Prophetable
Well-Known Member
Marek said:
Alex Jones provides some insightful, factual information in regards to what is happening in the USA and the world today.
I've yet to see one good refutation of his material.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Marek said:So your crystal clear facts are a website by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and then an interview by the same guy?
Alarum said:Steve Jones is decent at Physics, but has no real ability to read the structural engineering reports. Wandering down to the section where he talks about the WTC collapse, the arrogance starts to become flat out staggering.
Alarum said:This is because the velocity of the air being expelled is near the speed of sound, whereas the building is only falling due to gravity. The squibs cannot possibly be outrun by the collapse - his theory is bunk.
Alarum said:Now I have to ask: Why do you people believe this stuff?
Okay Alarum. So your telling us that we shouldn't believe a Physics Professor has ability in understanding Structural Engineering reports???
Fine. Don't believe me. Believe the photograph I posted that proves he's wrong. He. Was. Wrong.Prophetable said:Okay Alarum. So your telling us that we shouldn't believe a Physics Professor has ability in understanding Structural Engineering reports???
This is quite a claim considering that Structural Engineering is a branch of Physics. Even in High School Physics - Forces, Energy, Momentum, Sheer, Stress and Strain in materials, etc is learn't.
With this in mind I don't see how you could call him arrogant.
Well ad hoc explaination for horrible conclusion. We can either say that they are miracle squibs, that they used so much explosives that the first charge demolished all the supports (without a squib, natch), and that the rest of the charges did nothing except produce squibs... but doesn't it seem more likely that the bend in the floors during the collapse broke some windows?Your reasoning is faulty. Theoretically the squibs could be outrun by the collapse if the charges are going off in sequence with the falling floors. ie; The rate of fall may have slightly exceeded that anticipated by the charge setting, resulting in the floor collapse catching up with the timed sequential charges resulting in eventual smothering.
Besides, the whole argument doesn't stand or fall on the squibs. There's heaps of unanswered data in this thread.
So if the building collapses straight, it's controlled demolition. If the building collapses crooked, it's... controlled demolition.The slight angle of the building doesn't detract from all of the strong evidence supporting controlled demolition. Infact it agrees with like instances of many controlled demolitions.
Yup. And I bet they did it so well that they didn't cause buildings surrounding the skyscrapers to collapse due to debris! Funny how you don't damage surrounding buildings with falling girders and concrete when its controlled, isn't it?applepowerpc said:Even Alex Jones, it's good to try & collate his material with other facts you know. I follow Tom Flocco, too, but I can't use his material as evidence because I can't find anything to back it up.
That said, we just had a small skyscraper demolished here in town. It looked exactly like the WTC, dust and all. Demolition experts said it took 12 weeks' planning to do that.
This is good factual information???Prophetable said:Alex Jones provides some insightful, factual information in regards to what is happening in the USA and the world today.
I've yet to see one good refutation of his material.
You didn't respond to this:AmariJah said:You should become a politician Marek- because you clearly have a gift at both slandering those whose views differ from your own and at diverting attention from the topic at hand. In this "world" system you could be very successful in a political career.
Marek said:You didn't respond to this:
This is what you said:
"There is now way in a million years that these buildings collapsed at nearly free- fall speed without offering any resistance simply because of impacts and fires hundreds of feet up. No matter what "theory" you come up with you cannot supercede the laws of physics which would prevent such picture perfect symetrical collapses taking place at nearly free fall speed as if nothing was underneath the upper floors! No way- no how!"
This site says you are wrong: http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/
I was merely asking you to back up your claims, or admit that you might be wrong.
So are you going to back up your claims, or are you going to admit you might be wrong?
What I understood from this is that you are not going to refute what is in the text because it is too difficult for you to decipher, yet you stand by your claim that you somehow understand the physics and engineering involved well enough to determine how the WTC collapsed. Is this true???AmariJah said:There is little or no possbility that I am wrong. Unless God suspended the laws of physics and gravity on 9/11/01.
Your challenge to try and disprove what is presented at the web site listed is like handing the I.R.S. code book to someone who is in grade school and asking them to simply show the law or laws which make someone legally liable for income tax. (They cannot do it because #1 it is not there & #2 because the code book is so volumous and diffiuclt to decipher- In fact even professional CPA's Government lawyers and tax professionals cannot do it either and they presumably do understand the code.)
There is no shame in not understanding complex engineering concepts like structural collapse. There's no need for the general population to learn the complex mechanics of engineering. But for the love of god, if you don't know them, don't tell those of us that do what can or cannot happen!AmariJah said:There is little or no possbility that I am wrong. Unless God suspended the laws of physics and gravity on 9/11/01.
Your challenge to try and disprove what is presented at the web site listed is like handing the I.R.S. code book to someone who is in grade school and asking them to simply show the law or laws which make someone legally liable for income tax. (They cannot do it because #1 it is not there & #2 because the code book is so volumous and diffiuclt to decipher- In fact even professional CPA's Government lawyers and tax professionals cannot do it either and they presumably do understand the code.)
Marek said:This is good factual information???
Referring to immigration protests:
"The scenes you will witness on the streets of America over the next few days do not illustrate a 'new civil rights movement' but an invading army of militant foreigners bankrolled and supported by predominantly white rich Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs who are using the different Mexican race groups as a vice to crush the sleeping American middle class...The Atzlan movement openly states its goal is to create a separatist state that encompasses the entire southern and western states. Their version of Hitler's Mein Kampf is the Plan of San Diego, which outlines the plan to ethnically cleanse the entire region of whites and blacks by mass genocide."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/010506mayday.htm
Now this is only the very first article I looked at on his site...
Well, not really. This is why I don't make claims that the WTC must have fallen this way or that way. I admit that I do not have the understanding to conclude what was possible and what wasn't, so I rely on the experts that dedicate their entire careers to understanding these types of things. If they say that it is possible that the towers fell "naturally," who am I to dispute them? I never said that it was impossible that the towers weren't demolished with explosives, I merely stated that most experts do not believe this to be true.AmariJah said:To Marek- Ahh the arrogance and self righteousness of youth- at 21 you feel invincible and supremely intelligent
Okay...- but believe me in the next 10-30 years God will do some humbling! I guarantee it!
I presented this article, because it explains how it is quite possible that the WTC would fall at near freefall speed without the use of explosives. You claim that this is impossible. Now please back up your claim by showing where the authors of this article went wrong, or admit that you might be wrong.You did misunderstand my statement- because when even a "simple analysis", which was not even presented as fact but as an hypothesis, does not even contain the elements of truth- regardless of how "intelligent" and "advanced" it may appear, one will never find the answer or the truth within it!
One does not have to be an engineer to figure out that a structure that is 95% empty space, from an engineering perspective, provides little resistance. One would have to move beyond high school, I guess, in order to grasp the fact that a structure that is mostly full of air, paper, computer terminals, desks, and assorted non-structural stuff, collapses virtually in free fall once the supports gave way. One would have to be an engineer, I guess, in order to grasp the fact that 'the supports giving way' means that they are not providing resistance to the collapse.& to Alurum- I serously doubt that you undestand "complex engineering concepts" becuase if you did you would know what anyone with a high school education knows about gravity and resistance etc.- i.e. when a solid structure collapses it does not do so without any resistance from the structure beneath it. One does not have to be an engineer to figure this much out!
I ignored this because what I posted proves the professor was incorrect! Certainly some demolitions collapse the building crooked. It's a tautology to say "either the building collapses straight, or it collapses crooked." That was not the issue. What was at issue was the professor's claims. The professor claimed, and I quote:Also, Alarum I must reinforce my position on the charges. The Floor collapse could catch up with the charges as I demonstrated. I must clarify however that though the squibs would be smothered this doesn't mean that the effects of the charges on the steel supports themselves would be.
Secondly, how can you state that a slightly crooked collapse shows that it wasn't a controlled job? Information has been posted to inform of the fact that many demolition jobs can fall in this way. Why did you ignore this?
His claims are clearly false. The collapse was not straight down. His analysis is wrong.9. The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete collapses of the WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the “official” theory that random fires plus damage caused all these collapses. Even with explosives, achieving such results requires a great deal of pre-planning and expertise. [Emphasis added]
One would have to move beyond high school, I guess, in order to grasp the fact that a structure that is mostly full of air, paper, computer terminals, desks, and assorted non-structural stuff, collapses virtually in free fall once the supports gave way.
His claims are clearly false. The collapse was not straight down. His analysis is wrong.The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down
Or you could watch the video. Which shows a sudden tilt in the building. That was all the supports in the damaged wall giving way, starting a domino effect that snapped every wall support. About a second or two later, the building collapses. Exactly like the report said. If you start timing from the tilt, which is the first support break, you will get a collapse velocity that is a lot lot lower then free fall. By starting the timer from when the supports had all given way (i.e. when the building started to collapse) the professor guarenteed his results would look like they had all been severed at once.applepowerpc said:If all the supports in a structure simultaneously just ceased to exist, I guess you're right.
Nearly symmetrical? Help me out here:You bolded only the thing you wanted to bold. The professor said "nearly symmetrical". His claims are clearly true.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?