Thread: 9/11 Truth

I'm surprised at your response. If the opinion of the majority had any relevance, would national(or better yet, international) polls make your position incorrect? We both know that polls are irrelevant in any debate setting.

I theorize that there was only a conspiracy among a group of largely-Saudi extremists to attack the WTC, but not a conspiracy among officials in the federal government to carry out or abet the attack. That does make me a conspiracy theorist in the strict sense of the term, but that has little relevance to the debate when everyone theorizes that there was a conspiracy of one kind or another.

It is apparent, though, that I'm not going to get an answer about the concrete question on a convenient time scale. I apologize to anyone who found an answer, but was unable to post it before now. Here is the answer I came up with:

Micro-cracks exist in all brittle materials, such as glass and concrete, whether they are under stress or not. As the stress upon a brittle material increases, these cracks propagate only slightly, since there is virtually no ability for the material to deform elastically. As stress increases, the energy per unit volume of the material increases by the equation E = Stress X Strain, where strain is the deformation of the material. When the energy reaches a certain critical point, bonds in the material break and the micro-cracks in the material propagate, releasing the stored energy and pulverizing some of the material. Meanwhile, the downward compressive force on angled planes(caused by cracks) in the material creates a massive horizontal force that rapidly pushes material away and pulverizes some more material.

Concrete has little tensile strength because a non-compressive stress causes a great amount of strain. Thus, the energy equation quickly reaches the critical threshold with much less force applied. Metals can absorb a much greater amount of energy before failing, but the ease with which they deform does not lend them to supporting the same large loads that concrete can.

As I stated before, the WTC towers were held up mainly by steel supports. Therefore, one could reasonably expect that, no matter the mechanism of collapse, any concrete in the structure would be subjected to enormous compressive stresses, causing failure, and, to a casual observer, to explode outward. It's probably redundant to point out, but many materials make a sound not unlike an explosion when they break. These observations are thus explained without regard to the cause of collapse.

I haven't addressed the steel supports of the WTC yet. I'd really enjoy it if someone else could enumerate the failure mechanism of steel.

I apologize for the lengthy, boring, tautological argument that this has been, I hope it's been educational at least.

polls are not irrelevant because it demonstrates that what people like you and the media desperately try to ignore, is certainly not a minority awareness. The label conspiracy and it's surrounding ridicule is a short sited predudice weapon used against commons sense.

Your doing a good job of making a controlled demolition into an accidental collapse. But it's never happened in history. Yet you continue to pretend as if your sensible. When you avoid everything, create your own reality, and then count that as a response to what is provided here. You will not fool many people as they can reseach for themself. I just don't have time to counter everything you say. That is for someone else to do.

From Mystic7
polls are not irrelevant because it demonstrates that what people like you and the media desperately try to ignore, is certainly not a minority awareness. The label conspiracy and it's surrounding ridicule is a short sited prejudice weapon used against commons sense.

Polls demonstrate that I lack awareness of the minority position? Perhaps you're right, because that's certainly news to me.

I completely agree with you on the conspiracy label, which is why I was puzzled at your remark that I was the conspiracy theorist in this debate.

I'm also curious as to where you got the impression that I've been theorizing that the towers collapsed accidentally, as opposed to being deliberately struck by airplanes. I don't recall any accidental collapse of any skyscraper in modern history, and the WTC was no exception.

I hope you can find some spare time to counter my arguments, though. I really do appreciate it. I don't want the debate to degenerate into a monologue.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

polls are not irrelevant because it demonstrates that what people like you and the media desperately try to ignore, is certainly not a minority awareness. The label conspiracy and it's surrounding ridicule is a short sited predudice weapon used against commons sense.

Your doing a good job of making a controlled demolition into an accidental collapse. But it's never happened in history. Yet you continue to pretend as if your sensible. When you avoid everything, create your own reality, and then count that as a response to what is provided here. You will not fool many people as they can reseach for themself. I just don't have time to counter everything you say. That is for someone else to do.

You don't have time to counter what she says? That means you have no argument.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

R.D.735 despite your efforts. The poll indicates the majority against you. As well as the evidence. Which makes you the conspiracy theorist. You are not keeping up appearences very well. Is that on purpose?

As R.D said, just because the "majority" is for something, doesn't mean it's right. That argument is completely irrational and somewhat disappointing.

As for the "majority"... This is the internet. Of course you will see this kind of talk here. If you were to take a poll, of probably any area in the United States, the majority would agree that there was no conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Grod

You don't have time to counter what she says? That means you have no argument.



As R.D said, just because the "majority" is for something, doesn't mean it's right. That argument is completely irrational and somewhat disappointing.

As for the "majority"... This is the internet. Of course you will see this kind of talk here. If you were to take a poll, of probably any area in the United States, the majority would agree that there was no conspiracy.

Mystic's point is a good one, I'm afraid. That the official story of who, what, where, how, and why, is the real conspiracy theory in the negative sense is at this point a proven fact.

You might want to check out some of the books by Dr. David Ray Griffin:

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

Or his lecture that was broadcast on C-SPAN. The last I heard C-SPAN doesn't usually give airtime to "crazy conspiracy theorists".

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Mystic's point is a good one, I'm afraid. That the official story of who, what, where, how, and why, is the real conspiracy theory in the negative sense is at this point a proven fact.

You might want to check out some of the books by Dr. David Ray Griffin:

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

Or his lecture that was broadcast on C-SPAN. The last I heard C-SPAN doesn't usually give airtime to "crazy conspiracy theorists".

No, you misconstrued my point. I made no opinion on whether R.D's or Mystic's opinion was correct.

All I said was both of his arguments were irrational and flawed.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Polls demonstrate that I lack awareness of the minority position? Perhaps you're right, because that's certainly news to me.

No. Polls demonstrate that awareness of 911 being an inside job is not a minority as commonly portrayed. That in itself is something disturbing. And pinpoints the major problem and flaw with media manipulation.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I completely agree with you on the conspiracy label, which is why I was puzzled at your remark that I was the conspiracy theorist in this debate.

In this case you are one. Not because it's a label or because I said so. But because steel doesn't melt because of jet fuel. And 1 airplane does not collapse an entire building let alone 3 of them on the same day after just 1 hour. That's why you are the conspiracy maker against this science that most can figure out.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I'm also curious as to where you got the impression that I've been theorizing that the towers collapsed accidentally, as opposed to being deliberately struck by airplanes. I don't recall any accidental collapse of any skyscraper in modern history, and the WTC was no exception.

Your curious about my impression are you? You know full well what I mean when I say they did not collapse by accident. Your not curious about it. You know exactly what I am talking about when I say that. It means that they did not fall down because of an airplane terrorist attack alone. But because of explosives. Ofcourse it was a deliberate terrorist attack. But by who and why? Your un-natural politeness is wearing thin. As I said your not keeping up appearances very well.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I hope you can find some spare time to counter my arguments, though. I really do appreciate it. I don't want the debate to degenerate into a monologue.

I will work on replying on what I see as your monologue. I find it irrelevant but some people may be interested so I will repond to it. But you will only come up will something else to suit your needs.

In the previous response. R.d.735. wants us to discuss micro cracks. That Micro-cracks are a factor. That e=stressX strain. R.d.735 makes a hudge unanswerable leap by blaming micro-cracks for some pulverizing of concrete. Micro-cracks do not contribute to the mass of pulverizing concrete caused by the explosives. Despite the fact that none of this is at all relevant to the material we should be answering too.

Originally Posted by r.d.735

Meanwhile, the downward compressive force on angled planes(caused by cracks) in the material creates a massive horizontal force that rapidly pushes material away and pulverizes some more material.

This is so silly as to be embarassing to clarify. The downward compressive force caused by impact does not create consistient horizontal outward force on each level that rapidly pushes away. Nor do any cracks of impact contribute largely or significantly to any polverization of material. As boring and irrelevant as this is to the subject. I would not care to agree or disagree with this mirco crack impact angled nonsense. A silly fantasy substitude for the explosives. Not educational. But brainwashing for those foolish enough to be dazed into the latest excuse.

Originally Posted by r.d.735

Concrete has little tensile strength because a non-compressive stress causes a great amount of strain. Thus, the energy equation quickly reaches the critical threshold with much less force applied. Metals can absorb a much greater amount of energy before failing, but the ease with which they deform does not lend them to supporting the same large loads that concrete can.

NOT relevant, nor important. But distracting. Yet this set of instructions about the nature of steel and metal allows R.d.735 to create an illusion of special artifical weakness by the tendancy of association. What is not mentioned is the impossibility of the structure to fail at all due to metal not getting weak from jet fuel. And no major infrastructural damage to the buildings. IN effect no-where near enough to cause a collapse in an hour. This significant point is always ignored.

Originally Posted by r.d.735

As I stated before, the WTC towers were held up mainly by steel supports. Therefore, one could reasonably expect that, no matter the mechanism of collapse, any concrete in the structure would be subjected to enormous compressive stresses, causing failure, and, to a casual observer, to explode outward.

Now we are suppose to associate compressive stress with failure. And you have sold your excuse. But no you havn't sold it yet. Because it doesn't make sense. The steel structure of the building was grided. Which means the plane was a pencil prick in the grid. Resulting in little 'compressive stress' to contribute to any collapse at all. The building was structured to equalize stress in any portion of a damaged area. Which is exactly what would have happened. Had the Thermate, and basement explosions not being utilized to bring the building down in a spectacular manner. Had most of the evidence not being illegally taken away immediately. This event would be well and truly assured as the case. However enough physical evidence and witnesses is left to conclude this is what happened anyway.

Originally Posted by r.d.735

It's probably redundant to point out, but many materials make a sound not unlike an explosion when they break. These observations are thus explained without regard to the cause of collapse.

No because you say it sounds like an explosion when it breaks. Does not explain anything. It is silly. It is pointless. It is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by r.d.735

I apologize for the lengthy, boring, tautological argument that this has been, I hope it's been educational at least.

This has taken up more time than I would like, responding to the irrelevance. I don't know why you still think 911 is not suspicious. You must be psychotic, at the least.

Mystic7, I'm still puzzled by your repeated references to the conspiracy theorist label, as well as your reference to polls, but I think the debate is better served by moving away from these subjects. We can both agree that they're unrelated to the mechanism that caused the collapse of the towers.

To keep the focus on physical observations, I'd appreciate it if someone on the other side of the debate can counter some of my physical reasoning from the previous posts and perhaps extend the debate to the behavior of the WTC's steel supports.

I'm trying to develop a consensus about what observations are common to both theories so that we can screen them out and focus on the differences. It may be that the majority of observations supporting one theory or the other are common to both and we can cease debating about whether they support one theory or the other. Ideally, a single observation will be left behind that can be debated more easily.

your rhetoric is well and truly countered if you google your own concerns if you were genuine. Your just trying to use words to make yourself sound good hoping people will be convinced by your paradigm of skeptism around the highly suspicious circumstances of the 911 event.

Shortly after 9/11, anyone who questioned the official story was thought of as a terrorist...however...I have reason enough to believe America is waking up.

I wish I could keep posting counter-arguments, but I'm going to be gone for Christmas. I'll post just a little more on this topic before my sabbatical:

Any point of view can be proven by sources of information from a google search. I could even convince myself that the world is flat, if I were inclined to believe every source that agreed with that assumption. Unfortunately, we all have to accept our sources as inherently biased toward one side or the other. That was the whole point of reducing the debate to more basic physical principles: research on these basic principles is extremely unlikely to be biased. In that way, I thought I could avoid the affects of bias in my sources, even if I couldn't avoid the biases of my own beliefs.

It's hard for all of us to debate this way, of course, since it takes a long time and a lot of effort to research the physics and the engineering principles, as opposed to the generalized analysis of the sources that have been called biased by both sides. If even that is not enough, however, I'm afraid we're all left without any tools of substantive debate, which I assume is why counter-arguments have seemed to degenerate into descriptions of my style of argument.

My question to you, Mystic7, is this: What standards of argument should be acceptable to the debate? How would you like me and the rest who have not accepted government involvement in the attacks to argue? If merely arguing to the contrary automatically makes me part of a government effort to cover up its role, how is it possible for you to be convinced otherwise?

R.D.735 Lets just get this clear. We all know this is not a debate but a war. If your asking me how I want you to fight the war against me to win. Just surrender. Because I will never give in anyway. Ofcourse your not asking me anything, you just want to sound resonable....

It makes a good excuse for a holiday break, at any rate. I'll see you all later. I hope everyone has a good Christmas while I'm gone.

1 - This poll cannot be considered. People who believe 9/11 was an inside job will feel compelled to come and vote (just like homosexuals would feel compelled to vote on a sexual orientation poll - sorry for the allusion heh). But hey, the majority of people believing something doesn't make that right (in fact, that's the reason why I'm against democracy).

2 - R.D. has just clearly explained why all that "evidence" shown on videos is actually senseless. If you didn't bother to read it (which would have been disrespectful, to say the least), then you won't understand anyway.

3 - Saying that you blindly believe something and that discussing it won't change it is the worst mistake. It makes the discussion become preaching.

I will not really take part of the discussion, firstly because I'm not as experienced as R.D., and also because I don't really bother discussing with people who blindly believe things.

Stay well

Originally Posted by Kromoh

1 - This poll cannot be considered. People who believe 9/11 was an inside job will feel compelled to come and vote

yes, yes this poll can be considered. Because if people feel compelled to vote. That does not make the vote count less than other votes. It just means they are less apathetic, and ofcourse more intelligent.

Originally Posted by kromoh

the majority of people believing something doesn't make that right (in fact, that's the reason why I'm against democracy).

Firstly that was never the polls intention. To prove what is correct. So your arguing a strawman. Second what the majority wants, is what the majority always gets. Wether it likes it or not. Wether that be a dictator, war, and any other reason. The majority contributes to everything. Despite democracy, it's a law of nature known as cause and effect. The problem is not with democracy. So you cannot be against something that is not the problem. The problem is actually with taking responsibility globally. Starting with each individual.

Originally Posted by kromoh

2 - R.D. has just clearly explained why all that "evidence" shown on videos is actually senseless.

He did not clearly explain any of the information found at the beginning of this thread, if you bothered to read it. But that is for others to decide.

Originally Posted by kromoh

3 - Saying that you blindly believe something and that discussing it won't change it is the worst mistake. It makes the discussion become preaching.

I havn't said that things can't be changed. Discussing about something certainly helps rather than saying nothing and ignoring facing problems.

Originally Posted by kromoh

I will not really take part of the discussion, firstly because I'm not as experienced as R.D., and also because I don't really bother discussing with people who blindly believe things.

You have already taken part in the discussion and will take part in it again. You give R.D to much credit.

Who else doesnt care anymore?

Me. ;P

You should make a poll about it, Half/Dreaming

I've just woke up to 911 this summer and there's noway that jet fuel and the fires alone brought down those vuildings like that and jet fuel can't burn at a temperature hot enought to melt steel but molten metal had appeared in the basement of the towers I agree with the "Controled Demolition" hypothesis and Larry Silverstein said that "They pulled the building" with WTC 7 but who is THEY?a nd demolition takes weeks and months of planning to do after doing my own research I have every reason to believe that the Bush Administration is behind this.

You must not forget metal bends at high pressures. Also that the buildings staying on fire for a pretty long time before falling down. There was this airplane accident where I live and the temperature was so high that all the bodies (or, should I say, the pieces that were left) were irrecognisable. Now you tell me buildings are airplane-proof? That airplanes cannot bring down a bulding?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You must not forget metal bends at high pressures. Also that the buildings staying on fire for a pretty long time before falling down. There was this airplane accident where I live and the temperature was so high that all the bodies (or, should I say, the pieces that were left) were irrecognisable. Now you tell me buildings are airplane-proof? That airplanes cannot bring down a bulding?

Your incorrect. Metal does not weaken from jetfuel fire. Most of it burns up in an instant. The tempreature is no where near high enough for it to weaken. Metal steel doesn't just give up when some fire appears. And the buildings were standing for roughly 1 hour after the jetfuel was long and truly burnt up from the instant of impact. 1 hour is not long at all. It is common for high rise buildings to burn for 24 hours and more, and still not fall down. Why do I have to repeat myself all the time?

And yes, an airplane impact does not collapse a building that was designed to withstand it. The screen netting on your front door doesn't collapse because you put a pencil through it.

Kromoh, I don't know why you insist on making thoughtless statements supporting corruption and decay and robbing people of justice. Just because you like to think you know what happened. Even though you have given little thought to this. Either that or you just want to think something is true because it suits your needs. Either way your doomed if you don't pick yourself up and realize what we are talking about. Or just stick to your school work and try and get good grades.

It seems to me that Bush's worst enemies would have this "proof" on the news every second of life. The truth is that smarter people than you and me know that highly tactical terrorists, under control by educated architect Osama bin Laden, decided to start a war with us.

Hah! You think Bush did it? Have you seen the guy on TV? You give him WAAAY to much credit. He's a puppet. Nothing more.