An appeal to 9/11 conspiracy theorists

[Pi Mu Rho]

*applause*

 

[15357]

*standing ovation*

 

[clarky003]

For the pancake theory to work it relies on one single event happening. This event was witnessed by millions, it being that a single floor suffered catastrophic failure and the massive load above became dynamic. The only debate here is whether the damage from the planes, the fires or a combination of the two caused it to happen.

The actual debate is if it did pancake then wtf happened to the law of conservation and law of entropy as you watch it drop. The physical collapse time under the freefall explaination of pancaking violates known physics as the intact building below doesnt seem to obsorb and dissapate any of the energy from the falling floors.. the building falls at a speed near to freefall in vaccum at roughly 8 and a half seconds, just over 10 floors every second consistently. Just imagine a 10 story building collapsing in one second from one floor cascading into another the resistance of the intact structure would obsorb most of the downward energy slowing the descent, Then there are questions how the fully intact structure can give way symmetry all the way down when its clear all the supports would have to fail simultaniously, the interior damage was not symmetrical in both cases, and the fire temperatures recorded on the steel samples from NIST as they state did not exceed 600 C, not enough to weaken a localised area enough for collapse, let alone the entire floor structure in symmetry.

FEMA admits the likelyhood of fire in building 7 causing collapse is of low probability. NIST and FEMA admit they are perplexed at the cause of buildings 7's collapse and have not come to any strong conclusions, just recently they have passed it on to any other contractor who can come up with a better conclusion (this is a government agencey giving up and passing it over!).

At the very least the government investigations are a half baked farce, the comission report ignores building 7 entirely... this is the first steel framed high rise building in history to of supposedly of collapsed due to fire! yet the evidence was shipped away to Asia before it could be anaylised.. what kind of level of ignorance
does that take. If I was an engineer id want to know why a steel building has collapsed due to fire for the first time in history in the way it did! (and then why not patent controlled collapse by fire!), its outrageously unproffessional and yet people want to say that it's of no significance and that your some kind of an idiot if you propagate descent on the Issue, well I say those people are even more idiotic for not wanting to ask questions about such lack of proffessionalisim for what should be a thorougly scientific investigation at a crime scene, it is simply criminal in itself to destroy evidence.

I suggest rather than going into a long drawn out debate again on the official theory, listen to a BYU physics proffessor if you want a thorough counter argument from the physical inconsistencies with pancaking theory, mostly centered around building 7.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

 

[baxter]

THE BUILDINGS DID NOT COLLAPSE FASTER THAN FREEFALL.

Do you wish me to prove it ?

I have no desire neither to listen to any more fruitcake theories.

State your case or simply keep quiet.

EDIT, infact your continual habit of editing you posts is really tiresome, to the point I have no desire whatsoever to take this debate with you any further.

Believe what you will pal, I really don't give a damm.

The sky is green, why? because I say so.

 

[jverne]

THE BUILDINGS DID NOT COLLAPSE FASTER THAN FREEFALL.

Do you wish me to prove it ?

I have no desire neither to listen to any more fruitcake theories.

State your case or simply keep quiet.

EDIT, infact your continual habit of editing you posts is really tiresome, to the point I have no desire whatsoever to take this debate with you any further.

Believe what you will pal, I really don't give a damm.

The sky is green, why? because I say so.

well, prove it!

 

[clarky003]

THE BUILDINGS DID NOT COLLAPSE FASTER THAN FREEFALL.

http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

Don't twist words, it collapsed near to freefall speeds, 8.6 seconds on record from the damaged floors, just over 10 floors a second all the way to the ground, it does not visibly slow down atall.

I dont really want to debate it anymore either, just atleast listen to the BYU physics proffessor. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

 

[baxter]

At the very least the government investigations are a half baked farce, the comission report ignores building 7 entirely... this is the first steel framed high rise building in history to of supposedly of collapsed due to fire! yet the evidence was shipped away to Asia before it could be anaylised.. what kind of level of ignorance
does that take. If I was an engineer id want to know why a steel building has collapsed due to fire for the first time in history in the way it did! (and then why not patent controlled collapse by fire!), its outrageously unproffessional and yet people want to say its of no significance and your an idiot if you propagate descent on the Issue, well I say those people are idiots for not wanting to ask questions about such lack of proffessionalisim for a full and proper scientific investigation at a crime scene.

Really really certain of that Clarky?, 100% certain that no other steel stucture has even collpased due to fire?
This the type of garbage you read on your conspirancy web sites.

None other than this steel structure that is.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

Please note the difference between this building and the Towers.

This building had not been hit by a plane.
This building was only 32 stories high
This building had a concrete core.
The Towers had steel cores.

The steel super structure that surrounded the core suffered a catastrophic failure and collapsed

• despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse. • the only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.

Crucially, the building remained standing despite the intensity of the fire. An investigation is underway between Spanish technical agency Intemac and UK authorities including Arup Fire, the University of Edinburgh and the concrete industry including Cembureau, BCA and The Concrete Centre. Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower's concrete columns and core prevented total building collapse.

Here is a classic example of how the conspirators work.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html

I would urge everybody, including the conspiracy theorists to take a good look at this article.
Notice how the author presents two photographs, one of the Towers being built, another of the Madrid Windsor after the steel super structure had collapsed. I really couldn’t figure out why these two photographs would be relevant to anything and then it finally dawned on me. They look the same; the Photograph of a Tower being built looks similar to a skyscraper that had suffered total steel superstructure failure….Wow.
Notice also that the author failed to mention that the steel superstructure had collapsed, but emphasised the fact that the building hadn’t collapsed.
Notice also that the author fails to even mention the fact that the Madrid Tower had a concrete core.


It is not on record anywhere the fall times of the building show me this record. The fall times of the building have never been accurately recorded due to the massive dust cloud.

Incidently freefall time is actually 9.1 seconds.

you're correct though it is really is time to end this , believe what you want.

 

[baxter]

well, prove it!

I have picked this photograph at random please look at it.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/wtc_collapse.jpg

It is blindly obvious to anybody who cares to look that the debris falling from the building is in free fall. It is also blindly obvious that the building is not falling at the same speed as the debris. It is not in free fall.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Freefall time is 9.1 seconds.

Depending on where you look total collapse times differ largely from 8 seconds to 16 seconds. Since 8 seconds is physically impossible, even if explosives were used this can be dismissed.

The link above is a 32 page report by DR Frank Greening who examines the calculated fall time against the best recorded fall time of both towers. It is massive and comprehensive.

The bottom line of it is……….

WTC 1: tc = 13.48 s ; ( ts = total collapse)

WTC 2: tc = 12.07 s ( ts = total collapse)

So does this mean anything? Does it prove or disprove that explosives were used to demolish the Towers. I accept that both Towers suffered differing amounts of damage from the planes. But what exactly do these times mean?

Taking aside the fact that these times, no matters how well researched are open to question but they are outside the parameters of freefall. The most striking thing is that they differ. It is accepted that WTC 2 fell faster than WTC 1. So why would that happen?

WTC 2 was hit at a lower level than WTC 1, in fact some 12 floors at a minimum, or 20 floors at a maximum.It would therefore follow that the static load from WTC 2 bearing down on the weakened area would have been at least double that of WTC 1. So would it not make sense that this Hugh weight would increase the chances of a floor underneath collapsing .This seems to be reinforced by the fact that WTC 2 all be it that it was hit second, collapsed first.

Another thing I find interesting is if the towers were brought down by controlled demolition would they not collapse in exactly the same time? Which they clearly didn’t.

FACT WTC 2 fell faster than WTC1
FACT WTC 2 fell before WTC 1
FACT WTC 2 was hit after WTC 1
FACT WTC 2 was hit lower than WTC 1
FACT WTC 2 fell after 56 minutes and 10 seconds which is approx half the 102 minutes and 5 seconds it took for WTC 1 to fall.
FACT The static load above the damage floors in WTC 2 was at least double that of WTC 1
FACT The dynamic load of WTC 2 had less distance to travel to ground than the dynamic load of WTC 1

FACT All the above facts are relevant for the pancake theory to work.
FACT None of the above facts are relevant for the controlled demolition theory to work.

 

[SAJ]

Interesting stuff, do you have an equally expansive explanation for wtc7 ?

 

[baxter]

Yes I do but I will post it here and else where when i am certian of my findings.

 

[kirovman]

So, is this guy touting this theory? If not why not? Or is this part of the conspiracy?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4883636.stm

 

[baxter]

Excellent point kirovman,why would a guy who is facing the death penalty, who hates America to the point he was prepared to commit suicide not say if the very people he hates so much were involved.

 

[B_MAN]

Interesting stuff, do you have an equally expansive explanation for wtc7 ?

agreed

@ baxter:

-how was the empire state building able to withstand a direct hit by a B25 bomber on the 79th floor(102 stories total), when the building was built more around 40 years earlier than the WTC?
-the official report concerning the collapse is that the fire within the building caused the steel to melt.. something that's been disproven even by the designers and suppliers of the material... in theory the steel would have to burn at well over 2000 degrees F. for SEVERAL hours for it to melt... where in reality, the jet fuel burned off quickly and the flames continued to burn at a relatively low temp..
-why is it that the 2nd tower came down first even though it suffered a less devastating indirect hit on the corner of the building?
-what about the secondary explosions reported by hundreds of eye-witnesses including FIREMEN inside the buildings?
-why did the government take until 2005 to release the audio recordings of the FDNY? what is there to hide?
-why were the seismic recordings from a nearby lab higher(2.1-2.3 on the scale) than that of a quarry 20 miles away(1-2)? the debris from the collapse was not responsible for this(explosives?!)
-what about the molten steel found deep within the basement?
-what about the strange drills conducted on multiple floors of the WTC's in the weeks prior to 9/11 and the abrupt removal of bomb sniffing dogs, and security being 'coincidentally' run by Marvin Bush, George's brother
-why was the debris IMMEDIATELY shipped overseas to be recycled before it could be investigated thoroughly?? COME ON PEOPLE
-why did they demolish WTC7, claiming it had been damaged beyond repair when all the other buildings that were closer to 1&2 had barely been touched by debris?
-last, but not least, how do you explain the complete purchase of all WTC buildings by Larry Silverstein in the months leading up to 9/11 and the billion dollar insurance payoff he recieved afterwards??

AND THATS JUST FOR THE WTC BUILDINGS, not the pentagon or flight 93

 

[kirovman]

A B25 bomber is much slower and lighter, and can carry much less fuel than a 767

 

[Glirk Dient]

Why is everyone worried about the steel melting causing it to collapse? It didn't need to melt, just heat up and bend, and with the massive amount of force on it then it wouldn't take very much to bend it.

 

[B_MAN]

I suggest rather than going into a long drawn out debate again on the official theory, listen to a BYU physics proffessor if you want a thorough counter argument from the physical inconsistencies with pancaking theory, mostly centered around building 7.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

nice find
hasnt it been confirmed by Larry Silverstein himself on national television, that WTC7 was a controlled demo?
thats fine, however, the their justification for this is absurd:
extensive damage?! and uncontrollable fires?!
gimme a break

 

[B_MAN]

Why is everyone worried about the steel melting causing it to collapse? It didn't need to melt, just heat up and bend, and with the massive amount of force on it then it wouldn't take very much to bend it.

why dont you do us all a favour and back your points up with evidence? references perhaps?

also, how do you explain the fact that not a single modern steel reinforced building has collapsed due to fire? even ones that have burned for DAYS?!(previous to the WTCs of course)
and yet, the WTC1&2 collapsed after less than 2 hours?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I don't know - the sheer impact of an *aeroplane* might have distorted the frame enough to cause the fire softening to be big enough for a collapse?
I mean, Christ, an aeroplane hit it. A damn big one. It's going to reduce structural integrity all over the place. Hell, I'm surprised nearby buildings suddenly didn't implode out of sheer fright.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[kaf11]

also, how do you explain the fact that not a single modern steel reinforced building has collapsed due to fire? even ones that have burned for DAYS?!
and yet, the WTC1&2 collapsed after less than 2 hours?

9: False Analogy:
Using an analogy in which the compared objects or events are fundamentally and relevantly different in some way, without addressing the differences, invalidates the analogy.

Please read this:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=102348


edit: Angry Lawyer beat me too it.

 

[B_MAN]

I don't know - the sheer impact of an *aeroplane* might have distorted the frame enough to cause the fire softening to be big enough for a collapse?
I mean, Christ, an aeroplane hit it. A damn big one. It's going to reduce structural integrity all over the place. Hell, I'm surprised nearby buildings suddenly didn't implode out of sheer fright.

-Angry Lawyer

all disproven by studies(models) done by FEMA and NIST
the impact and subsequent burnoff of jet fuel(few minutes) was not enough to damage the core stability and bring the tower down

 

[Angry Lawyer]

WTF? The fire mightn't change the core stability. Several hundred tonnes of PLANE did, though.

And anyone who's ever taken high-school physics knows that when you heat metal, it gets soft. it bends. That's why a blacksmith heats a tang before hammering it.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Dalamari]

why dont you do us all a favour and back your points up with evidence? references perhaps?

Are you asking for me to find a reference that steel is weaker when it is heated up? Its the basic laws of physics...it doesn't need to be melted before you can bend it.

also, how do you explain the fact that not a single modern steel reinforced building has collapsed due to fire? even ones that have burned for DAYS?!(previous to the WTCs of course)
and yet, the WTC1&2 collapsed after less than 2 hours?

Because there has been no incident like this. Find a building hit by the same plane full of jet fuel that had the exact same structural design and materials. The other incidents were not like this. A plane hits a building...takes out a few supports and engulfs a few levels with flamable jet fuel which burns very hot. That jet fuel and the pressure of the floors above it would be enough to cause the steel to bend causing a collapse.

Oh...as for the evidence here you go
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat.

 

[B_MAN]

Are you asking for me to find a reference that steel is weaker when it is heated up? Its the basic laws of physics...it doesn't need to be melted before you can bend it.



Because there has been no incident like this. Find a building hit by the same plane full of jet fuel that had the exact same structural design and materials. The other incidents were not like this. A plane hits a building...takes out a few supports and engulfs a few levels with flamable jet fuel which burns very hot. That jet fuel and the pressure of the floors above it would be enough to cause the steel to bend causing a collapse.

Oh...as for the evidence here you go
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

again, you're failing to see the point

the OFFICIAL story behind 9/11, according to the United States government is that FIRES brought the buildings down
however, every expert out there will tell you that the temperatures inside the building were not significant enough to melt the steel
not to mention the photograph of a woman standing DIRECTLY by where the plane had hit(meaning the temperatures were no where near what has been stated, because she was able to survive)

http://reopen911.org/images/womaninholelarge.jpg

ill ask again, WHY IS THE OFFICIAL REPORT FULL OF SUCH FALLACY? what are they hiding/covering up?

oh and im still waiting for a reply to 95% of the other points of made above

 

[kaf11]

every expert out there will tell you that the temperatures inside the building were not significant enough to melt the steel

Didn't you read the post dalamari just made?

 

[B_MAN]

Didn't you read the post dalamari just made?

absolutely.
unfortunately, the jet fueled burned off in several minutes... which is not nearly enough time to completely destabilize the structure


" "The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

"..the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."


thats funny cause the building in madrid burned for two days with combustable material like curtains and PAPER in too.. and THE WHOLE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE.... hmmm

 

[baxter]

You are great an absolute classic, believing that it is all one big conspiracy. I haven't got the time, not the inclination to answer your questions, because you simply will never accept the truth. You have this warped and twisted version of events that are reinforced by the garbage you read on conspiracy sites. Conspiracies that will never, ever, get the main stream media attention they so desperately want.

Why? Because they are fundamentally flawed, they are just rubbish that is pumped out, hoping that somewhere along the line they will grab the attention of the gullible and naive hoping to make a quick buck.

I know you won’t even bother to offer up an explanation or a thesis regarding your own questions, in the same way you will refuse point blank to accept what I am now going to put to you.

FACT

The following buildings were partially or completely destroyed in the attack:

One World Trade Center (north tower)
Two World Trade Center (south tower)
Four World Trade Center
Five World Trade Center
Six World Trade Center
Seven World Trade Center
The Marriott Hotel
One Liberty Plaza
Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church

The following buildings suffered major damage:

The Millennium Hilton Hotel
One World Financial Center
Two World Financial Center
Three World Financial Center
The Federal Building
Banker's Trust Building.

http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/US/NY/NewYorkWorldTradeCenterp2.html

A controlled demolition “drops” a building (not pull) into its own footprint. I have never seen a controlled demolition, anywhere in the world that has caused so much damage to the surrounding buildings, but never the less I will push on...

Would you be so kind as to answer these questions, if not would you actually consider them?

1. If the building was under freefall why was so much debris ejected sideways, causing this damage?
2. If explosives were used to bring down the towers, offering no resistance at all why was so much debris ejected sideways?
3. If the sideway ejection of debris was not due to an uncontrolled catastrophic collapse what caused it?

I will let this guy try to explain…..

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm

Here is a long winded thesis, regarding the anomalies you think are so important. Take the time to read; try to do some form of analysis on it. It seems perfectly reasonable. This guy, is on Hoffman’s web site, (who’s Hoffman? the most respected 9/11 conspirator there is, if there is one).

This thesis is massive, and comprehensive, and supports fully the theory that the towers were brought down by explosives.

Don’t want to read, can’t be arsed with the boring mathematics, sure I understand, but unfortunately there are guys out here, like myself who can be arsed.

I won’t bore you with the details but I will debate it in detail if you wish.

Anyway this guy as concluded

It took 1,389 kg (1.4 tons) of HMX to create the unaccounted air volume. This is an above normal quantity of explosives used in controlled demolition.

That’s right 1.4 tons of explosives.

So how did he reach this conclusion? , by simply entering false figures into his mathematics.

It has been asserted that the WTC 1 weighed 200,000 tons.

It didn’t pal, it weighted over 500,000 tons. All his bullshit, all his calculations are false because they are based on false figures.

Believe what you want pal, believe these idiots if you wish, it make no odds to me.

 

[B_MAN]

first and foremost, i dont appreciate the personal attacks; you dont know me or what im like, and in contrast to what you believe, im not a regular on any conspiracy web sites
i am in fact, and open minded individual who's simply trying to undercover the truth.. something that has been distorted from day one

secondly, id like to ask why you havent bothered to answer any of the reasonable questions ive presented you in my post(s) above
is it because you choose to deny them or because you dont have an explanation?

thirdly, your comment regarding the controlled demolition causing so much damage to surrounding buildings?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer_Building
the singer building was 47 stories... not even half the size of the WTC 1&2
naturally, the taller the building is, the larger the radius of debris will be
there are taller buildings on record that have been demolished, however, none of them had any significant structures nearby to take damage

unfortunately, i dont have time to finish this post in great detail as i have catch the bus
ill try my best to check back in during the next couple of days
until then, keep contributing!

 

[baxter]

Like I said believe what you want.

 

[Dalamari]

Wait...are you trying to say that the buildings were brought down by an explosion? Next your going to claim that you can see various explosions while the building is collapsing.

Well, I will refute those as it is common sense. We know that at least an entire floor was needed to collapse to cause the building to pancake. We however according to conspiracy theorists see various explosions on the way down. What this fails to explain is why those floors don't collapse instead we see the collapse from the pancake effect, meaning those explosions we saw did nothing to the building and are simply pointless and are in fact most likely glass blowing out due to the massive pressure change of the collapsing building.

Alright...how about we flip things aroung here.

Tell me, with facts and data to support your claims, how did the WTC towers collapse? Your not allowed to use claims that are based off of ignorance(IE. the buildings came down, but I don't think the jet fuel could have burned that high and I didn't see melted steel therefore that didn't cause the building to collapse so logically the only answer could be the government orchestrated this.)

 

[Mechagodzilla]

baxter has absolutely decimated your arguments.

i am in fact, and open minded individual who's simply trying to undercover the truth.. something that has been distorted from day one

BURDEN OF PROOF: You need to back up your claims of "distortion" immediately or we will have to discount them outright.

you havent bothered to answer any of the reasonable questions ive presented you in my post(s) above
[...]
unfortunately, the jet fueled burned off in several minutes... which is not nearly enough time to completely destabilize the structure

You've already debunked this yourself:

"..the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."

Clearly the fire did not vanish after "just ten minutes"
Also clearly, there was enough heat to weaken and warp the metal.

BURDEN OF PROOF:
Why is it impossible for this warping (combined with a huge hole in one side) to lead to a progressive collapse?

You need to provide evidence of this impossibility, or we will have no choice but to ignore you for being unreasonable.

thats funny cause the building in madrid burned for two days with combustable material like curtains and PAPER in too.. and THE WHOLE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE.... hmmm

The building was smaller, built sturdier, was not hit by a plane, etc.
The fire inside was not started with jet fuel as an accelerant, etc.

The buildings were substantially different. This is therefore a FALSE ANALOGY.

Please use valid arguments.
If you refuse to address these concerns, we will be forced to assume you have no desire to be reasonable, and will ignore you rightfully and accordingly.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Random fact - Mecha's method of PWNING people can be equally used to crush people who support "The Combine and Xen are the same!" theorists. Hrm. I may need to take lessons.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[15357]

I vote to ban discussions on alternate theories of the collapse of the two WTC's.

 

[baxter]

Seconded.

 

[MattJones2k6]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change&pl=true

Believe what u want, but if u know that america was looking for support from britain this was a good way of getting it. I only read the first post and decided to give you alink to this video of what i seen and it has some really good facts in there which i also checked and 99% of it is true.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

No, loose change is not true. It has been posted here at least five times now and has been thoroughly debunked each time.

If you aren't going to read the thread, then shut up and stop wasting our time.

Blast that stupid video for manipulating so many.

The pentagon part is all but entirely false, based on one hundred eyewitness testimonies.
The Penn State crash is claimed to involve a mid-air exchange and a NASA coverup facility and a whole lot of other imaginary bullshit for which no evidence exists.
And the whole 9/11 explosive demolition nonsense is unsupported by any scientific fact.

 

[clarky003]

How exactley does it manipulate? . The origional had some outrageous comments i admit on the planes, but the second edition is really well done. They talk to the people who lent the light aircraft to the pentagon pilot saying he coudln't even handle a cessna properly. they address comments from engineers who supplied the building materials for the towers that contradict the official explainations. They show that people were warned days before the event, and show the complete lack of interception from NORAD and the pentagon missile defense giving a good case for the complicity of the government in the events atleast.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

How can you expect me to believe a video that has been so horribly wrong in every other respect?

The claims it makes now are no less outrageous. Only no longer falsifiable since those you list are based all but entirely on personal opinions, vague anecdotes and hindsight-fueled guesswork on what "should have" happened.

These constitute HINDSIGHT BIASES, ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE FALLACIES and REVERSED BURDEN OF PROOF FALLACIES.

However, the video continues to make quantifiable mistakes:

The pentagon had no missile defense system in 2001. It was introduced years after the attacks, in 2003 or 2004.

That is just one more in the long list of facts loose change gets terribly wrong and has gotten wrong in the past.
Yet it is still inexplicably held as a sort of conspiracy bible.

This is what happens when you work without peer review, Clarky.
It becomes a contest in empty showmanship. And you're handing out the baloons.

Altogether, compared to the scientific conclusions, these points constitute TRIVIAL OBJECTIONS.
It is not enough to say "oh this guy wasn't considered an expert pilot by that guy" when every single valid conclusion indicates no conspiracy exists.

If you want to claim a conspiracy, you need to prove a conspiracy.

 

[clarky003]

So the hundreds of proffessional such as civil engineers and physicists in the scholars for 911 truth who agree that physical characteristics dont explain the collapses particularly in the case of building 7 arn't under peer assesment from one another?.. is something only peer reviewed when it goes through government bodies? where is the reasoning in that when the governments conclusions contradict the physics such as conservation of energy and law of entropy in the collapses, and people can keep being in denial about it but its blatantly clear the buildings all collapsed at near freefall speed in a vacuum, you can find all the calculations and peer reviewed papers you need on their site www.ST911.org .

It is also well known that no interceptors where able to get to any targets in time because they were all conducting war games on a simulated terrorist attack of the same nature on that very day at that very time, it just so happens most aircraft in the Washington / Newyork areas where participating in these drills.

Secondly the missle defence system was undergoing testing in the year 2000 so it was operational, you must be drawing you fact from the recent renovation plans put forward by bush on the missile defense systems.

But you can contend with the more solid facts, how the guy who could barely handle a cessna wanted to pull off an impossible manouver to hit the renovated section of the pentagon when he could of just flew straight into it and done more damage. Lets also not forget the intial damage before there was reportedly a second explosion which collapsed the facade.

 

[baxter]

Clarky,

Do you actually understand what Mecha means by "peer review"?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

I posted this a while ago, it is a DRAFT report from NIST.Had you taken the time to even open the link you would have seen on page one three words.

FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

In other words if you haven't figured it out this a draft report which is open to public comment. Anybody can comment on it, anybody can add to it. It is the public domain for comment from the entire planet. Even your Professor can comment on it. It is not a final report. It is seeking peer review. Once it gets reviewed it will be amended or finalised.

All these reports that you slag off go through the same process before they become final. Anybody is welcome to add his pennies worth.

Sound like a cover up to you?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

I like Clarky, because he's willing to question things. However, he's questioning the wrong things

-Angry Lawyer