Posted on 04/06/2006 7:00:35 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
DUmmieland has a forum section whose subject matter is so embarrassing that Head DUmmie,Skinner, has consigned it away from the main forums. It is the SEPTEMBER 11 Forum. So desperate is Skinner to keep this forum from public view that he forbids it to be nominated for the highly visible Greatest section in DUmmieland. Of course, since wacko conspiracy theories are part and parcel of being a DUmmie, Skinner can't can't completely forbid the tinfoil hat theories from being tossed around. In order to get a proper perspective on all these space cadet 9/11 theories, I urge everyone out there to watch this Penn & Teller VIDEO which completely exposes what a bunch of MENTAL CASES these 9/11 conspiracy theorists are. While watching this EXCELLENT video, I kept thinking "DUmmies" while viewing the wack jobs featured in the piece. Added to the list of nutcases who believe that the 9/11 attack was some sort of U.S. government conspiracy is one Steven E. Jones, a BYU professor. As you can see in this THREAD titled, "BYU Physics Professor: WTC buildings were demolished by cutter charges," Jones claims that hidden explosives, not the planes, were what brought down the WTC buildings. So don't believe your lying eyes. Those planes didn't cause the collapse. Instead you should believe that explosive charges were somehow placed and hidden in the WTC buildings and elaborately timed to go off after the planes hit the towers. So let us now put on our tinfoil hats and watch the DUmmies lap up yet another wacko conspiracy theory in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, hoping that Penn & Teller can add this NUttie Professor to their VIDEO is in the [brackets]:
BYU Physics Professor: WTC buildings were demolished by cutter charges
[IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!]
I just got done reading this paper. This is by far the best analysis I've seen so far. Whether you are a believer in the 9/11 Comission Report, FBI negligence, LIHOP or MIHOP, everyone needs to read this paper. I don't remember seeing this posted already (it probably has) but it's worth taking a second look and having a further discussion on it.
[Yes. Let us believe that a secret government team placed large numbers of explosive charges all over the World Trade Center Buildings without being detected. Oh, and we also have to believe the government then set the charges off and killed thousands of people just so Bush could advance his agenda. And all this pulled off perfectly without ONE person involved in the plot ever revealing what happened. Yes, this could be done but only in the Alternate Reality DUmmie Zone.]
In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
[Thank you Professor Steven Jones. You could have also mentioned that you are a member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth which claims that members of the Bush administration knew of the attacks in advance but did nothing to stop them (LIHOP).]
Here's what his peers think .. "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Centerbuildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
[Please expect a tombstoning ceremony soon for showing the slightest hint of skepticism.]
You're a funny guy, hack89. Can you prove the official story/claims of the 9/11 Commission? Or do you have your own ideas? All I ever see you do around here is shoot down other people's ideas. Have you ever posted your own? Answer this one question, if you dare: What is your "theory" as to what happened on 9/11?
[A DUmmie is ANGRY that hack89 doesn't buy into the usual DUmmie conpiracy theories. As to what happened on 9/11, DUmmieland in general doesn't accept the fact that Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked the planes and flew them into the WTC and Pentagon, causing the collapse of the WTC. To accept that "theory" would be to buy into the rational view of what actually happened right before our "lying" eyes.]
now show me how the government is keeping thousands of scientist and engineers silent about 9/11. It is central to your CT - please prove it.
[hack89 replies with SANITY. His days in DUmmieland are numbered.]
Well, right back at you...prove without a doubt everything in the official story being true. Start with the pentagon and building 7 please. A 757 goes into the pentagon and its still standing, while a few small fires from debris supposedly makes an entire building collapse. Please also tell me why building 7 was cleaned up first and quickly when there was nobody inside to save, while hundreds or thousands were in the WTC1 and 2 and that is where all the focus should have been. I also find it suspect they all fell exactly in the same way, regardless of where they were hit and what they were hit by...either planes or debris. And why was WTC 6 still standing to be demolished later due to the severity of it's damage...it was damaged more severely than 7. The Pentagon and building 6 must have been superman buildings...can withstand anything, right?
[Never fear. The moment a bit of sanity emergest in DUmmieland it is soon overwhelmed by insanity.]
I`m just an average Joe off the street. I don`t know too much about structural integrity, but can somebody tell me the last(or first) time a building (it doesn`t have to be a steel one) ever collapsed in it`s own footprint. If my memory serves me correctly it happened to 3 separate steel buildings, within a 12 hour period(I think 2 of `em within an hour), sometime in September, way back in 2001. When I first saw the impact areas I thought to myself "self, the top of that one looks like it`s gonna topple over." You know, kinda like chopping down a tree, but I`ll be damned if it didn`t just fall straight down.
[Can you tell me the last time a fully fueled airline jet crashed directly into a skyscraper?]
Obviously they still think he is credible, or knows what he is doing... since he still has his professor of PHYSICS job.
[It's called TENURE. Ask Ward Churchill about that.]
Interesting that a Republican majority congress thinks that spending $40 million to uncover a secret blow-job is better justified than spending LESS THAN HALF an equal amount on uncovering potential INSIDE involvment in 9/11
[Yes. Blow $40 million to try to discover LIHOP (or MIHOP). And who would head that investigation? Congressman Hinchey?]
Did you know 5 israeli students (mossad spy's) were videotaping the attacks? how did they come to learn of them? advance warnings? soon after the neighbors called the cops those spy's were caught and held for 2 months, DEMAND BUSH RELEASE THOSE VIDEOTAPES? will you join the effort?
[I'm surprised it took this long for the DUmmies to place the blame on the Israelis. Usually they do it from the get-go.]
The NIST uses the same basic principles as above. Yes, it's a complex system, but they know how fires behave in office building with good accuracy. I understand you do not believe the NIST model is useful. I can't tell you how accurate it is. I can state with confidence that if they say fires may have reached 1000 deg F they are close. Close meaning it might really be 800 or it might be 1200, but it not going to be 200F. No matter what, it is conclusive that fire temperatures were hot enough to degrade the strength of the steel. I can't tell you anything to change your mind about this because you lack an understanding of how models work.
[LARED is another one who will soon be tombstoned for citing scientific EVIDENCE. The other DUmmies are trying to convince themselves that the WTC couldn't have collapsed due to the heat because the steel never went about about 250 deg C. Somehow, according to them, all that fire WE SAW never really heated the steel up all that much.]
I've been reading over your posts here in the 9/11 forum and you seem to be very clear on what didn't happen but I have been unable to find a post where you explain what you think did happen. Could you direct me to a post where you propose or support a specific explanation for what caused the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings and the destruction at the Pentagon?
[Lared proves that that secretly planted explosions didn't cause the WTC collapse but now this DUmmies now wants to know what REALLY did happen. BTW, the Pentagon wasn't destroyed.]
Lared; Your nonsensical and simplistic version of the official explanation was completely debunked last summer by a civil engineer on the thread below. Why do you obstinately persist in perpetuating it?
[Lared; Your scientific and logical version of what happened was completely debunked last summer by a 9/11 conspiracy kook.]
As a physicist Dr. Jones should be able to write in an articulate and substantive manner about the events of 9/11. He choose not to, and mostly rehashed 9/11 mythology and sophistry found all over the internet. You will need to ask him why.
[LARED, I just can't take any more of your rationality. I can no longer hold back. Okay, here goes....LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!]
The official theory would have us believe that WTC1, WTC2 were as fragile and susceptible to collapse as a house of cards. From what I have read this is nonsense -- the towers were constructed with significant redundancy -- they were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. One engineer compares the effects of the impact of a jet into one of the towers to the effects of punching a hole in a screen door with a pencil. But don't try to find the blueprints, they have conveniently disappeared, along with most of the debris from WTC1 and WTC2. The black boxes/flight recorders are also missing. And all of the structural steel from WTC7 was shipped overseas before it could be analyzed - check the NIST preliminary report to verify this. And the the idea that jet fuel dispersed throughout the building, ignited and significantly weakened the structural members is absurd -- jet fuel doesn't burn at a temperature sufficient to melt structural steel. I am not an engineer but the idea that these towers, which stood for thirty years, withstood fire and a bombing, were destroyed by the impact of passenger jets seems utterly ludicrous.
[Thank you for returning this DUmmie discussion back to irrationality again.]
That a pancake collapse could look like that just defies belief. I'm not an engineer either but the idea that the expulsions from the sides of the buildings were caused by a stack of floors descending inside the facade and pulverizing floors in succession just doesn't seem possible. For the pancake stack to descend so evenly without either pushing or pulling that corner out of place seems so improbable as to be getting into the impossible range. I'd like to know what the details are of the pancaking theory of this tower in terms of what was supposedly happening to the various elements of the structure.
[You want pancakes? Then go to IHOP. Or better yet LIHOP. Or MIHOP.]
My intuition is that, at worst, several floors might have collapsed but not the entire building, in perfect symmetry, at free fall speed. As far as I have been able to determine there is no precedent for this.
[Correct. No fully fueled large jet passenger plane ever crashed directly into a skyscraper before.]
Perhaps there is no precedent because .. it was a unique event? As far as I know, this is the first instance of an airplane hitting a skyscraper at high speed.
[BINGO! Now on to your tombstoning ceremony.]
think that we can agree that this was a unique event. But as to the cause of the event I'm afraid we differ. I think that it is preposterous to assert, based on the currently available evidence, that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed symmetrically at free fall speed into their own footprints as a result of passenger jets flying into them. As I am sure you have read many times in many other posts,the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. These events look like controlled demolition, they sound like controlled demolition, the seismic record indicates explosions, the debris has all of the characteristics of materials subjected to explosive devices and there is no precedent for a steel framed high rise structure to fall as a result of fire. Material was ejected horizontally and vertically with such force that it penetrated buildings blocks away. The clouds of dust were clearly pyroclastic in nature. The record is clear that the jet fuel burned off in minutes. And, in any case jet fuel does not burn at a sufficiently high temperature to create the devastating effects you assign to it. And even if the the jet's impact were more devastating, the hits were not direct and it is logical to think that at least one of the buildings would have collapsed asymmetrically. As for WTC7, WTC7 was not hit by a jet and yet collapsed so quickly and symmetrically that one analyst has calculated that it actually fell faster than free fall due to the vacuum created by a CD type implosion. The official theory postulates an absurd and unlikely concatenation of events which, in my view, is simpy not supported by the available evidence.
[The official theory postulates an absurd and unlikely hypothesis that you are rational which, in my view, is simply not supported by the available evidence.]
Has Professor Jones considered the use of the elevators for a weapons delivery system? There were over 200 elevators in each tower. One was a special freight elevator that was for taking full size trucks all the way from the basement to the top of each the tower. We also know that Marvin Bush's company ran security and that the weekend before parts of the buildings were shut down for an unusual 'maintenance operation'. Since the attack was an inside job, they would have had no problem driving in a few preloaded vehicles or boxes. Sending the elevator to a floor of your choice and the shutting it down for 'repairs'. Especially if you could turn off any surveillance cameras that might cause a problem.
[Congratulations on your successful audition for the Penn & Teller 9/11 Conspiracy VIDEO!]
Let me know if you want on the DUmmie FUnnies PING List.
2nd ?
PING!
TOP 5! WOOT!
4TH!?
top 10?
Top ten baby!
top 10?
WOOHOO!
Personally I would hope that they would have been intenytionally destroyed rather than topple over killing thousands more. (if that were going to happen.)
With that said, the explainations I've seen about the collapse seem right to me.
The paper uses big words I have no idea what they mean, so it must be true.....
I guess this is what happened in the 1993 attempt to bring down the WTC, they just didn't use enough charges. See terrorist can learn from their mistakes. //sarcasm alert/
If they COULD learn from their mistakes they would stop attacking us. Two towers 2 countries.
top 15!
Please check out the Penn & Teller Video that I posted. It puts those 9/11 Conspiracy Kooks in the right perspective.
Too nutty for words.
top 20 on the pancake thread
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.