|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 55)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Prior knowledge of attacks? FACT |
not true. prior knowledge of potential attacks at some stage. not the same thing, and its dishonest of you to say that it is.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Failure to take any action (let alone effective action or preventive measures)? FACT |
which is evidence of what exactly? no, couldnt be government incompetence! never! mustve been the most illogical scheme of all time!
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Unusual change in chain of command and interference with standard NORAD protocols resulting in attack on pentagon that would never have happened if standard procedures were allowed to take place? FACT |
]
total bull.
| quote: |
Debunk 9/11 myths
Topics
7 World Trade Center
Controlled demolition
Foreknowledge
Larry Silverstein
NORAD
Osama bin Laden
Pentagon
United Airlines Flight 93
Films
Loose Change
United 93
World Trade Center
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
References
References
Google
debunk911myths
Web
NORAD
From Debunk 9/11 myths
Jump to: navigation, search
Page under construction
NORAD/FAA response
Background
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) was established in 1958 through a bilateral U.S.-Canada agreement. Its mission was, and is, to defend the airspace of North America and protect the continent. That mission does not distinguish between internal and external threats; but because NORAD was created to counter the Soviet threat, it came to define its job as defending against external attacks.
Soviet threat
The threat of Soviet bombers diminished significantly as the Cold War ended, and the number of NORAD alert sites was reduced from its Cold War high of 26. Some within the Pentagon argued in the 1990s that the alert sites should be eliminated entirely. In an effort to preserve their mission, members of the air defense community advocated the importance of air sovereignty against emerging "asymmetric threats" to the United States: drug smuggling, "non-state and state-sponsored terrorists," and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology.
NORAD perceived the dominant threat to be from cruise missiles. Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists' use of aircraft as weapons. Exercises were conducted to counter this threat, but they were not based on actual intelligence. In most instances, the main concern was the use of such aircraft to deliver weapons of mass destruction.
Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense). Exercise planners also assumed that the aircraft would originate from outside the United States, allowing time to identify the target and scramble interceptors. The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States-and using them as guided missiles-was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11.
Notwithstanding the identification of these emerging threats, by 9/11 there were only seven alert sites left in the United States, each with two fighter aircraft on alert. This led some NORAD commanders to worry that NORAD was not postured adequately to protect the United States.
NORAD structure
NORAD is based out of Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station and Peterson Air Force Base near Colorado Springs.
In the United States, NORAD is divided into three sectors:
* Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) - Rome, New York
* Southeast Air Defense Sector - Tyndall Air Force Base (Florida)
* Western Air Defense Sector - McChord Air Force Base (Washington State)
On the morning of 9/11, NEADS could call on two alert sites, each with one pair of ready fighters:
* Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, Massachusetts
* Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia.
Other facilities, not on "alert," would need time to arm the fighters and organize crews.
NEADS reported to the Continental U.S. NORAD Region (CONR) headquarters, in Panama City, Florida, which in turn reported to NORAD headquarters, in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
FAA and NORAD
Main article: Federal Aviation Administration
On 9/11, air defense of the United States relied on close cooperation between the NORAD and the FAA.
Previous hijackings
The most recent hijacking that involved U.S. air traffic controllers, FAA management, and military coordination had occurred in 1993.
The FAA and NORAD had developed protocols for working together in the event of a hijacking. As they existed on 9/11, the protocols for the FAA to obtain military assistance from NORAD required multiple levels of notification and approval at the highest levels of government.101
FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller via radio or by "squawking" a transponder code of "7500"-the universal code for a hijack in progress. Controllers would notify their supervisors, who in turn would inform management all the way up to FAA headquarters in Washington. Headquarters had a hijack coordinator, who was the director of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security or his or her designate.102
If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) and to ask for a military escort aircraft to follow the flight, report anything unusual, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency. The NMCC would then seek approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance. If approval was given, the orders would be transmitted down NORAD's chain of command.103
The NMCC would keep the FAA hijack coordinator up to date and help the FAA centers coordinate directly with the military. NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it.104
The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, "vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft," where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path.105
In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed that
* The hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear;
* There would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command; and
* Hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.
9/11
On 9/11, the defense of U.S. airspace depended on close interaction between two federal agencies: the FAA and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).
On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol for hijackings was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen.
American Airlines Flight 11
Main article: American Airlines Flight 11
NEADS received notification of the hijacking 9 minutes before American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m.
Although the Boston Center air traffic controller realized at an early stage that there was something wrong with American 11, he did not immediately interpret the plane's failure to respond as a sign that it had been hijacked. At 8:14, when the flight failed to heed his instruction to climb to 35,000 feet, the controller repeatedly tried to raise the flight. He reached out to the pilot on the emergency frequency. Though there was no response, he kept trying to contact the aircraft.
At 8:21, American 11 turned off its transponder, immediately degrading the information available about the aircraft. The controller told his supervisor that he thought something was seriously wrong with the plane, although neither suspected a hijacking. The supervisor instructed the controller to follow standard procedures for handling a "no radio" aircraft.
The controller checked to see if American Airlines could establish communication with American 11. He became even more concerned as its route changed, moving into another sector's airspace. Controllers immediately began to move aircraft out of its path, and asked other aircraft in the vicinity to look for American 11.108
At 8:24:38, the following transmission came from American 11:
We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport.
The controller only heard something unintelligible; he did not hear the specific words "we have some planes." The next transmission came seconds later:
Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.
The controller told us that he then knew it was a hijacking. He alerted his supervisor, who assigned another controller to assist him. He redoubled his efforts to ascertain the flight's altitude. Because the controller didn't understand the initial transmission, the manager of Boston Center instructed his quality assurance specialist to "pull the tape" of the radio transmission, listen to it closely, and report back.
Between 8:25 and 8:32, in accordance with the FAA protocol, Boston Center managers started notifying their chain of command that American 11 had been hijacked. At 8:28, Boston Center called the Command Center in Herndon to advise that it believed American 11 had been hijacked and was heading toward New York Center's airspace.
By this time, American 11 had taken a dramatic turn to the south. At 8:32, the Command Center passed word of a possible hijacking to the Operations Center at FAA headquarters. The duty officer replied that security personnel at headquarters had just begun discussing the apparent hijack on a conference call with the New England regional office. FAA headquarters began to follow the hijack protocol but did not contact the NMCC to request a fighter escort.
The Herndon Command Center immediately established a teleconference between Boston, New York, and Cleveland Centers so that Boston Center could help the others understand what was happening.
At 8:34, the Boston Center controller received a third transmission from American 11:
Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves.
In the succeeding minutes, controllers were attempting to ascertain the altitude of the southbound flight.
Military Notification and Response
Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notifications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military-at any level-that American 11 had been hijacked:
FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise?
FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test
NEADS ordered to battle stations the two F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, 153 miles away from New York City. The air defense of America began with this call.
At NEADS, the report of the hijacking was relayed immediately to Battle Commander Colonel Robert Marr. After ordering the Otis fighters to battle stations, Colonel Marr phoned Major General Larry Arnold, commanding general of the First Air Force and NORAD's Continental Region. Marr sought authorization to scramble the Otis fighters. General Arnold later recalled instructing Marr to "go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get authorities later." General Arnold then called NORAD headquarters to report.
F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.
Radar data show the Otis fighters were airborne at 8:53. Lacking a target, they were vectored toward military-controlled airspace off the Long Island coast. To avoid New York area air traffic and uncertain about what to do, the fighters were brought down to military airspace to "hold as needed. "From 9:09 to 9:13, the Otis fighters stayed in this holding pattern.
In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes' notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings.
Theories
Stand down order?
Theory
The government intentionally stood down NORAD, and any attempt to intercept the hijacked flights.
Military intercepts
Theory
The military is perfectly capable of intercepting commercial aircraft.
Fact
The hijackers turned of the aircraft transponders, making it much more difficult to locate the aircraft (as radar blips, among all the many radar blips from all aircraft). Further, bureaucratic problems and incompetency inhibited the government from a quick, efficient, timely response to the hijackings.
Some conspiracy theorists point to the 1999 NORAD intercept of Payne Stewart's Learjet before it crashed. There was already a F-16 in flight, on training, and available. Unlike the hijacked 9/11 aircraft, the transponder in the Learjet was never turned off. These two facts made it possible to make the intercept.
References
* FAA Believed Second 9/11 Plane Heading Towards NY for Emergency Landing - National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 165, George Washington University (September 9, 2005)
* Bronner, Michael (September 2005) "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes", Vanity Fair.
Retrieved from "http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=NORAD" |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Seismic data consistent with controlled demolition theory? FACT |
how? how is the data consistent with controlled demolition? you slide these assumptions in as fact. more 9/11 dishonesty.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Expansion of excecutive branch and tyrannical bills/law butchering constituionaly guaranteed protection from state and abuse of power? FACT |
oh. i see. political opportunism after a catalytic event means that demolition charges were planted in the WTCs.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Clear abuse of power and convicted criminals appointed in key governmental positions? FACT |
i dont know about this.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Illegal and unwarranted domestic spying on grassroots organizations, peace groups, and political advesaries? FACT |
well, why arent you blaming hoover or mcarthy for the attacks then? :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
War based on blatant lies and deliberate manipulation of intelligence considered faulty by agencies in the first place and produced under pressure from executive branch? FACT |
more evidence of all from you mate.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Illegal destruction and removal of forensic evidence from crime scene? FACT |
bull. ive argued this with you before. how do you explain all the steel tested by NIST? :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Executive branch blocking independet investigation into 9-11 and 9-11 commission only being formed after families of victims pressuring the Government? FACT |
oh, ok. the commission mightve been imperfect but thats hardly evidence of complicity or anything more sinister. and all those external experts were just pressured and bought off by the administration im sure! :haha:
hey, and wheres your criticism of WTC7? you used to whinge on and on about it. why not now? wouldnt be that you realised your error and now youre clinging to what you have left of the movement? haha. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
ok, heres a question for you, mr physics expert.
assuming each tower had the same potential energy, couldnt the manner in which they fell translate to a different seismic reading, even though they were expending the same amount of energy? are seismic readings really energy-measurements and so easily transferable? i didnt think so.
if one tower spewed more debris outwards, and the other took more debris down to its base/core, couldnt that translate into a different reading?
also, wouldnt .2 on the siesmograph be a relatively small different gizen the size and height of each tower?
edit: also, in that vid you posted, the time for each collapse was different by two seconds. is it possible that a building expending the same amount of energy but collapsing slightly slower would translate into different seismic readings? i mean, if one tower took an hour to collapse, i would assume the force would be greatly reduced?
these are honest questions, like ive admitted, im not a physics expert. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
how is the fact that one tower has a slightly different reading to another evidence of explosives? |
The "slight difference" in reading is equivilant to a massive difference in potential energy (which is roughly equivilant to kinetic energy) as the seismic waves are on measured on a logrithmic scale. That implies a massive difference in the total energy of two virtually identical systems (almost double)! There shouldn't be any significant difference whatsoever if the pancake theory was the actual cause for collapse (almost a magnitude of 2 in this case). Explosions (resulting in added KE) could easily cause that.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
they put more tnt in one building than another? :rolleyes: they wouldnt have wired the same exact towers in the same exact way? |
That doesn't mean they all have to necessarily detonate, or that all of them will effectiely detonate. If you're planning on wiring a builiding with exposives and you can't take any risk of them going off without the desired result of a guaranteed collapse, wouldn't you wire it with far more than theoretically required to achieve that, or take your chances with the exact theoretical amount? And would you go throught the painstaking process of wiring each tower with exactly the same amount, somehow with a guarantee of all explosives effectily detonating? Even if all of them did effectively detonate, they won't all necessarily equally add on to the kinetic energy of the falling towers/debree. There doesn't need to be an even and equal distribution in additional KE from the explosives in the cases of both towers. For that to happen, there would need to be exactly the same number of explosives in each tower, in exactly the same spots, with and eactly equal collective total explosive power, every single one of them sucessfully going off at exactly the same moment in time-space in both collapses, and both towers collapsing in precisely the same manner down to the smallest bit of debree. Any variation of those factor could easily have a dramatic effect on the how much KE due to explosions would effectively be added to the KE of the collapsing tower, hence the total collective KE of the system, which would result in a proportional differnce in PE. It's next to impossible to control every one of those factors, nor is at all necessary to accomplish the desired goal of both towers collapsing.
EDIT: Another fact relevant to my argument, there was a huge chunk separate from the rest of the structure in the collapse for the second tower, which would result in different additional KE due to explosives added on to the KE of the collapse (a significant loss), in turn causing a noticable difference in PE, hence, the total system (as is evident by the seismic data).
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
damned straight i have a very limited understanding of physics.
|
Yup, you do.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
of course this sounds rich coming from the guy that kept going on and on about the madrid fires :haha: |
I never "went on and on" about the Madrid Fires, I mentioned it once (or a few times at most) and only as an example, perhaps the best, of a modern steel-framed high rise that burned for hours with severe fires engulfing large portions of the building, and it still didn't collapse. Neigther has any other prior to 9-11. But we're supposed to believe that far less severe fires burning for only a few minutes would generate enough heat to weaken the structure of a building far more structually sound, one specifically designed to be able to withstand at least one hit from a 707 will? It doesn't add up, it's an anomoly. If there were absoutely no supportive evidence for the controlled demolition theory, then it would make some sense to accept this anomoly as infact being having occured, and the only possibile explanation for the collapse. That is just isn't the case.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
ive shot down plenty of your ideas before. |
No you haven't, you've copy pasted material from websites on every single aspect of 9-11, material you have no way of validating or critically analyzing. You haven't presented a single idea or argument of your own, or even expressed it in your own words. That only indicates an inablity to argue it.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and no, i cant explain the differences in seismic activity. however simply stating it was due to explosives certainly isnt enough. |
There's tons of other evidence (that me and others have posted before) supportive of the controlled demolition theory. So the seismic data isn't being used in isolation as the sole evidence for an argument, but it's certainly very strong supporting evidence. That really has no explanation at all in the absense of an external energy source, which completely contradict the pancake thoery. Evidence contradicting theory? Hmmmm... in science that implies that the theory is bull! Evidence supporting theory on the other hand gives more validity to it.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
you still havent provided any argument of what explosive was used, which you would logically need to do. but so far not one explosive has been plausibly presented. not one. as mentioned before, thermite certianly wasnt it. |
No, you don't. That's question's irrelevant to the fact that explosives were used (assuming a controled demolition is indeed the case, which IS consistent with the seismic data, unlike the pancake thoery). I don't need to tell you what I specifically ate in order for you to believe that I took a , all you need to know is that I ate. What I ate has no impact on the fact that I took a . :rolleyes: If there such a glaring disconnect (more like interchange) of an antacedent and a consequent in your logical framework, you don't have a "logical" framework for analysis or critique to being with.
So it looks like not only do you need a lesson in elementary physics, but also elemetray logic. Here it is:
A - antacedant
B - consequent
A -> B (read as A implies B)
T - means the predicate is true.
F - means the predicate is false.
The first two columbs (left land side, seperated by a '|') are all possible combinations for truth values of A and B.
The third columb (right hand side) is the truth value of the implication given the values for A and B in that row.
the truth table is as follows;
A B | A -> B
F F | T
F T | T
T F | F
T T | T
Let 'A' mean: The WTC collapsed due to controlled demolitions.
Let 'B' mean: We know exactly which explosives were/would be used.
Therefore A -> B reads as: The WTC collapsed due to controlled demolitions implies we know exactly which explosives were/would be used.
Now look at the statement and the truth table.
As you can see, A -> B is not a logically sound statement and the truth value of 'B' has no impact on the truth value of 'A.'
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
youre still grasping at desperate straws that still dont give you the smoking gun.
|
So a difference of almost twice in total energy of two virtually identical system is a straw? Right. :rolleyes:
Now I'm going to be really annoyed if you simply copy paste something that doesn't address anything I've said, having taken the time and effort to actually form my own arguments (basing it on undisputed facts/scientific theory easily intelligible to anyone) as opposed to complex analysis by certain "experts," whose analysis is only meanigfully intelligle to/critiquable by other experts, that I don't have much reason to trust in the first place for an array of reasons I won't get into rightnow. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
Show me a convicing statiscal comparison of steel-framed high rises that collasped on themselves and and one's that didn't where controlled demolitions were not the case, suggesting a likely probability of occurance in the case of the WTC.
EDIT: Perhaps then I'll take the pancake theory more seriously. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Shaolin, i just started college physics couple months ago, and what you said does make sense. We'll be getting into that stuff later on ;-)
Good points on government -ups and kinetic energy released by the two towers ;-) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
its interesting you view your arrogant & condescending tone so very differently from my abusive posts ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
The "slight difference" in reading is equivilant to a massive difference in potential energy (which is roughly equivilant to kinetic energy) as the seismic waves are on measured on a logrithmic scale. That implies a massive difference in the total energy of two virtually identical systems (almost double)! There shouldn't be any significant difference whatsoever if the pancake theory was the actual cause for collapse (almost a magnitude of 2 in this case). Explosions (resulting in added KE) could easily cause that. |
i disagree. i dont think you can equate a seismic reading with a definitive calculation for energy. if two identical buildings fall in slightly different ways the seismic reading should be different. the same energy dispersed in a different manner. or at least thats my laymen's understanding of it. you cant state that a different seismic reading necessarily equates to a different level of energy. the collapses of thousands of tonnes of steel & concrete could have been different enough to give the different readings.
if this evidence was so clear-cut, then i doubt its revelations would be ignored by the world's engineers.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
That doesn't mean they all have to necessarily detonate, or that all of them will effectiely detonate. If you're planning on wiring a builiding with exposives and you can't take any risk of them going off without the desired result of a guaranteed collapse, wouldn't you wire it with far more than theoretically required to achieve that, or take your chances with the exact theoretical amount? And would you go throught the painstaking process of wiring each tower with exactly the same amount, somehow with a guarantee of all explosives effectily detonating? Even if all of them did effectively detonate, they won't all necessarily equally add on to the kinetic energy of the falling towers/debree. There doesn't need to be an even and equal distribution in additional KE from the explosives in the cases of both towers. For that to happen, there would need to be exactly the same number of explosives in each tower, in exactly the same spots, with and eactly equal collective total explosive power, every single one of them sucessfully going off at exactly the same moment in time-space in both collapses, and both towers collapsing in precisely the same manner down to the smallest bit of debree. Any variation of those factor could easily have a dramatic effect on the how much KE due to explosions would effectively be added to the KE of the collapsing tower, hence the total collective KE of the system, which would result in a proportional differnce in PE. It's next to impossible to control every one of those factors, nor is at all necessary to accomplish the desired goal of both towers collapsing. |
yeah, i agree. however, the significant difference in energy (according to you) makes it look like a significantly higher amount of explosives were discharged in one building when compared to the other, and if you were going to blow both towers im not sure you would get that anomaly. the explosive setups would be almost identical i would have thought, and carrying the detonations out would be also very similar.
either way, the different seismic readings still doesn't give you a helluva lot. you keep stating that the .2 difference is a lot, however in the sheer size of these buildings im not as convinced.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
EDIT: Another fact relevant to my argument, there was a huge chunk separate from the rest of the structure in the collapse for the second tower, which would result in different additional KE due to explosives added on to the KE of the collapse (a significant loss), in turn causing a noticable difference in PE, hence, the total system (as is evident by the seismic data). |
but what would it mean if there werent explosives? wouldnt that chunk count for energy but not for seismic reading on the same scale??
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I never "went on and on" about the Madrid Fires, I mentioned it once (or a few times at most) and only as an example, perhaps the best, of a modern steel-framed high rise that burned for hours with severe fires engulfing large portions of the building, and it still didn't collapse. Neigther has any other prior to 9-11. But we're supposed to believe that far less severe fires burning for only a few minutes would generate enough heat to weaken the structure of a building far more structually sound, one specifically designed to be able to withstand at least one hit from a 707 will? It doesn't add up, it's an anomoly. If there were absoutely no supportive evidence for the controlled demolition theory, then it would make some sense to accept this anomoly as infact being having occured, and the only possibile explanation for the collapse. That is just isn't the case. |
you mentioned it on several occasions from memory. and its a ty comparison, as myself and colonel & occ showed you. you simply cant compare the two structures. its intellectually dishonest.
ive stated it before, the various factors that went into the collapses have never been seen before, so arguing that this was the first time isnt a real argument at all.
well, at the moment, this seismic anomaly is the only other supposed supporting evidence you have. and you havent answered my questions relating to whether slightly different collapses can result in slightly different seismic results? and im gonna keep saying "slightly" because given the size of the buidlings i still dont see it as a massive difference.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
No you haven't, you've copy pasted material from websites on every single aspect of 9-11, material you have no way of validating or critically analyzing. You haven't presented a single idea or argument of your own, or even expressed it in your own words. That only indicates an inablity to argue it. |
]
bull. i copy & pasted because im lazy & he has it all nicely laid out there and written much better than i could be bothered to do. and none of you ever responded to any of it. the only stuff im incapable of critically analysing would be the indepth scientific components, but this doesnt prevent me from understanding the principles. ie the structural design of the WTCs certainly cant be compared to the madrid building.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
There's tons of other evidence (that me and others have posted before) supportive of the controlled demolition theory. So the seismic data isn't being used in isolation as the sole evidence for an argument, but it's certainly very strong supporting evidence. That really has no explanation at all in the absense of an external energy source, which completely contradict the pancake thoery. Evidence contradicting theory? Hmmmm... in science that implies that the theory is bull! Evidence supporting theory on the other hand gives more validity to it. |
what other evidence? you guys (and yes im gonna lump you all in the same category coz you use the same websites and make the same false claims) talked about supposed demolition squibs. of which there are none :rolleyes: you talked about thermite, ignoring the sheer literage of thermite that would have been needed. show me some more evidence. coz ive read the same sites as you, and i havent been able to find it.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
No, you don't. That's question's irrelevant to the fact that explosives were used (assuming a controled demolition is indeed the case, which IS consistent with the seismic data, unlike the pancake thoery). I don't need to tell you what I specifically ate in order for you to believe that I took a , all you need to know is that I ate. What I ate has no impact on the fact that I took a . :rolleyes: If there such a glaring disconnect (more like interchange) of an antacedent and a consequent in your logical framework, you don't have a "logical" framework for analysis or critique to being with. |
no its not irrelvant. explosives arent explosives. the type of explosive is an inherently important fact due to their differences. both in effect and in power & how they are ignited. thus, if you are going to point at the supposed seismic anomaly as an example of demolition, you must therefore have an idea of what explosives were used. if you cant postulate a theory for type & volume of explosive, youre not very credible. and, as yet, i havent seen a single position put forward other than the thermite one, which is just total bull.
no, i dont need to have evidence of what you ate to believe you took a . but whether or not you took a isnt the point. its whether the you took happened naturally or was there an artificially-induced bowel movement. to determine which was the case, what you ate is indeed central to the discussion. we're not debating that the towers fell, we're debating what caused it.
| quote: | | Originally posted by shaolin_Z So it looks like not only do you need a lesson in elementary physics, but also elemetray logic. Here it is: |
i passed elementary logic when you were still in highschool you arrogant , so you can suck my dick. would you like a refresher course in english?
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Now look at the statement and the truth table.
As you can see, A -> B is not a logically sound statement and the truth value of 'B' has no impact on the truth value of 'A.' |
but thats not what i was saying :rolleyes: i was arguing that IF you believe so strongly in demolition, AND you understand the different natures of explosives, THEN you should put forward an argument as to what the explosive in question was. there are many reasons why various explosives couldnt have been used. so im asking you, the believer, to think about the conditions of the buildings following the crashes, and give me a suggestion.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
So a difference of almost twice in total energy of two virtually identical system is a straw? Right. :rolleyes: |
again, youre making this link that i do not believe is valid. whilst the seismic data might suggest there was twice the amount of energy, it doesnt rule out that the different levels of "energy" occured due to slightly different collapses. and lets not forget this evidence comes straight from the tinfoil brigade, so forgive me if im not gonna take their word for what the .2 seismic difference means.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Now I'm going to be really annoyed if you simply copy paste something that doesn't address anything I've said, having taken the time and effort to actually form my own arguments (basing it on undisputed facts/scientific theory easily intelligible to anyone) as opposed to complex analysis by certain "experts," whose analysis is only meanigfully intelligle to/critiquable by other experts, that I don't have much reason to trust in the first place for an array of reasons I won't get into rightnow. |
well i havent found anything specific on the seismic data to post yet :p but given how everything else you guys have raised has been nicely dealt with by the world's academia, this anomaly which you tied unproven assumptions to, is merely that- an anomaly.
well, if youre not going to trust the world's experts, from all kinds of schools and institutes, then i must wonder if youre just a little crazy :p im sorry, but theres no way the administration has gotten to all of them. thats just not plausible. anywayz, im sure i can continue this tomorrow at work. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
well ill pm colonel crisp and see what his take is on the seismic stuff. coz im well out of my area of expertise ;)
ooooh! magnetonium thinks it makes sense! more or less sense than diana's murder or roswell? :haha: |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well ill pm colonel crisp and see what his take is on the seismic stuff. coz im well out of my area of expertise ;)
ooooh! magnetonium thinks it makes sense! more or less sense than diana's murder or roswell? :haha: |
and another thing,,,, whats up with the orange text??
Need an extra boost in your presentation? |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
and another thing,,,, whats up with the orange text??
Need an extra boost in your presentation? |
Maybe I just like my posts to stand out.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well ill pm colonel crisp and see what his take is on the seismic stuff. coz im well out of my area of expertise ;)
ooooh! magnetonium thinks it makes sense! more or less sense than diana's murder or roswell? :haha: |
You idiot ... the amount of energy released should have been similar, or proportionate to the time and speed of the collapse, because the buildings were the same and fell at the same speed. The only difference (in a factor of almost 2, btw), is if there was an artificial energy exerted on the falling structure to produce such a force. If there was no such force, the buildings should have produced similar force on the surface.
If a vehicle/truck/car crashes into a tree at 100 km/hr, based on its mass it was exert a certain force (F=ma). If the same vehicle was laid with explosive material crashed into the tree, the force would spike the readings (Fw=coefficient times mass times acceleration). Same mass, its the external energy force.
|
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Maybe I just like my posts to stand out.
You idiot ...
|
Pssst... the one thing the guy from land down under is not,
much respect for pkcRAISTLIN, I have do I..
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
You idiot ... the amount of energy released should have been similar, or proportionate to the time and speed of the collapse, because the buildings were the same and fell at the same speed. The only difference (in a factor of almost 2, btw), is if there was an artificial energy exerted on the falling structure to produce such a force. If there was no such force, the buildings should have produced similar force on the surface. |
but youre comparing different levels in a seismic reading, NOT different levels of energy. youre merely stating that the reading means there was twice the amount of energy in one building. i dont think you can make that assessment from seismic data alone. if you took each brick of a building and threw it down one by one, you wouldnt get anywhere near the same reading than if a building fell completely in one movement. according to that video shaolin posted, there was a 2 second difference in the times it took each tower to fall. if the same amount of energy is dissipated over a slightly longer period of time, then i would guess that the seismic reading would be different. again, its not my area of expertise but you guys havent answered my question.
the tower that exerted the 2.3 reading fell two seconds faster than the tower that gave the 2.1 reading.
oh, and im the idiot! UFO boy :haha: |
|
|
| _Ocean_Drive_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
also, you still havent argued why you believe you know better than the world's engineers. |
You're very selective in which engineers you believe. There are 'experts' on both sides of the story here, but you're only believing the ones who you WANT to believe. |
|
|
|
|
