Alternative news sources

[Sean]

Parsifal

Looks like Sean has made himself scarce.

Not exactly, I just happen to have some employment right now for my sins, which also takes up my time.

MishaK's 9/11 brainwashed ravings indeed aren't a priority but I'll get some liquor out later to soften the pain and tell him again what I think of his ideas.

[Parsifal]

Parsifal

Not exactly, I just happen to have some employment right now for my sins, which also takes up my time.

MishaK's 9/11 brainwashed ravings indeed aren't a priority but I'll get some liquor out later to soften the pain and tell him again what I think of his ideas.

What about the photograph?

[MishaK]

What about the photograph?

+1

MishaK's 9/11 brainwashed ravings indeed aren't a priority but I'll get some liquor out later to soften the pain and tell him again what I think of his ideas.

I know what you think of "my ideas." You do realize that there isn't much brainwashing involved when you were on site and saw the thing with your own eyes (in addition to having some technical understanding of the subject matter)?

I don't really care to get into an extended pissing contest with you, since you lack a basic understanding of science and refuse to acquire it, and without it any discussion of factual matters with you is pointless. Heck, you can't even confront evidence that contradicts your so-called "argument", such as the pic above.

What I really want to hear from you is this: let's suppose, arguendo, that you've convinced me. The towers couldn't have been brought down by planes and Atta & Co. couldn't have pulled it off, so they aren't the likely culprits. What I then want to know then is exactly who did it? Why? And, especially, why the f^$k did they bother with planes at all when they were going to bring down the towers with explosives anyway? Why the smoking hole in the middle of nowhere in PA? Why increase the number of moving parts, the number of people involved, the complexity of the whole operation and hence exponentially increase the likelihood of something going wrong, yet nothing supposedly goes wrong? How did they keep the preparations and execution of this, which necessarily would have involved thousands of collaborators, secret? In the middle of one of the most heavily trafficked and camera-saturated spots in the US? How come in the troves of data that wikileaks et al. have found, there isn't the slightest hint of anything about a 9/11 conspiracy? Why blame the whole thing on a motley crew of Saudis, Egyptians, Yemenis and Morroccans, if supposedly the objective is to attack Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe Iran? That's like blaming the Gulf of Tonkin on a bunch of Fijians and then attacking Vietnam anyway. Did you ever bother to ask any of these questions yourself?

[Parsifal]

+1

I know what you think of "my ideas." You do realize that there isn't much brainwashing involved when you were on site and saw the thing with your own eyes (in addition to having some technical understanding of the subject matter)?

I don't really care to get into an extended pissing contest with you, since you lack a basic understanding of science and refuse to acquire it, and without it any discussion of factual matters with you is pointless. Heck, you can't even confront evidence that contradicts your so-called "argument", such as the pic above.

What I really want to hear from you is this: let's suppose, arguendo, that you've convinced me. The towers couldn't have been brought down by planes and Atta & Co. couldn't have pulled it off, so they aren't the likely culprits. What I then want to know then is exactly who did it? Why? And, especially, why the f^$k did they bother with planes at all when they were going to bring down the towers with explosives anyway? Why the smoking hole in the middle of nowhere in PA? Why increase the number of moving parts, the number of people involved, the complexity of the whole operation and hence exponentially increase the likelihood of something going wrong, yet nothing supposedly goes wrong? How did they keep the preparations and execution of this, which necessarily would have involved thousands of collaborators, secret? In the middle of one of the most heavily trafficked and camera-saturated spots in the US? How come in the troves of data that wikileaks et al. have found, there isn't the slightest hint of anything about a 9/11 conspiracy? Why blame the whole thing on a motley crew of Saudis, Egyptians, Yemenis and Morroccans, if supposedly the objective is to attack Iraq, Afghanistan and maybe Iran? That's like blaming the Gulf of Tonkin on a bunch of Fijians and then attacking Vietnam anyway. Did you ever bother to ask any of these questions yourself?

Shhhhh!  We're trying to lure the terrified little mouse out of his hole.  Turn down the lights, be very, very quiet, and wait.

[Sean]

Hi guys, lately I've been sending emails to the management here so critical I've been advised I need to cool it or the boot might be in my direction. I work at this university which is all very nice but has the initiative and dynamism of a drugged fat panda and I guess some of my griping rubs off over here when it shouldn't. I don't mean to be completely nasty. Last night I had the graveyard shift and while lurking in the shadows afterwards having broken open some spirit along comes this girl I've being half trying to seduce and though she wouldn't come back to mine she did get another meal out of me, so by then I was in no state to think about the state-sponsored crime of the century.

[Parsifal]

Still trying to change the subject from the photo, I see...

[Sean]

Hi MishaK

It was designed to withstand an impact by a 707, an aircraft with little more than half the mass of a 767. And that calculation didn't at all take into account fuel, nor high speed, as normally in the event of an accident, an airliner would be going at 250kts maximum due to low altitude speed restrictions. The two aircraft that struck WTC were 767-200s, much heavier aircraft fueled for a transcontinental flight, which they had just begun, going nearly 500kts. This is several orders of magnitude larger than an impact by a 707. Kinetic energy is one half times mass multiplied by the square of the velocity. You do see that if you more than double both the mass and the velocity you end up with eight times as much energy, right?

Go on then, I'm sure Parsifal will check the maths sorry math for you; what the retort is here I can't say but I'm certain there is one.

I suspect this is peer reviewed only in the sense that loonies reviewing loonies constitute peers.

Well the most well-known loony is Steven Jones who was a physics professor at Brigham Young University- they kicked him out after he asked them about this new scientific principle they were charging him with neglecting but which he'd never heard of, called unhealthy criticism.

Dude, I've seen them all. They're bunk science and lack a coherent affirmative theory of the crime. What is the f76cking theory of the crime? Spell it out! Just try it for yourself. Who did it? How?

Well influential elements of the US government dressed the WTC with explosives for demolition while arranging for a few aircraft to be redirected by remote control, speciously blaming the disaster on the dastardly Islamic terrorists who they had to go after right away without the beginnings of an analysis. Artificially escalating small scale issues to major events seems to be an American speciality.

There are distinct interest groups benefitting from this, plus the resource maggot that the US is- why else do you think a debate we're having, which is a debate even if both sides take the other to be nonsense on stilts, is absolutely persona non grata for the media?

...the fall took well over 10 seconds, more like 13 or 14. You just can't see very well due to the dust clouds and the buildings in the foreground.

Nice excuse. What you mean is that nobody can distinguish the collapse from free-fall.

But you can see clearly pieces of facade falling faster than the rest of the towers, which plainly refutes the "free fall" nonsense. Also, in controlled demolition, buildings don't fall at "free fall speed" either, whatever that is supposed to be. A collapse is a collapse. This is simply bunk science on every level.

Do see the David Chandler video against the picture you post; it's only ten minutes but gives a different view on this...

The lobby was a marvellous, cathedral like open space.

I walked through the one with the tour available in 1997, the desk was closed though.

Maybe that's because we were actually there and saw it with our own eyes and it was plainly obvious to anyone who didn't fail physics in middle school?

Hey, it blinking well wasn't obvious to the fire department nor to the 2800 in the first tower to collapse- it surprised the world and took many years to explain even officially. First rule of rescue work is assure your own safety or you just have another casualty, including the truth...

[Sean]

snyprrr, take note of Karl's pertinent observation...

Well, we all work for the government, really. It's the government of, by and for the people.

[Sean]

What about the photograph?

See the ten minute David Chandler video for a detailed rebuttal on this exact topic- it's on YT and elsewhere but I can't get you the link right now.

[Sean]

Mish, there are some simple answers all over the internet to these questions...

What I then want to know then is exactly who did it? Why?

The military industrial complex, plus the American need to continue consuming 25% of the world's oil while being 4% of the population.

And, especially, why the f^$k did they bother with planes at all when they were going to bring down the towers with explosives anyway?

An excuse was and continues to be needed to get the new series of terrorism wars underway.

Why increase the number of moving parts, the number of people involved, the complexity of the whole operation and hence exponentially increase the likelihood of something going wrong, yet nothing supposedly goes wrong?

Building 7 was the enormous failing and enormous problem for the 9/11 perpetrators. That's why its collapse has never been shown on television since 9/12/01, and why it was rebuilt as fast as possible

I read your other questions but there are well defined and entirely plausible answers which others can better articulate. I like the one about the hijackers from various Arabian countries but not Afghanistan- maybe a mistake on the flight manifest I guess...

My parting remark, you seem almost as interested in this as me. However I happen to have other interests also in life and as long as the world hangs in there with the oil supplies and corrupt resource access to prop me up, I'll read your informative posts but will try not to reply, just for my own sanity. Over to you; yours Sean

[snyprrr]

Painful Questions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlF1J3V5AYc

[Parsifal]

See the ten minute David Chandler video for a detailed rebuttal on this exact topic- it's on YT and elsewhere but I can't get you the link right now.

Deflecting the question again.  Referring to the photograph again



how could debris ejected by the collapse fall faster than the building collapse if the building collapse was "free fall."  Free fall is, by definition, the fastest a passive object can fall.  Do you have any coherent reply to that question? 

David Chandler doesn't.  That's for certain.  I saw his video and it consists of a lot of confused ramblings about this or that law of physics which he then applies incorrectly.  That fact that he claims to be a "physics teacher" is a sobering commentary of the degraded state of science education in the US. 

All I can conclude is that you have no ability to analyze rational argument.  Like the "sheeple" you bemoan you will swallow whatever you are fed, no matter how absurd or implausible, as long as it contradicts the established view.

[Parsifal]

Painful Questions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlF1J3V5AYc

Painful to watch, that's certain.

[kishnevi]

Painful to watch, that's certain.

It does say something when Snyprrr's contributions to a thread are more coherent and intelligent than Sean's. 

Add to that the fact that Snyprrr does not indulge himself in misanthropy, name calling, and a disdain that is universal in its application.

[Sean]

Parsifal

Nice that you found the video, I thought it just great.

If I remember he suggests that the falling debris is ahead of the point of demolition because it's been detonated outwards. The speed and distance of ejection from the tower is completely inconsistent with a purely gravity driven collapse and requires explosive accelerants.

Please also notice bottom left the smoke pouring furiously off the ends of the steel sections that are white hot with nanothermitic melting. Do explain otherwise.

[Sean]

Duly noted Jeffrey, the sheeple horde are due more from me than they're getting I guess.

Add to that the fact that Snyprrr does not indulge himself in misanthropy, name calling, and a disdain that is universal in its application.

[MishaK]

Go on then, I'm sure Parsifal will check the maths sorry math for you; what the retort is here I can't say but I'm certain there is one.

There isn't one. Unless of course you're saying that by accident the WTC engineers happened to make the building eight times as strong as they were planning to.

Well the most well-known loony is Steven Jones who was a physics professor at Brigham Young University- they kicked him out after he asked them about this new scientific principle they were charging him with neglecting but which he'd never heard of, called unhealthy criticism.

Nor peer reviewed. The measly papers they publish don't lead to any meaningful conclusions. Just speculative hypotheses which in and of themselves could or could not be supportive of more juicy claims, if several other assumptions were to be proven. And many who initially collaborated with him left his project because the science could not be substantiated. Besides, BYU might as well be considered a Mormon religious school, not a serious research institution.

Well influential elements of the US government dressed the WTC with explosives for demolition while arranging for a few aircraft to be redirected by remote control, speciously blaming the disaster on the dastardly Islamic terrorists who they had to go after right away without the beginnings of an analysis. Artificially escalating small scale issues to major events seems to be an American speciality.

Why airplanes when you are going to demolish it anyway? If it's as patently implausible as you say it is that aircraft would destroy these buildings, why stretch the public's credulity (which you desperately need to pull of a staged event), by adding an unnecessary layer of complexity that accomplishes nothing? If you answer nothing else, answer at least that!

Nice excuse. What you mean is that nobody can distinguish the collapse from free-fall.

You can't. Everyone else can, in part because we see that debris is falling faster than the building and we see from other less obstructed videos that the collaps was several seconds slower than "free fall". 

Hey, it blinking well wasn't obvious to the fire department nor to the 2800 in the first tower to collapse- it surprised the world and took many years to explain even officially. First rule of rescue work is assure your own safety or you just have another casualty, including the truth...

This is idiocy. You do realize that it took a while before the building started visibly buckling, while the rescue effort was already well under way and many firemen were inside the building? Has this occurred to you? Even if all of them had been notified once it started buckling, it takes a while to get out. There were various investigations into chain of command and communication issues. After the first tower collapsed, the other was quickly abandoned. The 2800 in the first tower? Do you mean the casualties there? You do realize most of them were trapped above the point of impact. You really think they stayed voluntarily, oblivious to the possibility that ththe tower might collapse? What you write is so unbeleivably stupid, I don't know how you even come up with this stuff and why since it doesn't even support your point.

Please also notice bottom left the smoke pouring furiously off the ends of the steel sections that are white hot with nanothermitic melting. Do explain otherwise.

Fancy words, the concepts which they denote you don't understand. Heat rises. It doesn't fall. What is coming off those bis of facade that are falling ahead of the rest of the structure is dust, crushed plaster from plasterboard used as walls and bits of concrete. It's a cloud of particulate matter, heavier than air. Not hot gas. If you watch the video it all goes down. There isn't a hot plume that rises up, nor any "smoke" that would by necessity need to rise were it truly "white hot". Please don't lecture on thermodynamics. You're illiterate in this field. You should stay away from all stoves, heaters, fireplaces and the like for your own safety. With these opinions you're a danger to yourself.

The military industrial complex, plus the American need to continue consuming 25% of the world's oil while being 4% of the population.

Afghanistan has no oil. The war on terror has not appreciably changed US access to middle eastern oil. This is nonsense.

Also, the power of the military industrial complex is vastly overrated. They can't even get the Pentagon to buy enough F-35s and Boeing's tanker project has been stuck for years. Have you heard of the sequester? Base closures? Just by way of example. But once again, this is in the real world, not in the fantasyland you inhabit.

An excuse was and continues to be needed to get the new series of terrorism wars underway.

Cui bono isn't that simple. All kinds of regimes from Belarus to Myanmar to China to Russia to Venezuela have profited from 9-11 in being able to castigate any dissenters as "terrorists". In a global perspective, the US wasn't even particularly egregious in this respect. If that's all you've got, then it's at least as plausible to say that 9-11 was perpetrated by a nefarious alliance between Lukashenko and the Burmese junta.

And that excuse still doesn't answer at all my question: why use planes at all if you're going to bring down the towers with explosives anyway? That simply makes no sense at all, no matter what your motive or who the perpetrator was. This is simply the existential flaw in all the conspiracy theorys whose point of departure is that the planes didn't do it. There is simply no reason to use the planes at all if they didn't accomplish anything. It's absurdly complex for no purpose.

Building 7 was the enormous failing and enormous problem for the 9/11 perpetrators. That's why its collapse has never been shown on television since 9/12/01, and why it was rebuilt as fast as possible

It wasn't rebuilt. It was replaced by a completely different complex and a street now runs through where 7 used to be. You might recall that the reason why the new 7 was built faster than the rest of the complex was the squabbles over the architectural masterplan and the various lawsuits related to it - also a certain amount of inefficiency, if you hand the main oversight job to GWB's best buddy from college instead of someone competent at running major construction projects. 7 was unaffected by these delays because it wasn't part of the main complex's master plan.

And it's a myth that it took "years" to explain any of the collapses. All of them were basically understood at the time.

I read your other questions but there are well defined and entirely plausible answers which others can better articulate.

I'm asking YOU to articulate them. If you can't, then you don't understand this issue yourself and you are in no position to so vehemently deny reality, as you can't offer an alternate one.

I like the one about the hijackers from various Arabian countries but not Afghanistan- maybe a mistake on the flight manifest I guess...

I thought they never existed and Atta is still alive? What does the manifest have to do with anything if the flight was fake with fake passengers? Surely they could have faked the right nationality?

My parting remark, you seem almost as interested in this as me. However I happen to have other interests also in life and as long as the world hangs in there with the oil supplies and corrupt resource access to prop me up, I'll read your informative posts but will try not to reply, just for my own sanity. Over to you; yours Sean

Weasel! I call shenaningans on you. You have no understanding of science and no alternate theory. You're just masturbating off stuff you find on the internet that coddles your soul to believe that you are superior to the rest of society because you are "smart" enough not to buy official propaganda. But none of what you say adds up to an even remotely coherent story.

[Karl Henning]

It does say something when Snyprrr's contributions to a thread are more coherent and intelligent than Sean's.

(* chortle *)

[Florestan]

Afghanistan has no oil.

Actually it has.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated in 2006 that northern Afghanistan has an average 2.9 billion (bn) barrels (bbl) of crude oil [...] In December 2011, Afghanistan signed an oil exploration contract with China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) for the development of three oil fields along the Amu Darya river in the north.

[MishaK]

Actually it has.

Very well. Thanks for correcting that. Note, though, that the cited geological survey was post 9-11 and the Chinese are getting the contract. So my point still stands that the GWOT hasn't appreciably made a dent in the US position vs. middle east oil.