BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 08:25 PM

701 ways to skin a cat...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 08:40 PM

Here's one thing I find problematic. I consider it an anomaly. We have been given a few different "official" reports, as the official explanation has changed over time. For a while, they were promoting the "floor joists slipped off their angle clips (resulting in colapse)" theory. Now, they appear to be promoting the "floor joists pulled on the angle clips and bowed the perimeter walls inward (resulting in colapse)" theory. Obviously, they couldn't continue to promote the theory about the joists slipping off the angle clips because, as I've said before, that would result in the core being left standing. So they abandoned that one and came up with the tugging and bowing theory.

Here's the problem with these two theories having both been promoted by the government. With the first theory, they were saying that the weak spot was the angle clips. That's why they were able to make the assertion that the towers could have fallen that way.

Now, with the new theory, they are saying that the angle clips were not weak at all, but that they were so strong, and they held the floor joists in place so securely, the walls bowed inward because of it.

They seem to be trying to have it both ways with those angle clips. Probably because they made up the whole "angle clips being the week point" thing out of thin air without ever even trying to find out whether they were week or strong. I guess it sounded good at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 08:42 PM

Video released: No pictures of plane in view, just the explosion.

I'd like to see that one. Do you know if it's available for viewing online?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 08:51 PM

beardedbruce, your copy/pastings of my previous comments seem to be somewhat random, and it's a bit difficult to determine exactly what the point is that you're trying to make.

However, I think this sentence from me is probably a good response.

and if they could stand up to the same kind of scrutiny that any other scientific theories and conclusions are subject to

So far, the official versions of events haven't even come close to receiving that level of scrutiny. But I should qualify what I said a bit. If the peer reviews conclude that the official theory is bullshit, I won't be accepting it.

Plus, you failed to include the parts where I said that I would like to see multiple peer reviews and peer reviews of the peer reviews.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 09:37 PM

You folks are swallowing elephants and straining at gnats.

Fire weakened the structure. A significant part of the structure, as a chunk, essentially fell on the rest, and like a fist coming down on a house of cards the floor by floor 'resistance' was very low compared to the shock of the release of potential energy from above. Jiving with this is the fact that although hit later, the tower with the greater mass isolated up top (a bigger fist) was the one that failed first.

As for the problem with falling 'straight' down, this is again ignorance of the laws of physics. If you've ever seen the demolition of a tall chimney stack, you'd notice that the whole thing doesn't just keel over like Jack's giant or a felled tree. It takes energy to divert that much mass to the side, hence at some point the top breaks away and falls closer to the base than you might expect. Since the failure of each tower started near the top to begin with, there was only 'down' to go.

This thread is a reminder of how certain arguments never go away even though they are pretty blatantly wrong on the face of it.

Mistrust goes a long way, and ignorance greases the skids.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 06:15 AM

"If you are critically discussing my ideas and reasoning, you are not discussing the topic of discussion, you are discussing me."

You would likely undergo a mental breakdown with higher level University study, then, as isolating the ideas from the individuals themselves is the main point of Research...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 10:35 AM

A significant part of the structure, as a chunk, essentially fell on the rest, and like a fist coming down on a house of cards the floor by floor 'resistance' was very low compared to the shock of the release of potential energy from above.

If this is the case, why didn't those top portions arrive at the bottom relatively intact? And how does this explain building 7?


You would likely undergo a mental breakdown with higher level University study, then, as isolating the ideas from the individuals themselves is the main point of Research...

If I were to submit myself to such an environment, I would understand the rules of that environment and abide by them. This is not a higher level university environment. I have not paid anyone here to teach me and bestow any degrees upon me. The rules and purposes of debate are different than the rules and purposes of higher academia.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 11:20 AM

"The rules and purposes of debate are different than the rules and purposes of higher academia."

That statement reveals so much about a person's character and behaviour in threads such as these...

"why didn't those top portions arrive at the bottom relatively intact?"

Because the energy they possessed when they hit the ground went into reducing them to rubble (1/2 m v ² )


"And how does this explain building 7?"

If you had big heavy lumps fall on you, you might fall down too...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 12:18 PM

As ever, deeply held faith in one's adopted viewpoint holds the tiller through even the stormiest seas. ;-)

This is as true of you, Foolestroupe, as it is of all your loyal opponents on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 01:37 PM

Hey Hey Foolstroupe... just remember this...
The Shill's shrill cheapest thpill... is condescension's dis...
Schism prisims no populisms... Carol's questions do...
Truth's proof may be uncooth... to many behind you...

Ask ask know your task... causes made us flutter
See be let's agree... biggotry's the nutter
Find kind open mind... Truth we're not afraid of...
Grow Know Make 'em show... what smoking guns are made of.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: heric
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 01:42 PM

Clocks in chips tick.
Clocks on chips tock.
Eight byte bits tick.
Eight bit bytes tock.
Clocks on chips with eight bit bytes tick.
Chips with clocks and eight byte bits tock.

Here's an easy game to play.
Here's an easy thing to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 01:45 PM

"The rules and purposes of debate are different than the rules and purposes of higher academia."

That statement reveals so much about a person's character and behaviour in threads such as these...

This comment from you reveals even more about you. For one thing, that you prefer a somewhat sneakier approach to your smear tactics (ad hominem argumentation).

We are all equal peers here in this forum. None of us is a pedagogue bestowing anything at all upon others. You might believe that you have greater status, or that you have a right to judge or bestow your approval upon others, but you aren't and you don't. You're just another one of the debaters, of equal status as all of the other debaters.


"why didn't those top portions arrive at the bottom relatively intact?"

Because the energy they possessed when they hit the ground went into reducing them to rubble (1/2 m v 2 )

Even building 7?


"And how does this explain building 7?"

If you had big heavy lumps fall on you, you might fall down too...

There's a big difference between falling down and becoming pulverized. When other 40 story buildings have collapsed by other means than controlled demolition (earthquake, for instance), have they also become pulverized?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 02:33 PM

"When other 40 story buildings have collapsed by other means than controlled demolition (earthquake, for instance), have they also become pulverized?"

That makes a difference in this case??   Can you say for a fact that they did not become pulverized? You can't compare apples to oranges because each circumstance of a building collapse is different - construction, causes, size, weather, etc. One factor does not work for another.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 03:48 PM

I doubt very seriously that there is all that much data available on what happens when buildings collapse from a variety of causes, i.e., earthquake, being collided with by an airliner, fire (either accidental or arson), vast amounts of time and general decay, controlled demolition, uncontrolled demolition, being struck by cannon-fire or a large stone hurled by a medieval trebuchet, or any combination of the aforementioned. Experimenting with models or computer simulation is not necessarily going to produce data that is accurate in the real world, and experimenting by causing full-size buildings to collapse in a variety of ways and then documenting all the minute details for future reference might prove just a bit costly.

So—although we may know generally quite a bit about the details of how a specific building collapsed by applying principles of physics and knowledge of architecture and engineering, much of it, especially the finer details, is going to be a matter of guesswork. And that would be by experts.

When attempted by non-experts, it is sheer speculation. And in this case, that speculation is strongly colored by people's preconceptions, further complicated by the blizzard of misinformation (some of it severely twisted to fit those preconceptions).   

Considering the fact that none of us knows for certain what happened, it is really a bit silly to get offended and/or nasty and/or abusive if someone else doesn't agree with your pet theory.

By the way, this is a general observation. I'm not addressing this comment to anyone in particular. If you found yourself taking it personally and getting your neck in a bow, you might just want to think about that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo smart
Date: 21 Jul 07 - 03:55 PM

Heric, that's the most intelligent thing anyone has had to say in this thread sooo far. . .