn't post that link for the other experts, judge them as you may.

WTF? So why did you include all the other links? In case you forgot, this is what you posted:

blaseblasphemer wrote:

� Two structural engineers at a prestigious Swiss university said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
� A Dutch demolition expert stated that WTC 7 was imploded
� A U.S. professor of physics stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition
� A U.S. professor of mechanical engineering argued that the trade centers were brought down with explosives
� Several U.S. structural engineers, such as this one (second interview), have concluded that the collapse of the Trade Centers on 9/11 cannot be explained by the plane crashes and fires in the buildings
� An expert on why buildings collapse said controlled demolitions make buildings fall straight down (as opposed to falling over like a tree, which is what normally happens when buildings collapse) because the vertical columns are destroyed simultaneously by explosives, and "that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened" on 9/11
� The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition"
� A terrorism security expert used by many news organizations asked, after commenting on the "secondary explosions", "whether in fact there wasn't something else at the base of the towers that in fact were the coup de grace to bring them to the ground" (keep in mind that a controlled demolition involves the use of explosives both at the base of the building and in higher sections of the building)

Very disingenuous, if not dishonest. Just curious - are you also a creationist?

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

But now, I've seen pictures of demo buildings and pancaked buildings. pancaked buildings stack. the floors fall one on top of another, like a deck of cards. when they get to the bottom, they pile up. In a demo, so this doesn't happen, they blow out the basement, they blow the columns, and they blow the floors. big difference.

What pancaked buildings are you comparing the WTCs to? Did they have airplane strikes? Fires? Were they skyscrapers?

Quote:

Also, do you think the way the builidings fell looked like pancaking, or a demo?

I haven't seen very many buildings that collapsed due to structural failure. I have seen a lot of demo jobs on tv. So sure, it looks like a demo job. Because that's the strongest point of reference I have. It also looks a lot like the fallout from the Amsterdam 747 strike.

Quote:

Oh, but the "experts" say it wasn't. Ok, so then I should take these questionable experts over my own common sense, and what my eyes are telling me, and what dozens of eye witnesses are telling me, and what people who have been demoing all their lives say clearly looks like textbook demos of all three buildings.

Yes. Why are they questionable? Are they in on the conspiracy? Are they trying to cover something up? Has their peer-reviewed and published work been shown to be false?

Quote:

Well, I'll stick with my gut on this one, huffdaddy, even if there are many "experts" who want to say otherwise. It ain't unanimous, and there are many, many things that don't jive with the official story.

And there are many, many things that don't jive with the conspiracy theories. One being that there are as many theories as there are theorists. CTs can't even convince themselves of what happened. Instead they choose to dance around with unproven models, incorrect assumptinos, foggy circumstantial evidence, misrepresentations, and innuendo.

No thank you. I'll stick with the scientists on this one.

blaseblasphemener

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject:

gang ah jee wrote:

Quote:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

WTF? So why did you include all the other links? In case you forgot, this is what you posted:

blaseblasphemer wrote:

Very disingenuous, if not dishonest. Just curious - are you also a creationist?

Perhaps that was a bit disingenuous, got a little gleeful and listed the list when I should have listed only the first two, that was unnecessary, but a small mistake.

I'm not a creationist, and interesting you would suggest that, because if I was, it would run counter to the point I made to huffdaddy. Creationism does not make sense, IMO, from a gut sense. It's a story that was made up to convince people. There is no proof. Now, the official story of 911 is like that. It's a story that was made up to persuade people to believe something and act out of fear, anger, etc. It's like people who take everything in the bible literally. If anything you're the creationist. Look at how you ridicule those who don't agree with you. Look at how you don't want the topic discussed (my measure. if you wanted it discussed, you would encourage debate.)

One more thing. you compare this to creationism, I'm assuming because you think all the "experts" you believe say it was a carpet fire and structural failure. But, there is a lot of evidence that says otherwise. If you don't want to acknowledge that, than I think you are being disingenous. Now, if you don't acknowledge there is at least some evidence that points to other possibilities, and that it has not being adequately explained, than you are a like a creationist. You want to stick to the official story, because to question it could be considered an act against the "church".

blaseblasphemener

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject:

one day: still waiting for rebuttal of my questions from the mainstream press story in Popular Mechanics. This is an example of unanswered questions in the official story. Please, debutt away, debutters.

blaseblasphemener

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject:

bulsajo, for the record, I for one was impressed with your eating of some humble pie, even if it was a small slice. It showed a bit of character.

blaseblasphemener

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject:

huff daddy, That Amsterdam flight just looks like a bomb hit it. I don't see why you would cite that crash, don't quite see the relevance to pancaking or collapse of the towers. points to ponder: 1) How does material from the top of the building reach the ground at the rate of free-fall if it must not only crush the intact structure below, but also overcome the inertia ofthe stationary mass of each of the many floors that must be encountered on the waydown? In order for this to happen without slowing down, each of these structuralmasses would have to be INSTANTLY accelerated up to the rate of free-fall - atheoretical impossibility.2) How is it possible for a gravitational collapse to create a blast wave capable ofshattering windows in buildings 400 ft away?3) How is it possible for a gravitational collapse to eject sections of heavy steelperimeter columns to distances of over 500 ft (more than one and a half football fields. ) Why was there no rubble of the type usually found at the site of a collapsedbuilding? One would expect to find chunks of concrete, broken glass, smashed desksand computers, sections of floor slabs, and at least a few trapped occupants with achance for survival. There was nothing but shredded steel and dust. 9) How does a pancaking collapse explain the disappearance of the remains of over1000 bodies? Were they vaporized out of existence? or obliterated into particles toosmall even for DNA analysis? How could this happen?10) How would a gravitational collapse create the intense hot spots detected byNASA's thermal mapping of Ground Zero? And why would these unexplained "fires"continue to burn deep in the rubble for WEEKS in spite of continuous efforts to coolthem down with water? from http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:XVzues-xjEoJ:911research.wtc7.net/materials/contrib/top10.pdf+pancaking&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3

gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper

Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

Perhaps that was a bit disingenuous, got a little gleeful and listed the list when I should have listed only the first two, that was unnecessary, but a small mistake.

Ok, now what you have to do is corroborate that your Swiss engineers actually hold the position that was ascribed to them. A primary source will do. In English or in "Swiss" [sic] will be fine.

blaseblasphemer wrote:

I'm not a creationist, and interesting you would suggest that, because if I was, it would run counter to the point I made to huffdaddy. Creationism does not make sense, IMO, from a gut sense. It's a story that was made up to convince people. There is no proof. Now, the official story of 911 is like that. It's a story that was made up to persuade people to believe something and act out of fear, anger, etc. It's like people who take everything in the bible literally. If anything you're the creationist. Look at how you ridicule those who don't agree with you. Look at how you don't want the topic discussed (my measure. if you wanted it discussed, you would encourage debate.)

One more thing. you compare this to creationism, I'm assuming because you think all the "experts" you believe say it was a carpet fire and structural failure. But, there is a lot of evidence that says otherwise. If you don't want to acknowledge that, than I think you are being disingenous. Now, if you don't acknowledge there is at least some evidence that points to other possibilities, and that it has not being adequately explained, than you are a like a creationist. You want to stick to the official story, because to question it could be considered an act against the "church".

Wrong. Let's look at the commonalities between creationism and 9/11ism.

Lack of credentialed experts. Most proponents of creationism and 9/11ism either have no qualifications in relevant disciplines, or their qualifications are highly dubious. Similarly, their views are rejected by over 99.9% of experts in the relevant fields. Why is this? Because of the atheist/PNAC conspiracy, of course.

Reliance on anomaly sifting. Both creationism and 9/11ism attack the standard model by finding unrelated anamolies that do not fit the predominant theory. These are then used to suggest that this is evidence for the alternative version, and accounts for these anomalies are ignored.

Lack of clear hypotheses. Neither worldview is willing to outline a testable model that can be examined under scientific rules of evidence. Claims are advanced through suggestion and innuendo. Also, the implicatons of claims are ignored (e.g. conspiracy infrastructure).

Reliance on argument from personal incredulity. Whereas creationists claim that they know in their gut that the complexity of life must have been created, 9/11ists know in their gut that two 767s and steel columns from 110 story buildings along with uncontrolled fires can't make other buildings collapse. Scientific explanations to the contrary are ignored and often rejected without even being understood.

Always complaining that debate is not being encouraged while simultaneously being unable to provide the evidence that would allow for serious debate to take place (being able to withstand peer-review is the very low bar for this).

Reliance on quote-mining, misquotation and uncorroborated evidence.

Differential standards for evidence

etc etc.

blaseblasphemer wrote:

one day:

still waiting for rebuttal of my questions from the mainstream press story in Popular Mechanics.

This is an example of unanswered questions in the official story.

Please, debutt away, debutters.

'Debutt'. LOL. Read this, A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint, then repost the questions that you feel haven't been addressed.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16 Next
Page 14 of 16

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe