9-11 Conspiracy Theorists

FYI math is more than long division and fractions. But its ok if you really don't understand math beyond a high school level. Just don't try to argue math with those that do.

But I'll give you the benfit of the doubt for now. Post your proof about elephants and have it subject to review here and I'll take you seriously.

Dear? The High falutin' Math by your ignoramus of a friend IS addition and substraction.
And I don't tapdance just because you ask me.

But in the interests of being informative I'll post a vid of WTC #7's implosion.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

As I thought. You can't back up your claim using math as you said you could. But you sure can watch videos.

If you ever do decide to back up your claims with the same level you demand of others, you'll be taken seriously. Until then, enjoy a site without all those numbers and stuff.

http://www.mtv.com/

cognitive dissonance

I guess the fact that the entire video clip I provided is only 9.2 seconds long in total somehow eludes you.

Some of us like to base opinions on analysis and not videos. I realize that not everyone can do more than basic math, but please try to a little thinking before you embarrass yourself any more.

Try reading some of these for starters. If there is any word that is too big for you, try www.dictionary.com.

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF


Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html


For some pictures from other angles showing the scope of the fire on WC7

http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

You can also try reading the NIST report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive.

The theory of cognitive dissonance was first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956 after observing the counterintuitive belief persistence of members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed. The failed message of earth's destruction, sent by aliens to a suburban housewife in 1956, became a disconfirmed expectancy that increased dissonance between cognitions, thereby causing most members of the impromptu cult to lessen the dissonance by accepting a new prophecy; that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake.[1] Another example of disconfirmed expectancy can clearly be noted by Y2K's worldwide panic-turned humiliating joke.

Sort of like the absurd arguments put forth by those who argue bizzare conspiracy theories. I don't mean to embarrass you any more, but do you actually take the time to ready what you link to?

You don't embarrass me at all, honey. You are the one arguing for a theory that holds no water. I make no claim to know what happened that day. YOU do that. In spite of huge holes in the story I might add.

If you are more comfortable hiding from obvious truths that's your biz.

Not at all. Just because someone shows me a picture of the virgin Mary appearing on a tortilla, doesn't mean I'm going to accept it as some sort of miraculous apariation from God. It's all about perception. You're looking at a piece video and guesstimating the rate of collapse of the building, and you're not even seening the full collapse, nor do you know the angle of the shot the camera is shooting from, nor do you know what timing drift you may be getting in the video footage your watching. It's not proof, its a guess based on limited data of an unknown degree of accuracy.

You can believe whatever you like, but I'm going to have to go with the published reseach and findings by the Civil Engineers and the folks that do forensic engineering as part of their profession over what you perceive from watching a .mpeg on your PC.



Holiday is over...back to work everyone...have fun.

In this scenario, particularly building 7, I'm riding the fence as to what I believe. I'd like to fully believe what the experts say, but I can't deny the video footage I've seen. I know what I'd like to believe, but I really can't in any way give it 100% credibility. There are some things that will proabably always be a mystery--take the JFK shooting for instance--I think it will always be a mystery.

This is hardly the same as seeing the Virgin Mary in a tortilla.

I've seen the footage from five different angles. I've seen the time sequence. They all match up to each other as well the math involved in calculating free fall.

I am guessing at nothing. That's what you are doing though, your entire mathematical tap dance is formidable looking at first blush but you guess at too many figures.
As do your civil engineers in their attempts to explain something easily observed as other than it is.

I publish an mpeg here because that is all I CAN publish here. I've sat and watched this as raw footage many times from many angles at television studios with time stamps.

I've seen the full collapse --and your claim that the penthouse took 8.2 seconds to collapse is patently false.

I'm so sorry the truth inconveniences you.

Why should I do something that you do so well yourself

If you truly believe that getting your information from a website that says

'I HAVEN'T HAD A GLASS OF WATER IN 20 YEARS...': Drinking tons of water is great...if you want to raise your stroke risk, bring on kidney failure, and encourage early Alzheimer's. This is just one example of how MASS MEDIA MEDICINE is ruining our health. YOU CAN LIVE LONG and LOVE every minute of IT! Click here for more details....

and watching TV makes you smarter than people who understand more than your own level of high school math, go for it.

I'm sure you're also busy working on JFK, RJK, MLK, JRK Jr. Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Titanic as well. Have a party .

offish topic but this made me ROFL!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=972242473078681503&q=liberal&hl=en

unlike you I pick and choose what I will believe.

If only this thread would sink as well.

It just did.

Hooray for me!

LOL...now you're putting words in my mouth.

You said the proposed hypothesis didn't explain a free fall rate of collapse. Here is what I said in answer:




I then provided those examples of some of the estimated numbers that are floating around regarding the rate of collapse of WTC-7, and some off-the-cuff guessing. You siezed specifically on the 8.2 seconds provided in the NIST estimate as my "claim that the penthouse took 8.2 seconds to collapse." Lets look at what I actually said:




Obviously I'm not making the claim that "the penthouse took 8.2 seconds to collapse" as you have represented. The claim is actually that it "began its collapse 8.2 seconds before the "global collapse" ensued." Not that it took 8.2 seconds to collapse. The "global collapse" would be what you see on your video clip.

Not to mention that all of that section was the stated examples of the "all sorts of estimated numbers" I've seen.

So for clarity allow me to sum up again, since this thread has gone on a bit, so there is no doubt what I am ACTUALY claiming.

Claim: People who want to claim that it is an irrefutable fact that WTC-7 collapsed at free fall rate and anyone who doesn't see it that way are ignoramuses or just blind to the truth are wrong. They are wrong specifically that it is an irrefutable fact. Their claims are based on estimates and assumptions. The Civil Engineering types and their publications regarding the building collapses are also based on estimations and assumptions. The key difference is they have training and expertise in structural engineering and engineering forensics and they have more hands on access to more data, structural models and floor plans than just watching some videos. What you see in a few seconds of video is only part of the whole story of what is going on with the building collapse. The desire is to understand the whole story, as much as we can and as best as we can with the tools and knowledge that structural and engineering science gives us. Not just to understand 9-11, but to also better understand what may need to be done to improve building design in the future.


My Personal Position on 9-11 Building Collapses: The above being said, with all sides having to work based on estimates and assumptions, I'm going to have to go with the estimates and assumptions and explanations of the engineers on this one. I've seen nobody provide anything more convincing or concrete to refute the findings or analysis that has been done thus far by the NIST team (The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and Structural Engineers Association of New York).

What a curious list. Most of those people are of very little real importance in the greater scheme of things, certainly not to the point of "screwing up America" (to the best of my knowledge). I'm anxious to see the author's justification for his contention that they are so much more dangerous than I currently believe.

Sadly, I haven't been able to get hold of the book yet. My local library carries two copies, both of which are out (one is way overdue). As soon as it comes in, however, I intend to snap it up. Like yucky medicine, the best way is to force it down quickly.

some of them I disagree with, like Jimmy Carter but the others are pretty obvious

I don't think it's a matter of denying the video footage. More a matter of the video just being one of several elements that goes into figuring out the whole picture. For some, just watching the video is enough to make up their mind. Personally, considering the importance, I'm a bit more demanding than that I suppose.

That's a list of people destroying America? Interesting. Years from now, then, our children's children will be telling their children that



killed our country?

I think the author may be onto something.

I wonder if they ment to say Richard Simmons...he is Th' Debil.