Thursday, July 27, 2006

One more Defiant Supporter of the Absurd

For fun, let's look at the kinda crap I get constantly,

SnoopySuited wrote:
I would love to have a discussion with you about your video 'Rise', as it contains too many flaws and falacies to mention in the comments section on YouTube.

Blastedreality wrote:
By all means, fire away...


SnoopySuited wrote:
" First, the quotes are hard to read...but that's just semantics."


Hopefully that is all the semantic objections you bring up.

" I'm going to focus on your points that are either misleading or just wrong. You also have a lot of statements that are conjecture, but everyone has the right to their opinions and theories."

Thank you for your brevity.

"2:09 – you state that the 9/11 commission officially declared that the WTC was a collapse. They did not officially declare that. Experts in the field of structural engineering, fire engineering, metallurgy, ect. have said that it is likely that the WTC was brought down by the plane crash and fire. The Commission used that explanation in their report. A lot of people do not understand that the Commissions goal was not to determine what caused the collapse of the WTC, or what hit the pentagon. Rather, the Commission’s job was to find out how the US intelligence failed to see the impending terror strike. They went into their duty with the assumption that the events of 9/11 were the cause of a terrorist attack. It was not their goal to prove an alternative theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission (I don’t like using wikipedia as a source, but it serves the purpose here)"

From the Commission Homepage-
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

...to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,

As to why they failed to include any relevant "circumstances" such as Able Danger, WTC 7, or the actual design of either tower, I can only speculate. But they did state that the destruction of the towers was due to internal collapse and nothing else.

As to the experts... Please name them and show relevant experience in related fields. Eager of MIT, the first and most outspoken proponent of the White House Theory, has a great deal of experience in the field of welding and its usage in the pre-fabrication processes for manufactured homes. If the Towers were trailers, he'd be the man to ask. As is, no relevant expertise.

Why do you not like Wiki? Corrollary- Then why would you referrence it?

" 2:19 –again the 9/11 commission didn’t ‘blame’ anything for the collapse. That wasn’t their role."

See Above


2:37 – I assume you are stating that the explosions are evidence of bombs. It’s not. www.stupidcollege.com/items/electric-transformer-explosion There were several in the world trade center. My point is that presence of explosions is not evidence of the presence of bombs.

I am stating that there is nothing other than explosives that can create the effect seen on the videos. The upper floors tilt begin to topple forward, then disintergrate without any visible external force. No internal force other than explosives can explain the midair destruction. Seen here The destruction waves running down the sides of the Towers, Seen here and here similiarly can not be explained by any known force other than explosives.

"2:57 – Larry Silverstein did not use a demolition term to describe WTC 7. ‘Pull’ is firefighter term. Furthermore, how does the Silverstein statement make sense if we broke it down “We couldn’t control the fire in the building so instead we decided to blow the building up” If WTC was an insurance scam, or some sort of conspiracy, why did Silverstein money to rebuild"

Pull is also a term used in clay pidgeon shooting, but that is not how he used it. Your slanted paraphrasing also does not convey the subtext of his words. Here is what he said. Watch the whole minute and you get what he meant.
Here again you are arguing semantics, badly.
Also, the firemen had already been evacuated from the building long before its destruction. They were evacuated for this reason As show here


"3:20 – Mentions of explosions…see above."
Yep, See above. No wait. What you are saying is that explosions can only be the effect of what? Electrical transformers? Were there a number of them running down each tower, floor by floor? And could they be detonated in a rapid and descending sequence? Hmmm... interesting.

4:23 – Controlled demolition did not remove the remains of the WTC quickly. The effort took months. *notice the date> NewsdayandNewsday"

No, but Controlled Demolition Incorporated did. Noted here

4:56 – Again, it was not the role of the 9/11 commission to come up with a theory to why the buildings fell."

See Above

"5:08 – The ‘official explanation’ as you call it (fire and structural damage to WTC) did not break any laws of physics. PM How Stuff Works PBS"


You are correct. The Official Explanation does not break any rules of Physics. It does as paper and ink usually do. It sits and waits to be read. As for the event explained by the official explanation...
Here You go


You have the right to your opinions…but you need to support them with evidence if you are going to present them to a public audience as if they are fact.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do such. Of course, you did just ask for a fully referrenced and evidence supported rock and roll video. I would be interested in your take on any Tom Petty videos. I think it would be interesting.



I would suggest that you start with WTC 7 and go on to Here before you make up your mind about what happened.

-X

19 comments:

S. King said...

"I am stating that there is nothing other than explosives that can create the effect seen on the videos. The upper floors tilt begin to topple forward, then disintergrate without any visible external force. No internal force other than explosives can explain the midair destruction. Seen here The destruction waves running down the sides of the Towers, Seen here and here similiarly can not be explained by any known force other than explosives."

That is entirely a fallacious statement which you haven't provided any evidence for nor what your qualifications are.

In fact, there is nothing unusual about what was seen on the videos of the collapses and everythinh has easily been explained without the need to resort to "explosives" to explain it.

It's amazing that people still make your kind of claims.

S. King said...

"Pull is also a term used in clay pidgeon shooting, but that is not how he used it."

He used it to describe "pulling" the firefighter effort, which is clear from the context. "Pull" is used only as a term in the demolition industry to mean "pull mechanically", never to refer to explosive demolition.

"Also, the firemen had already been evacuated from the building long before its destruction.

Silverstein's comment was from a NOVA from months after 9/11, describing the decision to pull the firefighting effort before firemen were actually pulled.

It's silly to keep promoting the myth that Silverstein meant anything else other than "pull" the firefighting effort.

S. King said...

"I would suggest that you start with WTC 7 and go on to Here before you make up your mind about what happened."

Yes, the CBS video clearly shows that WTC 7 took 13+ seconds to fall, not at all at the free-fall speed claimed by 9/11 Deniers.

It appears by your lack of education on 9/11 that you have fallen for the classic 9/11 Denier fallacies rather than actually research the subject. I've seen just your mistakes hundreds of times in the last 4 1/2 years.

Reverend X said...

OK, concrete and steel do not turn into powder without a force acting upon them. The tops of each building begin their descent as any object falling from the force of gravity and the erosion of support witnessed. Taking the path of least resistance, the tops both begin to rotate off of the perimeter of resistance. At this point the large solid masses making up each top chunk should have fallen diagonally off of each tower and plummeted to the ground whole, or as whole as each was upon leaving the perimeter of resistance. The air between that point and the ground being insufficient resisting force to harm the upper floors, the solid mass of each would hit the ground before any subsequent damage could incur.
The videos clearly show the almost complete disintegration of each top section during the free fall part of their descents.
Please explain this phenomena, barring explosives. Their is no explanation other than explosives. The destruction of each of the towers and wtc 7 show every evidential characteristic of explosive demolition. Why is it that you refuse to allow for the possibility of the only possible means of creating the effect we have all seen? Why?
As for me, I am not important. I am simply one person smart enough to realize that what we have been told is not the truth. I am, fortunately, legion in demanding an honest investigation of the events of 9-11 and the subsequent actions of our government in the days and years following.
In the old days it was believed that the righteous could not fall in combat to the treacherous. I used to laugh at the notion, but now I see that everything the unelected rulers of our Country have done in the last 6 years has turned to shit in their hands and they have not succeeded in any endeavor. Perhaps the treacherous are fated to hang themselves by the rope they have slung and knotted...

Reverend X said...

Oh yeah. Nearly forgot. You had two other points.

""Pull" is used only as a term in the demolition industry to mean "pull mechanically", never to refer to explosive demolition."

I've done demo work. You are mistaken. Pulled refers to implosion or any explosive based removal. "Tear" and "Knock" are the operative terms for mechanical and/or labor based removal. Of course the vernacular changes and the English language is dynamic in its constant evolution. I won't alledge that all crews use these terms, but they are common. Funny, you did state absolute certainty on this subject. What are your qualifications for that kind of arrogance?

"It's silly to keep promoting the myth that Silverstein meant anything else other than "pull" the firefighting effort."

I can live with being silly. In fact, there is a whole silly world out there that question his meaning. Ain't it grand? HAhahaHAHA

Yes, the CBS video clearly shows that WTC 7 took 13+ seconds to fall, not at all at the free-fall speed claimed by 9/11 Deniers.

The free fall velocity is measured from the visible sections. Each one of which travels from their static elevation to the ground at free fall speed. By your logic, the Hudson Building in Detroit falls in just under 20 seconds. That does not mean gravity altered that day in Michigan. It means the demolition was staged and the fall was staggered. Do you understand the process involved, or do you just go to your happy place when it is explained to you?

"It appears by your lack of education on 9/11 that you have fallen for the classic 9/11 Denier fallacies rather than actually research the subject. I've seen just your mistakes hundreds of times in the last 4 1/2 years."

Your appreciation of reality appears to be flawed. Events appear perfectly normal to you even though they are impossible. Here's a little let down for you. If you have been arguing with this level of skill and logic for 4 1/2 years, it is a safe bet that you have done a great service to the 9-11 Truth movement. Hell, you are a Hyppocratic Argument meets Vaudville straight man incarnate. Thank you. Keep up the good work.

S. King said...

"At this point the large solid masses making up each top chunk should have fallen diagonally off of each tower and plummeted to the ground whole, or as whole as each was upon leaving the perimeter of resistance."

You have no rational basis for making that claim. On WTC 2, the top sagged toward one direction as the floor above the impact zone gave way. One progressive collapse started, the acceleration of gravity quickly exceeded the horizontal motion of the top portion and the top portion collapsed straight down.

This is not rocket science as all structural engineers agree on this and since it is demonstrated conclusively on the videos.

"The videos clearly show the almost complete disintegration of each top section during the free fall part of their descents."

LOL! They show no such thing. They clearly show the tops starting their descent as solid masses before disappearing behind dust clouds. You need to see an eye doctor quick!

"The destruction of each of the towers and wtc 7 show every evidential characteristic of explosive demolition."

A classic logical fallacy. First, you have been shown to be completely wrong and second no evidence exists of explosives.

"Why is it that you refuse to allow for the possibility of the only possible means of creating the effect we have all seen? Why?"

The question actually is this: why do you misrepresent what occurred and base your evidence entirely on what you think "looks like" an explosion when you clearly have no evidence of explosives?

"I am simply one person smart enough to realize that what we have been told is not the truth."

Lots of uncritical thinkers who are newbies at this believe what they want to believe without evidence. Clearly, your nonsense was debunked years ago yet you are nowhere near smart enough to know it or learn how to evaluate evidence.

"I've done demo work. You are mistaken. Pulled refers to implosion or any explosive based removal. "Tear" and "Knock" are the operative terms for mechanical and/or labor based removal."

Quite wrong. In any case, your claim that Silverstein would mean "explode" has been repeatedly debunked by the context and the evidence. Again, this does nothing but reinforce the fact that you have not done your homework and only want to believe that which fits your political ends, as you have revealed.

"The free fall velocity is measured from the visible sections. Each one of which travels from their static elevation to the ground at free fall speed. By your logic, the Hudson Building in Detroit falls in just under 20 seconds. That does not mean gravity altered that day in Michigan. It means the demolition was staged and the fall was staggered. Do you understand the process involved, or do you just go to your happy place when it is explained to you?"

Now, you are just plaind silly and confused, revealing that you haven't a clue about physics or structural engineering. Again you depend on the 9/11 denial Movement to tell you what to think. The destruction and collapse of a building includes the time it takes for the entire process to complete. As is quite clear in the CBS video demonstrating that it collpapsed in 13+ seconds, one sees the sepearte collapses of each penthouse into the building revealing the internal collapses preceeding the collpase of the outer walls.

Combined with the firemen's testimony that the building was bulging from the damage done to it from WTC 1's falling debris and the unfought fires do to lack of water pressure, leading to Silverstein's comment that he agreed the firefighting effort needed to be pulled from WTC, and the total lack of evidence of explosives, it is quite clear that you have not a leg to stand on.

"Your appreciation of reality appears to be flawed. Events appear perfectly normal to you even though they are impossible."

Here's a dose of reality for you: as a newbie who has got his facts completely wrong, as one who does not know how to think logically and rationally, and as one who readily believes known debunked nonsense and is willing to spew it despite the evidence, you are candiadte for a much-needed education.

Let's help you educate yourself with some critical thinking lessons and factual evidence:

http://www.911myths.com
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.criticalthinking.org/

Let's hope you'll come to your senses and realize how bad off you are now.

Reverend X said...

OK, other than insinuations af debunkitude, you have stated nothing but paltry insults and question begging logical fallacies. You have provided no actual input other than dedebunked links. I have no problem playing your game by your rules. I simply feel a twinge of guilt heaping salt into your already wounded life. Doesn't it just kill you that you will never have sex without hearing the words, "Stop daddy, that hurts!"?

Yeah, I play snaps a bit harder than you. If you want to trade insults all day I am more than prepared. But I also have evidence of explosives readily available.
High concentrations of thermate residue in WTC Steel samples
Also, who the hell are you to speak for all structural Engineers?
"This is not rocket science as all structural engineers agree on this and since it is demonstrated conclusively on the videos."

You insult, you claim absolute knowledge and you shrug off evidence as disproven when it has not been disproven. To the contrary of everything you have alledged, scientists and engineers from all over the world have refuted your views, mathematically proven the necessity of explosives and publicly debated, defeated, dissed and sent your experts home in disgrace. You have yet to even list a single expert with relavent expertise in the subject at hand who agrees with you.
And as for newbie... I am just happy that every minute you spend typing those week ass insults is one more minute your family has off from you. Keep going, please.

Reverend X said...

So in conclusion, here is the evidence of explosive demolition.

1. Video showing the upper sections of each tower disintergrating in midair.

2. The velocity of the fall. Not the time span of the entire event, as was suggested(?), but the time span between the point where the materials making up the highest points within the building perimeter begin to fall and reachthe ground.

3. Demolition waves running down each of the buildings at a faster velocity than free fall.

4 Squibs of crushed materials exiting the buildings on floors unaffected by the collapse at thetimes the squibs are see.

5 moldten metal pouring out of the twoers just prior to their falls.

6 high concentratios of manganese and Potassium in the recovered and tested peices of the Towers.

7. Hours of testimony from witesses describing the sounds of explosions during the event.

I'll stop there. Is this not sufficiet to warrant an independent investigation with the full powers of subpeona and access to all relavent information, including intelligence reports, personel, and the like?

That is all I am asking for.
Just an investigation with the level of authority and budget that Starr had to investigate Clinton's sex life. Is that really too much to ask for?

S. King said...

"OK, other than insinuations af debunkitude, you have stated nothing but paltry insults and question begging logical fallacies. You have provided no actual input other than dedebunked links."

I know it is hard for deniers like you to admit that you cannot think for yourself and when faced with the absolute reality of the facts and evidence that it is your nature to pretend otherwise. What is denial other than the willful and intentional practice of ignoring inconvenient facts? As long as you continue to insult our intelligence expect to have it returned in kind.

Here we see you illustrating, like Holocaust Deniers before you, just the practice of denial.

First, you have not been able to refute the links I provided. You know this. I know this.

Then we have your list demonstrating that you are in total denial of what the evidence demonstrates beyond doubt.

Your list 1 - 7 above is in total contradiction of the evidence, as you well know, and well-known lies.

#1: False. The video show otherwise.

#2. False. The velocity of the fall is perfectly normal and neither requires explosives nor outside help to occur. All the collpases were far slower than free-fall. See: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf for your further education.

#3 False. There is no evidence of explosives. None.

#4: False. They are dust-laden air compressed from the falling buliding being expelled and have completely different characteristcs that "squibs."

#5:False. There is NO evidence they are "molten." They could be ash.

#6: Can be a result of any number of things.

#7: "Sounds of explosions" is NOT evidence of "explosives." It is well-known that NO one saw any evidence of "explosives" but heard much of the internal collapses taking place before and during the collapses.

So, once again, you have no evidence to support your already-debunked assertions.

"Is this not sufficiet to warrant an independent investigation with the full powers of subpeona and access to all relavent information, including intelligence reports, personel, and the like?"

Of course not. No will needs to open another investigation on the word of 9/11 conspiracists.

Your behavior is no different than that of Holocaust Deniers and you deserve the derision you have earned. Rather than fight that reality, you should take the opportunuity to rejoin human society. I've given yu links to help you out of your present difficulties. Here is some more reading that will help you:

* “Why People Believe Weird Things”, by Michael Shermer, ISBN: 0-8050-7089-3

* “Denying The Holocaust”, by Deborah Lipstadt, ISBN: 0-452-27274-2

* “Denying History”, by Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman, ISBN: 0-520-23469-3

* “Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide”, by Tracy Bowell & Gary Kemp, ISBN: 0-415-24017-4

* “Attacking Faulty Reasoning”, by T. Edward Damer, ISBN: 0-534-55133-5

Remember, the choice to actually think and learn is yours.

Reverend X said...

1. Watch This and this and for a bunch of angles, here you go

2. One of our TOP PHYSICISTS Explains it. Earlier you stated that you were timing the entire destructive event. I corrected you. I will try once more.... The time span between point a and point b, the start and finish of each fall, is too short for the materials to have fallen through resistance, the rest of the building. Relevant law- Conservation of Momentum.
3. Yes there is. The WTC samples that have been tested show rust, a by product of thermitic reaction. Also they contain high levels of potassium and manganese. I posted the link to this earlier. Barring thermate, they would not be there.
4. The towers were hermetically sealed at two points creating 3 air tight sections. The squibs shown here could not have been air pressure from the above floors.
5. You question molten metal at the site. Keyword search it. Hell, even the NIST report mentions it. It just could not explain it.
6. No, they couldn't. They are a by product of thermate. They were not in the steel prior to the collapse and they arfe not part of office furniture.
7. Sounds of explosives could be from other things. But not in the pattern described by witnesses or heard on the videos.

S. King said...

"2. One of our TOP PHYSICISTS Explains it."

Jones is not a structural engineer nor a forensic scientist. He is a physics professor with a political agenda. Reliance on a non-expert is just plain stupid

This will help educate you on facts and the nature of evidence:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=795539&postcount=362

"3. Yes there is. The WTC samples that have been tested show rust, a by product of thermitic reaction. Also they contain high levels of potassium and manganese. I posted the link to this earlier. Barring thermate, they would not be there."

WHO says?

Educate yourself: http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=796024&postcount=19

"4. The towers were hermetically sealed at two points creating 3 air tight sections. The squibs shown here could not have been air pressure from the above floors."

That is just more evidence on how clueless you are. The windows were blown out by the overpressure of collapsing floors forcing air down theough stairwells and elevator shafts. Jeez, you are a particularly ignorant one.

Your really need help.

Reverend X said...

"Jones is not a structural engineer nor a forensic scientist. He is a physics professor with a political agenda. Reliance on a non-expert is just plain stupid"

Professor Steven Jones is one of America's top research scientists. Amongst his credits- 11 years as lead researcher for the D.O.E. in the field of Cold Fusion. He has no political ties one way or the other. So, what pray tell is his agenda? Still waiting for you to name a single "expert" with relevant expertise backing the official theory... Been waiting for that, from you, since the beginning of this debate.

"The WTC samples that have been tested show rust, a by product of thermitic reaction. Also they contain high levels of potassium and manganese. I posted the link to this earlier. Barring thermate, they would not be there."

WHO says?"


Who says that those are evident? Here is a combination of FEMA Report, plus Hoffman critique qith links to Jones' studies of the metal Or was the question, who says that those wopuld only appear due to explosives? The Periodic Table of Elements...

"That is just more evidence on how clueless you are. The windows were blown out by the overpressure of collapsing floors forcing air down theough stairwells and elevator shafts. Jeez, you are a particularly ignorant one.

Your really need help. "


I have warned you about the insults. There is nothing holding any validity in the above paragragh. Just insult wrapped in conjecture. So here you go. Earlier I made refference to your bein a pedophile, as an insult. That was nothing more than an example of what I can pull off in the way of insults. You and I both know that the odds on your having a nuclear family are about as far fetched as the odds that the twin towers collapsed into dust using nothing more than the potential energy of gravity.

Your lisp carries itself, phonetically, into your writing. Were I to speculate, I would have to guess that you are a 50-60 year old, incredibly lonely, bitter gay man. You managed to survive the epidemic of the 80's and 90's and now consider yourself to be a genious for doing such. Well, let me dish ya back a bit, bitch. It wasn't your brilliance that kept you alive thru all that. In the golden age of glory holes, barrels, and indiscriminate fuck-for-alls, your personality introduced itself long before anyone had a chance to get within 12" or 6" of your castor oil complexion. Your caustic charm kept em limp and leaving, even at your so called prime. So get off your high horse and debate or shut the fuck up grand queen. OK? Either bring something to the table other than insults or do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up already!!

Reverend X said...

Here is a documentary showing what hermetically sealed means. Also the reasons why it did not suffer progressive collapse.

S. King said...

"Professor Steven Jones is one of America's top research scientists. Amongst his credits- 11 years as lead researcher for the D.O.E. in the field of Cold Fusion."

So you just confessed that you agree with me. Jones is not a structural engineer nor a forensic scientist. Reliance on a non-expert as you insist on doing is just plain stupid.

"He has no political ties one way or the other. So, what pray tell is his agenda?"

Why would you now admit you've never read anything on his website.

Gosh.

"Still waiting for you to name a single "expert" with relevant expertise backing the official theory... Been waiting for that, from you, since the beginning of this debate."

Sorry, son, you can't shift the burden of proof so wantonly. That burden is on you to debunk the several hundred independent structural engineers and forensic scientists who, along with NIST engineers, investigated the collapses of WTC 1 & 2. Remember, none of the tens of thousands of structural engineers in the world nor any such organization of engineers has ever contested the data, calculations, or the methodology of the NIST investigation.

And you want to claim a non-expert has refuted them all?

Amazing.

"Or was the question, who says that those wopuld only appear due to explosives? The Periodic Table of Elements...

No one said that. And, as you should have known by now, Jones has been taken to task for not getting his calculations right.

To wit, all the well-known debunkings of Jones:

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

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

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

"Here is a documentary showing what hermetically sealed means."

Except the towers weren't designed to take the overpressure created by a collapse. You do know that, correct? Or do you simply believe the air would magically vaporize?

"I have warned you about the insults. There is nothing holding any validity in the above paragragh. "

I have warned you to stop insulting your readers' intelligence and to start using your brains. And I have given you the facts and basis for the start of your education.

But like Holocaust Deniers before you, 9/11 Deniers don't care about the truth.

Once again, you have fallen flat on your face. I feel sorry for you.

Anonymous said...

S King, what is your explainantion for the collapse of wtc7 ?

Anonymous said...

S King, what is your explanation for the collapse of wtc7?

Anonymous said...

Here are some links that I believe will be interested

Anonymous said...

Great site loved it alot, will come back and visit again.
»

Anonymous said...

I like it! Good job. Go on.
»