response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks

[Cunt]

I wonder if Galaxian will admit to his being misinformed about the towers falling at 'free-fall speed'? I doubt it, but admitting where he has made mistakes would give him MUCH more credibility in my book.

Ian, are you still working for 'the man'?

[Ian]

I wonder if Galaxian will admit to his being misinformed about the towers falling at 'free-fall speed'? I doubt it, but admitting where he has made mistakes would give him MUCH more credibility in my book.

Ian, are you still working for 'the man'?

I've been promoted... I AM The Man!

[Cunt]

I wonder if Galaxian will admit to his being misinformed about the towers falling at 'free-fall speed'? I doubt it, but admitting where he has made mistakes would give him MUCH more credibility in my book.

Ian, are you still working for 'the man'?

I've been promoted... I AM The Man!

...and here I thought you retired...

[Galaxian]

Here's one of the best analyses of visual evidence of 9/11. This is for the lurkers, not the children:
Part 1: Introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aECYD1sfAV4


Part 2 & 3: Pentagon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys9quilme1Q


(P.3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuyJ0cA5u_o

Part 4, 5 & 6: WTC 1, 2, 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR_1cg95XHA


(P.5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlRF8jY1qOQ
(P.6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej4F6FS_owk

Part 7: Summary & conclusion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjXyPhDUAEc

Part 8: Appendix & epilogue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N6IpfvTylc

Adult advisory warning recommended! Not for the faint-hearted. Contains disturbing images for sheeple.

[Trolldor]

This is for the lurkers, not the children

Then why are you handling it?

[Clinton Huxley]

Remember the Golden Rule:-

If evidence is presented by some tinfoil-hatted wonk in the form of a Youtube video, everything in it must be utterly true.

If evidence is presented by any kind of government commission, it is part of the conspiracy.

Once you polarise your "thinking" in this manner, all else become easy.

[klr]

You'd think they could at the very least spell "mystery" properly. I am suitably reassured ...

[Coito ergo sum]

Note the tactic here.

We had gotten to a very specific issue: Whether the buildings fell at free fall speed.

One assertion was that "the buildings fell at or near free fall speed."

Examination of the evidence reveals, the buildings did not fall at or even near free fall speed. Proof was provided.

Rather than admit that the buildings did not, in fact, fall at or near free fall speed, the person making that assertion decided, instead, to post several episodes of an 8 video series, plus other videos and links and then refer to them generally as "the best analysis of the visual evidence."

We are then tasked with going through all these videos, etc., but we don't know why we're looking at them. We aren't told what specific assertions they support? Do they support the proposition that the buildings fell at or near free fall speed? If so, could someone who has watched the videos simply direct us to the one that contains the analysis of the evidence that the buildings fell at or near free fall speed?

This is what happens time and time again with 9/11 Truthers, Moon Hoaxers, Alien Abduction Conspiracy folks, and Creationists. They can't address specific issues, and will inundate you with a deluge of screeds and videos and just say "see! if you studied these videos, you'd know it was an inside job just like I do." No specific allegation or assertion is said to be supported. No argument is made.

I will renew the question to Galaxian: Do you now admit that the buildings did not, in fact, fall at or near free fall speed? If yes, great, and let's move on to your next piece of evidence. If no, please present your evidence for the specific proposition that the buildings fell at, or near, freefall speed.

Thank you.

[Galaxian]

I will renew the question to Galaxian: Do you now admit that the buildings did not, in fact, fall at or near free fall speed? If yes, great, and let's move on to your next piece of evidence. If no, please present your evidence for the specific proposition that the buildings fell at, or near, freefall speed.

I do not take you seriously, because you project to me the characteristics of a pretentious instant-expert. You know, or should know (if you've followed up this issue) the answers. But you don't care to because you have an agenda: supporting the status quo.
It is widely known that WTC 1 & 2 should have taken over 40 seconds, even if they could collapse on to their own footprint. They took about 14 seconds, which is just 4 seconds above freefall. Indeed, that is freefall for a large lead cannonball with insignificant air resistance. The floors would have met considerable air resistance, and that is acknowledged by those...you...who claim that the squibs are due to air compressions. So the 14 seconds is actually the 'freefall' slowed by air resistance.
THEN WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ENERGY OF DESTRUCTION OF COLUMN CONNECTIONS???
Do a few calculations. Hint; potential energy conversion to kinetic energy conversion, & the impulse & momentum equivalences needed to shatter the core 47 massive column grid. On second thoughts, you'll find it easier to swallow the official dogma. It's comforting. Now you know how Roman Catholics think & feel.
3 steel towers come uniformly straight down at close to freefall speed. None of you is curious? 3 steel towers come straight down at close to freefall speed. None of you is curious? 3 steel towers come uniformly straight down instead of falling sideways or haphazardly as the laws of Nature demand. None of you is curious? 3 steel towers come uniformly straight down due to a few low intensity fires here & there. None of you is curious? 3 steel towers come uniformly straight down for the first time in history. None of you is curious?
Don't bother with your next question. You're not sincere. If you were you'd be in anguish over this deception of the American & world public. You'd be scouring the internet & gulping down the curiosities & contradictions about what happened & how. You'd be using skepticism & curiosity, & screaming for the truth & urging others to do so, lest the mendacity continues (as it will).
Every question that you would ask Galaxian has been adequately answered if you'd only do a Google or YouTube search. Go to RDF & Rational Skepticism where I've posted lots more, & in greater technical detail (much of it my own work). But you'll say "can't be bothered"...Well, so be it. Then why should I be bothered regurgitating the same when I've got more receptive ears with more original questions to attend to? I am only posting for the lurkers, incase any are genuine inquirers

[Galaxian]

Here is the "convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry which most of you put down to chance:
1) That the air defense of NY & Washington DC was stood down on 9/11.
2) That WTC 1 & 2 were hit by non-commercial planes; as evident from the bulky add-on under their fuselage.
3) That the planes impacting WTC 1 & 2 were preceded milliseconds before impact by a flash of light.
4) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, collapsed at close to freefall accelaration, despite the fact that each floor had to collide with & dis-engage each floor below it, and thus set it accelarating, from scratch. So how did they reach the ground as fast as if there had been nothing in the way?
5) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, fell on to their own footprint, despite the fact that natural variability in inter-floor impact & failure would have given them a preferred lateral movement.
6) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, fell within minutes or hours, supposedly due to a fire, even though that fire was low intensity, and secluded, and no tower in history had collapsed due to fire, even when the whole tower was engulfed in the conflagration.
7) That the massive steel core of WTC 1&2 was brought down by the flimsy connections of light floors.
8) that squibs are clearly seen emanating tens of metres outwards from floors below the collapse.
9) That there are numerous witness reports of explosions at lower levels, long before & at time of collapse.
10) That thermate has been found in the dust from the towers.
11) That light poles were neatly, and gently bent over (at the Pentagon). Where an impact of 400+ mph would have mangled them & flung them far from their foundations.
12) That amateur Cessna trainees with very few hours & little talent ALL managed to direct large jet airliners to bulls-eye hits...except for 1 which was heroically brought down by the passengers.
13) That very little plane debris was found at the Pentagon or Pennsylvania, and no bodies or luggage either, contrary to all other land impacts, even into mountainsides.
14) That the lawn at the Pentagon was left neatly trimmed & unscathed.
15) That fuel-fed fires at the Pentagon left timber & paper untouched.
16) That plane parts were found up to several miles away from the Pennsylvania crash site, but not at it.
17) That WTC 7, fell, again on its own footprint, for no clear reason (no, fire was NOT it).
18) That there are a significant number of witnesses with accounts contrary to the official mantra.
19) That the 9/11 Commission was long delayed & only set up under protest. That the White House refused to answer questions. That the Commission refused to accept witness testimony from contrarians. That a single dissenter on the Commission meant that a point was not admissible.
20) That NIST constantly hedged its bets & either refused to be candid or blundered in its replies.
21) That, contrary to ALL laws & protocols of criminal investigation, the debris was urgently cleared AND DESTROYED, so that no forensic investigation could be carried out.
22) That similar scenarios had been contemplated several times by high office, and 'war-games' based on such scenarios were in operation at the time.
23) That Rice denied that the Administration had ever contemplated such a possibility. That she was soon to reveal evidence of Bin-Laden's orchestrating of 9/11.
24) But her evidence...which never materialized...was so weak that to this day the FBI has not charged Bin-Laden with anything to do with 9/11.
25) That we even have slip-up or admissions by some of the central players from Bush down to Silverstein.
26) That the destruction of 2 nations, & the murder of over a million people was launched on the back of 9/11. With later evidence, (& admissions) that the reasons for war were fabricated...as was the blame for 9/11.
27) That, to this day, not one of the administration, from President & Prime Minister, down to filing clerk has been arraigned for trial on charges of treason, launching wars of aggression, war crimes, torture, etc.
ETC. ETC...
The above looks like a hell of a lot more than you lot have to offer.

[Coito ergo sum]

I will renew the question to Galaxian: Do you now admit that the buildings did not, in fact, fall at or near free fall speed? If yes, great, and let's move on to your next piece of evidence. If no, please present your evidence for the specific proposition that the buildings fell at, or near, freefall speed.

I do not take you seriously, because you project to me the characteristics of a pretentious instant-expert.

No. You made an assertion. It is quite normal to ask you to back it up.

You know, or should know (if you've followed up this issue) the answers.

I did follow up on the answers, and I found that you are incorrect, based on the evidence. The towers did not fall at or near free fall speed. If you still think they did, please explain why and on what basis.

But you don't care to because you have an agenda: supporting the status quo.

I have no agenda whatsoever. You make a claim, I will research it. I did so with respect to your freefall speed allegation. I found that you are flat wrong. Do you now admit that the towers did not fall at or near free fall speed?

It is widely known that WTC 1 & 2 should have taken over 40 seconds, even if they could collapse on to their own footprint.

Untrue.

They took about 14 seconds, which is just 4 seconds above freefall.

They took longer than that, and 14 seconds is almost 6 seconds above free fall, which is a margin of error on your part of well over 40%. That's huge. That is not "at or near" freefall speed.

Indeed, that is freefall for a large lead cannonball with insignificant air resistance.

No, it isn't. The ball would hit the ground in 9.22 seconds. So, you are dead wrong again.

The floors would have met considerable air resistance, and that is acknowledged by those...you...who claim that the squibs are due to air compressions. So the 14 seconds is actually the 'freefall' slowed by air resistance.

It's the time it would take the towers to fall if the towers collapsed by the upper floors above the impact points collapsing onto the lower floors and so on.

THEN WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ENERGY OF DESTRUCTION OF COLUMN CONNECTIONS???
Do a few calculations.

Show me your "calculations" first. I'd like to see your math.

Hint; potential energy conversion to kinetic energy conversion, & the impulse & momentum equivalences needed to shatter the core 47 massive column grid. On second thoughts, you'll find it easier to swallow the official dogma.

The physics is not that complicated. I was a Civil Engineering major in college. So, I'd be pleased to see your equations.

It's comforting. Now you know how Roman Catholics think & feel.

Non sequitur.

3 steel towers come uniformly straight down

Not completely "uniform." But, how would you expect the collapse to occur? Would the building tip over, in your estimation? Have you done the math on that? Hint: just use Newtonian physics for simplicity sake.

at close to freefall speed. None of you is curious?

I am curious. But, the buildings appear to have fallen just as one would expect if the upper floors collapsed on the lower floors after the structure had been weakened by a tremendous impact and heat generation from the crash reducing the tensile strength of the support structure.

3 steel towers come straight down at close to freefall speed. None of you is curious?

How would the towers have come down had this not been a controlled demolition, but rather the support structure of the floors had given way, allowing the upper floors above the impact points to collapse upon the lower floors?

3 steel towers come uniformly straight down instead of falling sideways

There is no physics that you can show that would allow for these buildings to "fall sideways." These aren't trees being chopped down.

or haphazardly as the laws of Nature demand.

I think this is the core difference here. You seem to think that the laws of physics would allow the buildings to tip over, or that for some reason the debris would disburse wider than they did. You have no proof for that, and the physics doesn't support you on it.

None of you is curious? 3 steel towers come uniformly straight down due to a few low intensity fires here & there.

A few? Low intensity? You see the impact was tremendous, and the heat was not "low."

None of you is curious? 3 steel towers come uniformly straight down for the first time in history. None of you is curious?

What are you talking about? How many times in history have steel towers tipped over?

Don't bother with your next question. You're not sincere. If you were you'd be in anguish over this deception of the American & world public.

I'm in anguish that you claim to have done the "calculations" that show that the World Trade Center would have fallen over sideways.

You'd be scouring the internet & gulping down the curiosities & contradictions about what happened & how.

I have, believe me. I looked into the video you described as "the best." In Plane Sight, right? That film is a joke.
'

You'd be using skepticism & curiosity, & screaming for the truth & urging others to do so, lest the mendacity continues (as it will).
Every question that you would ask Galaxian has been adequately answered if you'd only do a Google or YouTube search.

Please don't condescend that I have not searched google and youtube plenty. All of your allegations have, likewise, been debunked time and time again on these self-same google and youtube searches. Perhaps if you spent a little time checking on the contrary view to your own, you'd know that. So, please, do your research, and you'll find that all of your allegations are bunk.

Go to RDF & Rational Skepticism where I've posted lots more, & in greater technical detail (much of it my own work).

I'd rather we just look at one assertion at a time, then have to wade through screeds and screeds to find something relating to a specific topic. We have established that you are dead wrong that the towers fell at or near free fall speed. You then changed your tune and added air resistance to the equation and you have concluded that the towers fell as if there was only the force of gravity and air resistance involved. That, of course, is wrong, because even with air resistance, the top of the tower would hit the bottom in just about 9.22 seconds. You would need to have more than just air resistance to slow it down.

But you'll say "can't be bothered"...Well, so be it. Then why should I be bothered regurgitating the same when I've got more receptive ears with more original questions to attend to? I am only posting for the lurkers, incase any are genuine inquirers

Do what you want. Respond to whoever you want. You won't be taken seriously, though, if you just avoid the specific issues and just post hour and half long videos saying "here it is," particularly when the video is "In Plane Sight" which is hardly a serious bit of investigative journalism and is.

9/11 In Plane Sight - a bogus production: http://guardian.150m.com/false-opp/in-plan-site.htm

[Coito ergo sum]

Here is the "convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry which most of you put down to chance:
1) That the air defense of NY & Washington DC was stood down on 9/11.

I'll take the first one:

The problem with your allegation is that it is wrong. There was no "stand down" order. If you claim there was one, provide a link or citation. My guess is that you are inferring a stand down order from the failure of US fighters to intercept the planes that crashed into buildings on 9/11.

Funny, though, as an aside, you and other Truthers have also made the argument that the planes, drones or missiles that crashed into the buildings were planted by the government. If the government had really orchestrated the events of 9/11 such that they knew they were taking the towers down by controlled demolition and they knew they were hitting the Pentagon with a missile.....why would they "stand down" the military at all? They control the military. Wouldn't someone orchestrating this plan know that if they ordered the military to stand down, it would look suspicious and so they should send up military craft, but control them in such a way that they looked like they responded, but couldn't stop the events?

Nevertheless, it is neither quick nor easy to locate and intercept a plane behaving erratically, and that the hijackers on 9.11 turned off or disabled the onboard radar transponders. Without these transponder signals to identify the airplanes, the hijacked airplanes would have been only blips among 4,500 other blips on NORAD’S radar screens, making them very difficult to track. Fourteen fighter jets were on alert in the contiguous 48 states on 9/11. There was no automated method for the civilian air traffic controllers to alert NORAD. A passenger airline hadn't been hijacked in the US since 1979. "They had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. By way of example, NORAD intercepted golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 22 minutes to reach the jet from the time when contact was lost.

Rules in effect on 9/11, barred supersonic flight on intercepts. Before 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones. Until 9/11 there was no domestic Air Defense Identification Zones.

There was no stand down order. Period.

[owtth]

Cog, your patience is something to behold

[Coito ergo sum]

Here is the "convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry which most of you put down to chance:

2) That WTC 1 & 2 were hit by non-commercial planes; as evident from the bulky add-on under their fuselage.
:

On to number 2 -

No, there were no bulky add ons. Your saying it doesn't make it so. What's your evidence?

They found parts of the commercial airliners at the scene of the world trade center collapse, and DNA of passengers. The flights did take off from commercial airports and they are gone. Pieces of the planes and the passengers were found at the WTC. There has been an allegation from Truther groups that an image of the undersigned of one of the planes on 9/11 contains a "military pod" underneath the fuselage. It doesn't though. It's a fairing for the landing gear.

You know, your number 1 and number 2 points do not stand up to scrutiny at all.

[Coito ergo sum]

Cog, your patience is something to behold

I love this stuff.