12 Years Later, Truthers Still Have No Clue

[SanderO]

It has been suggested to numerous posters. It is interesting some take exception to your explanation. Yet, some do not provide any technical rebuttal.

What I may do in the future is start demanding more technical explanations and evidence for controlled demolition. It is interesting that some supporting CD, provide little to support it. What they drop back to is to say a natural collapse is not possible.

IMO, there is more evidence with explanation of a jet/crash/fire/collapse than there is for controlled demolition.

One thing I have found interesting is the dust sampling the USGS to see what was in the dust did not mention any thermite. But to some, guess that would be another govt. cover up.:mrgreen:

The CD argument is one of incredulity.... those who believe CD can't conceive of a collapse without it... that heat could not weaken part of the structure leading to load redistribution and then failure of other parts and then a rapid runaway failure and then collapse. They never ever describe the mechanism of CD and how it would work... which columns or whatever was destroyed by what type of device... When you present a sketch of a natural sequence they call it pseudo science.

There never have been occupied and energized towers that were hit by jumbo jets
Never have there been raging fires which were not fought at all in steel framed towers with open office configs
Never has a tower be built over massive load transfer structures which were build over a main power station and had 30,000 gal of diesel stored on site.

So you have some unusual circumstances and still they refuse to consider that these structures might collapse.

They don't believe it... they refuse to believe what they see... because they don't trust the US government.

 

[mike2810]

The CD argument is one of incredulity.... those who believe CD can't conceive of a collapse without it... that heat could not weaken part of the structure leading to load redistribution and then failure of other parts and then a rapid runaway failure and then collapse. They never ever describe the mechanism of CD and how it would work... which columns or whatever was destroyed by what type of device... When you present a sketch of a natural sequence they call it pseudo science.

There never have been occupied and energized towers that were hit by jumbo jets
Never have there been raging fires which were not fought at all in steel framed towers with open office configs
Never has a tower be built over massive load transfer structures which were build over a main power station and had 30,000 gal of diesel stored on site.

So you have some unusual circumstances and still they refuse to consider that these structures might collapse.

They don't believe it... they refuse to believe what they see... because they don't trust the US government.

and they ignore or dismiss collapse reports not done by the govt.

while no conclusion I found this site interesting and informative. I would guess your aware of it.

An Investigative Resource - Evidence based research

 

[mike2810]

Wonder how the CD folks can explain the WTC7 building movement 2 minutes prior to collapse.

Accurate Collapse History of WTC7 - Evidence based research

 

[Bodi]

Let me get this straight
the statement " total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation "
means NOTHING, is that what you are saying?

You don't have it straight AT ALL... The statement means something. The statement means something to that person and those that want to support it. Their opinion that it was inevitable is their opinion. It is based off of scientific conclusions and could very well be correct. It also does not mean that I have to believe that statement in order to understand that the collapse happened. Get it now?

For all too many people it is a critical bit of data indicating that the "experts"
have spoken on the subject and total collapse was inevitable.

I do NOT believe that total collapse was inevitable and in fact is is a
much lower probability outcome than the damage without complete
destruction of the towers & WTC 7.

So? You are free to your opinion... even one that does not exclude the collapse as probable. Do you even see that in your statement?

 

[Bodi]

If numerology is for crackheads, then it seems the OCT is for those in deep denial of reality.

Don't get me wrong--I don't place much faith in numerology, but I've never really studied it either.

OTOH, I have studied the OCT, and actually believed and defended it for a time, but study and knowledge brought a screeching halt to that nonsensical behavior.

What is OCT?

 

[mike2810]

What is OCT?

Think its stands for Official Collapse Theory.

It will be interesting if any one who supports CD explains the CD of WTC7 since there is evidence the building was moving 2 minutes before it collapsed.

 

[Capster78]

JFK was flying the first plane... Elvis the 2nd, and 2PAC the one that flew into the pentagon..... mystery solved!

Next attack will be committed by Michael Jackson and George Carlin........

 

[SanderO]

and they ignore or dismiss collapse reports not done by the govt.

while no conclusion I found this site interesting and informative. I would guess your aware of it.

An Investigative Resource - Evidence based research

Oh yes I am... others should read this site... it is a wealth of good information.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Unfortunately you only have one head.

If you stacked 90 skulls and dropped the bowling ball on top how many skulls would be crushed?

I already modelled this:

WTC Modeling Instruction & Testing in the Real World - YouTube

The point is that the dropped mass cannot destroy the entire series. Energy is used up crushing the top of the stack and the mass stops. So how could the entire north tower be destroyed?

The people who believe that have accepted INSANE physics. But after 12 years they would look really stupid admitting it. So they need to say that models are irrelevant. But physics will never change or go away.

psik

^^^^
Proof that truthers know nothing about physics.

 

[psikeyhackr]

^^^^
Proof that truthers know nothing about physics.

Talk is so cheap. Show us your model that completely collapsed.

Notice that you didn't even try to explain anything, though you IMPLY something is wrong with what I said.

Freedom from brains must be part of All.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Think its stands for Official Collapse Theory.

It will be interesting if any one who supports CD explains the CD of WTC7 since there is evidence the building was moving 2 minutes before it collapsed.

Official Conspiracy Theory. 19 Arabs directed by Osama is just as much a conspiracy as any other proposed.

psik

 

[Thoreau72]

It has been suggested to numerous posters. It is interesting some take exception to your explanation. Yet, some do not provide any technical rebuttal.

What I may do in the future is start demanding more technical explanations and evidence for controlled demolition. It is interesting that some supporting CD, provide little to support it. What they drop back to is to say a natural collapse is not possible.

IMO, there is more evidence with explanation of a jet/crash/fire/collapse than there is for controlled demolition.

One thing I have found interesting is the dust sampling the USGS to see what was in the dust did not mention any thermite. But to some, guess that would be another govt. cover up.:mrgreen:

Be careful Mike. You might be right about the USGS not discovering thermite, but what they DID discover suggests a nuclear reaction.

Knowledge and information can be a double-edged sword.

 

[Thoreau72]

What is OCT?

Official Conspiracy Theory.

As I mentioned, unless one claims that only one person pulled off the events of the day, a textbook definition conspiracy was executed that day. Planned much earlier, of course, and put into action that day.

So if there was a conspiracy, the only question is just who were the conspirators? 19 arabs with box cutters, or somebody else?

Dictionaries and definitions are most useful in rational public dialogue.

 

[mike2810]

Be careful Mike. You might be right about the USGS not discovering thermite, but what they DID discover suggests a nuclear reaction.

Knowledge and information can be a double-edged sword.

well, I have not seen that.
Care to provide where you heard/read that the USGS analysis was nuclear ?
Help saves my time to look for it and want to see what you saw.

 

[Bodi]

Official Conspiracy Theory.

As I mentioned, unless one claims that only one person pulled off the events of the day, a textbook definition conspiracy was executed that day. Planned much earlier, of course, and put into action that day.

So if there was a conspiracy, the only question is just who were the conspirators? 19 arabs with box cutters, or somebody else?

Dictionaries and definitions are most useful in rational public dialogue.

What about in irrational private dialogue? I would say that either depend on whom you are talking to. And thanks... OCT. My ex has BPD so I thought it might be something like that.

Sure, there was a conspiracy... it was pulled off by Arabs and terrorists elements against the USA.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Talk is so cheap. Show us your model that completely collapsed.

Notice that you didn't even try to explain anything, though you IMPLY something is wrong with what I said.

Freedom from brains must be part of All.

psik

No talk is not cheap (just ask a lawyer or your shrink).

12 years at what is it you guys are doing? You are trying to play king of the truther forum not actually doing anything substantial.

Either you have real evidence or you dont. I dont even have to share the official story we all know where to find it. The burden lays in your lap to present your real evidence. But all that you have is stories told by yourself and other truthers like you. In other words you done have anything at all. Just a bunch of nuts on your side.


mean while year after year goes by while you guys literally do nothing at all but bicker among yourselfs and try to act like you are the keepers of special knowledge (knowledge that apparently like cults and religions depend solely on faith).

In reality this is where you would present your rock solid evidence that doesnt take faith. But you will do other things instead. Probably call me doopted or a shill. Yes thats it am on the governments payroll. (wish I was I would be rich by now) Or you will pull out the ultimate truther insult and accuse me of being sheep and stupid for believing the official story. Or another truther trying to make your theory look bad and the one I like better. Just like how you guys were into that alien theory up until it started making you guys look like nuts, now any mentions of aliens is forbidden. But for the first year it was all the rage along with other nutty stuff like the whole thing was faked, news broadcast the whole deal. I guess it never occurred to you that making the biggest fake operation in history under the watchful eyes of billions of people would be too hard when one could just high jack plans and fly them into buildings. Considering the lousy security (hell its still lousy) in airports it was no big surprise that this happened. Hell our lousy fed intelligence even had big clues but failed to do their jobs.

SO that brings us to the truther fall back position, the government just let it happen. All actual debates with truther end up here them admitting that their only argument could be that the planes and everything played out just how they did. But they cant even produce evidence to back up their fall back position. SO in the end we are back where we started. You all are just sharing fun little pipe dreams. It keeps you busy its a hobby that you enjoy engaging in. You get to feel like your life means something that you are above the average person. ANd its all really benign you guys really are out on the fringe so you dont really actually hurt anyone. You guys are just like trekies. Gather at conventions paying insane amounts of money in a cottage industry making a few people extremely wealthy. But really they think that you guys are ripe for the picking. Line em up sign the books talk them into joining their sites. Get that membership fee.

Yup 12 years and the only thingf that you guys accomplished was lining the wallets of some exploitative entrepreneurs. Hurrah! for you guys you helped us get out of the economy caused by the combination of the attacks and the idiots in office that reacted. See you in eight years and the same conversation with the same truthers with the same empty hands.

 

[mike2810]

Be careful Mike. You might be right about the USGS not discovering thermite, but what they DID discover suggests a nuclear reaction.

Knowledge and information can be a double-edged sword.

HD, enlighten us on who is correct. Jones research says nuclear explosion did not happen and Prager is wrong. Prager basically states in was mini nukes.
So who is correct?. Prager and the nuclear explanation. Or Jones and the nanothermite?

This has nothing to do with the OCT. You brought up the "suggests a nuclear reaction.".
What I see is two conflicting reports by those who think they know what was used. Both can't be correct. In the end, one or both have lied to the public. Which is it?

(I did a bit of looking into your comment about nuclear. I am not going to provide the link to Jones article. You can find it yourself. In the past you have pretty much stated links are not needed. The article Jones explains the USGS findings and basically states Prager misrepresents information. )

 

[Menard_K]

HD, enlighten us on who is correct. Jones research says nuclear explosion did not happen and Prager is wrong. Prager basically states in was mini nukes.
So who is correct?. Prager and the nuclear explanation. Or Jones and the nanothermite?

This has nothing to do with the OCT. You brought up the "suggests a nuclear reaction.".
What I see is two conflicting reports by those who think they know what was used. Both can't be correct. In the end, one or both have lied to the public. Which is it?

(I did a bit of looking into your comment about nuclear. I am not going to provide the link to Jones article. You can find it yourself. In the past you have pretty much stated links are not needed. The article Jones explains the USGS findings and basically states Prager misrepresents information. )

Rather than pick at nits, can we look at what is on the table that most of us can agree on?

> Total of 3 airliner crashes where the aircraft strikes a wall, penetrates the wall
and the entire aircraft (save for aprox 1% of said aircraft) disappears inside the building
and then a huge fire-ball erupts from the jet fuel explosion. however the jet fuel explosion
only happens AFTER the entire aircraft has disappeared into the building.

> can we agree upon the fact that the twin towers each took less than 15 sec from the
time that the "collapse event" became obvious & the end of said collapse event.

> can we agree upon the fact that WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration.

My assertion on this subject is that there had to have been some additional source of energy
to make the WTC buildings behave as they did, NOTE that I am NOT saying "atomic bombs, Thermite"
or? I'm simply specifying an additional source of energy.

 

[mike2810]

Rather than pick at nits, can we look at what is on the table that most of us can agree on?

> Total of 3 airliner crashes where the aircraft strikes a wall, penetrates the wall
and the entire aircraft (save for aprox 1% of said aircraft) disappears inside the building
and then a huge fire-ball erupts from the jet fuel explosion. however the jet fuel explosion
only happens AFTER the entire aircraft has disappeared into the building.

> can we agree upon the fact that the twin towers each took less than 15 sec from the
time that the "collapse event" became obvious & the end of said collapse event.

> can we agree upon the fact that WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration.

My assertion on this subject is that there had to have been some additional source of energy
to make the WTC buildings behave as they did, NOTE that I am NOT saying "atomic bombs, Thermite"
or? I'm simply specifying an additional source of energy.

Nope.
I would someone to address the issue between Jones and Prager. Someone is not telling the truth.
So lets set aside your points/question and deal with the issue I brought up.
Don't you want to know who is correct on what CD was done, if it fact it was CD?

 

[Menard_K]

Nope.
I would someone to address the issue between Jones and Prager. Someone is not telling the truth.
So lets set aside your points/question and deal with the issue I brought up.
Don't you want to know who is correct on what CD was done, if it fact it was CD?

Me personally, I really do not care to follow any argument between "Jones and Prager"
makes no difference at all to me, the facts are that the buildings were destroyed in a
VERY suspicious manner and the preponderance of evidence compels me to support
the Controlled Demolition position, note that it really is NOT relevant to the case
if gunpowder or Atomic Bombs did the job.

 

[mike2810]

Me personally, I really do not care to follow any argument between "Jones and Prager"
makes no difference at all to me, the facts are that the buildings were destroyed in a
VERY suspicious manner and the preponderance of evidence compels me to support
the Controlled Demolition position, note that it really is NOT relevant to the case
if gunpowder or Atomic Bombs did the job.

Oh but it is. So your saying its ok for one or both of them to lie to America. Both say that is what was used. Someone is lying.

It is interesting you say neither is relevant. You seem to think the details in the govt report in relevant. Yet, when looks into the details of an alternative explanation, it is now not relevant.

Good grief.

 

[Menard_K]

Oh but it is. So your saying its ok for one or both of them to lie to America. Both say that is what was used. Someone is lying.

It is interesting you say neither is relevant. You seem to think the details in the govt report in relevant. Yet, when looks into the details of an alternative explanation, it is now not relevant.

Good grief.

I would like to ask anyone who reads this thread to consider
& consider well, the fact that it is documented in the procedures
for police & fire investigators that complete & total destruction of
anything is an alert, it is an alarm, it means investigate this crime, right now.
The fact is that in the case of the twin towers, there was a LOT of stuff,
be it desks & chairs, file cabinets, copy machines, computers, telephones,
+ junk food machines, refrigerators for the office break-room, all pulverized
into unrecognizable bits, and a few fragments of telephones ( etc ... ) but not
one even reasonably complete desk or chair ... or? In all the history of accidents,
natural disasters.... What precedent is there for this sort of destruction?

Given that standard procedure in the case of anything that is completely & totally destroyed
is to INVESTIGATE the crime scene right now, WHY was it not done in the case of 9/11?

I also want to ask that in the case of WTC7, how is it that asymmetrical damage
can produce symmetrical "collapse" .... WHY?

This whole thing should function as a huge RED ALERT signal to the AMERICAN people.
are we MAD AS HELL ...... yet?

 

[Thoreau72]

well, I have not seen that.
Care to provide where you heard/read that the USGS analysis was nuclear ?
Help saves my time to look for it and want to see what you saw.

I'm almost finishing Jeff Prager's ebook. I think the title is something like "American Nuked". I wish it were in paperback, but it's not, so it's hard reading for me. I can't spend all day on the computer.

Anyway, he cites many documents and sources, including the USGS Open File Report 01-0429. A 2 man USGS team collected samples at 35 locations within a 1KM radius of ground zero, on September 17 and 18.

Also data gathered by NASA and JPL as they flew over the site with their Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer AVIRIS on September 16, 18, 22 and 23.

Other reports he cites are the magazine Aerosol Science & Technology, in which the DELTA Groups data and analysis were published in Volume 38, Issue 2, back in 2004.

Also material from an International Conferencee on Condensed Matter and Nuclear Science held in 2008 in Washington DC.

Also a CDC study of K-25 workers.

 

[Thoreau72]

What about in irrational private dialogue? I would say that either depend on whom you are talking to. And thanks... OCT. My ex has BPD so I thought it might be something like that.

Sure, there was a conspiracy... it was pulled off by Arabs and terrorists elements against the USA.

Now, if only the facts and evidence did not contradict your conclusion as to who the conspirators were.....

 

[Thoreau72]

HD, enlighten us on who is correct. Jones research says nuclear explosion did not happen and Prager is wrong. Prager basically states in was mini nukes.
So who is correct?. Prager and the nuclear explanation. Or Jones and the nanothermite?

This has nothing to do with the OCT. You brought up the "suggests a nuclear reaction.".
What I see is two conflicting reports by those who think they know what was used. Both can't be correct. In the end, one or both have lied to the public. Which is it?

(I did a bit of looking into your comment about nuclear. I am not going to provide the link to Jones article. You can find it yourself. In the past you have pretty much stated links are not needed. The article Jones explains the USGS findings and basically states Prager misrepresents information. )

The evidence supports Prager's theory, but that does not mean that thermite is eliminated as a possibility.

It seems to me that thermitic substances might have had a very important role in taking down those towers, but I'm no expert on either demolition or nuclear science.

But the nuclear theory answers several mysteries that I've wondered about since I came to realize that the official story was false.

For example, it explains the force required to propel massive pieces of exoskeleton sideways into the American Express building. It also explains Willie Rodriguez comment about the skin dripping from his coworker. It also explains the strange looking damage to the many vehicles parked on the streets, and of course it explains how the concrete was all pulverized so finely. And, it explains the many explosions heard by so many people.

Having served in the military and understanding the value of deception and disinformation, it is entirely possible that Jones was introduced to steer the "truther" debate toward thermite and away from nuclear. That Jones had done considerable research into muon-catalyzed nuclear reactions and other parts of the nuclear field, makes it all the more curious and suggestive that he was some sort of agent provocateur.

And of course all these years later, with the legislative history of the Zadroga bill well known, and the epidemiology in now, it's quite clear that tactical nuclear devices (that's what they called them when I was in the Army) were employed there.