Simple and Elegant Plan (9/11)

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Eye witness testimony = crap.

As you know, I used to wear a shield, so I am well versed in the flaws of eyewitness testimony. The only thing it is really good for, is corroboration of other evidence, and in some cases to corroborate identical testimony.

There is indeed physical evidence which supports the idea of explosions before the collapse, including physical injuries and video tape. Furthermore, there seems to have been some official knowledge beforehand, of impending explosions, which again is evident in recordings taken that day.

reply to post by bsbray11


The velocity of the collapse should have been interrupted at each point of failure, but in this case it did not. This is evidence that the failure of each floor had occurred, before the mass above it had reached that point.

Therefore...

The fall accelerated as the accumulated weight rose.

...allowing the entire building(s) to completely collapse in a matter of seconds.

What we witnessed can only be possible if no resistance met the downward velocity.

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Exactly.
It wasn't a massive failure. It was parts failing which in turn caused other parts to fail. And once a tipping point we got to the stage that it was TONS of falling debris that caused the acceleration.

This may be true of the floor structure, but not the inner columns. Furthermore, if the descending rubble was not concentrated, why did it not simply shower over the the resistance of the remaining structure?

reply to post by jackinthebox

But they would not turn to a bunch of rubble without first offering resistance. ANY resistance, would have delayed the collapse, and increased the running time of the event.

It didn't start out the same speed it ended man.

The top sliding off sideways for example. What we have seen here instead, is that gravity was deliberately made the single most important factor in the collapse, circumventing all of the other variables, and putting the towers straight down in their own footprint.

Ok I have said this time and time and time again man. There is no good reason the top would have just slid off. It wasn't severed by a giant samurai sword, a plane hit it which compromised the structure. It didn't cleanly chop one building into two parts. The buildings were NOT one continuous structure they may have looked it but that is anything but true.

Not just gravity...... Weight. Denisity. Velocity. In differing measures.

Please don't take this as a snipe but what happened to your objectivity man?

For BSBray

Actually only gravity could cause an acceleration. But either way, NIST actually gave figures for the dynamic loading a single floor could take, and not just contradictory data for which they pick a meaning. They said in their last FAQ that one generalized floor could take 6 under dynamic loading, and I think 11 under static. In other words, one floor falling onto one floor stops the "reaction" dead in its tracks. So for two, three, four, five, and six.

No increased mass would accelerate it.

And that is pure speculation and did you miss where I said I think the NIST was trying to cover up shoddy materials on top of other things?
Just because the NIST said it doesn't make it true. You disbelieve them on so many other levels but when they say the floors should have been able to 6 floors of weight you agree with them without question. See an unbalance here?

Now back to Jack:

This I have to agree with. In fact, I have come across evidence of this as being one of the reasons why the WTC was "slated" for destruction. The Towers were about to be condemned. Guiliani knew it, and so did Silverstein. They probably saw the problem upon inspections after the first attack back in the 90's. I posted about this a while back. I'd really have to dig to find it though.

Doesn't state a case for CD though. The scenario I mentioned up at the beginning of the thread (all those days ago) points that out.

Taking in a bigger picture, and I just follow the leads like any investigator. As you know, I am not beyond changing my opinion, so long as it the change is dictated by fact.

Same here man. And I have yet to see any facts supporting it. Every single one of the points you have brought up I have had counters for.
But please don't take this or other words as sign I no longer respect you. It just I feel like I am trying to break through a brick wall of denial with facts.

As you know, I used to wear a shield, so I am well versed in the flaws of eyewitness testimony. The only thing it is really good for, is corroboration of other evidence, and in some cases to corroborate identical testimony.

Then why did you site eye witness testimony like you did? And even the corroboration will TAINT eye witness testimony. Eye witness testimony is crap and the more people you get into it the worse it tends to get. Add to it the ability of mankind's for lying and greed.
Once again. If Mr. Alex Jones was right do you honestly think he would be continuing to draw breath if he couldn't be subverted?

The velocity of the collapse should have been interrupted at each point of failure, but in this case it did not. This is evidence that the failure of each floor had occurred, before the mass above it had reached that point.

Once again......
The collapse was NOT fast to start it built up speed as it went along.
And once you get to a point and your dropping ALOT of weight on those floors they will fail VERY quickly by the sheer mechanism of the massive weights your dropping on them.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by jackinthebox

This may be true of the floor structure, but not the inner columns. Furthermore, if the descending rubble was not concentrated, why did it not simply shower over the the resistance of the remaining structure?

Neither was the core columns one piece. NONE of it was down to the nitty gritty one continuous piece of steel. Or concrete.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
No increased mass would accelerate it.

Technically, shouldn't only a force and/or kinetic energy be able to cause a mass to accelerate (at least in this case)? Forces are even technically defined as a mass times an acceleration.

Additional kinetic energy could be imparted by the kinetic energies of the falling masses, but this would happen when the floors impact, and like I tried to explain, the increase in mass at that point in time is going to decrease the net velocity when they continue moving together. That's a law of physics (conservation of kinetic energy) for a very simple case, ignoring any moments of inertia that would further slow the falling mass.

On top of everything that would be slowing the increasing mass, gravity would constantly be applied to everything, and gravity is a relatively weak force compared to the forces involved with material deformations and collisions and things like that (chemical forces holding matter together and resisting deformation). It would have been the only thing that would have actually be applying a steady "pull" on everything, which makes sense ultimately.

And that is pure speculation and did you miss where I said I think the NIST was trying to cover up shoddy materials on top of other things?

Then I guess that makes you just as much of a conspiracy theorist as I must be. Personally I believe the numbers of floors are meaningless because floors would never fall together simultaneously in the first place. That in itself is an impossibility, imo.

You disbelieve them on so many other levels but when they say the floors should have been able to 6 floors of weight you agree with them without question. See an unbalance here?

Nope. I trust some of their figures (sometimes just for the sake of argument), depending on how they got them, etc. If you read some of the report, you'll see they actually throw out a lot of numbers that still hurt their case, but link it all together with garbage.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

It didn't start out the same speed it ended man.

I agree. Downward velocity increased. But it would not have, to the degree that we witnessed, if the lower floor had offered any resistance.

Ok I have said this time and time and time again man. There is no good reason the top would have just slid off. It wasn't severed by a giant samurai sword, a plane hit it which compromised the structure. It didn't cleanly chop one building into two parts.

Why wouldn't it slide off? That is where the structural integrity had been compromised. In fact, it almost did slide off. You can see it tip during the collapse.

That tip actually proves that the section of floors where the plane had hit, did not fail until after the floor below gave way.

Not just gravity...... Weight. Denisity. Velocity. In differing measures.

Not in differing measures, as we should have seen. But in one rapid and linear collapse. Not one, two. And then three if you bring 7 into the mix.

This is what makes a controlled demolition the work of experts. To bring all the variables into one clear pattern, the footprint. All of these variables you are talking about should have happened, but they did not. Buildings that collapse without such skilled planning, fall in pieces, or topple over.

Please don't take this as a snipe but what happened to your objectivity man?

My objectivity is intact. I have posted only factual information. But again, I am willing to look at facts which may counter those that I have already examined.

reply to post by jackinthebox

My objectivity is intact. I have posted only factual information. But again, I am willing to look at facts which may counter those that I have already examined

Yet every single argument I have you simply ignore despite the fact you say you "like how I think.".

And no it wouldn't just slide off. It was collapsing inside into the hollows inside the building. Why would it be easier to just slide off. Especially since the structure wasn't chopped into two.
But either way I don't think your really listening to me.
What say you we drop this? I would prefer to keep the respect between us and I don't think it's going to last long if this continues especially with BS there joining in a good ole double teaming. I have dealt with him before and am wary to do it again.

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Doesn't state a case for CD though. The scenario I mentioned up at the beginning of the thread (all those days ago) points that out.

Not direct evidence of CD, I agree. It goes to motive though, as well as knowledge beforehand.

But please don't take this or other words as sign I no longer respect you. It just I feel like I am trying to break through a brick wall of denial with facts.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not the one trying to rewrite physics. I know that may sound harsh, but I think you might be holding on too tight. There is no brick wall of denial here. I have gone back and forth with my opinion on this fluidly, based on all of the evidence I am exposed to. You may be right in the long run, but I have seen no facts presented to challenge my observations at this time.

Then why did you site eye witness testimony like you did? And even the corroboration will TAINT eye witness testimony. Eye witness testimony is crap and the more people you get into it the worse it tends to get.

Eyewitness testimony has a place, when corraborated with other evidence. There are people who do know what they saw after all. The only way to determine which ones though, is to follow the other evidence.

You can't "taint" eyewitness testimony by corrobarting what they have said with facts that were uncovered independently of their observation. This is why you question people seperately during an investigation.

Actually, the more people you have, the better chance you have of uncovering corroborative testimony. If you have two people who see a hit and run, and one sais the car was yellow while the other sais the car was red, you have no evidence. But if out of ten witnesses, seven say it was red, two say it was yellow, one says it was black, you will probably keep an eye out for a reddish-colored car with a dent.

Add to it the ability of mankind's for lying and greed. Once again. If Mr. Alex Jones was right do you honestly think he would be continuing to draw breath if he couldn't be subverted?

This isn't about Alex Jones, or wether or not he is lieing just to line his pockets. This is about the elites lining their pockets and incremantally enslaving us all.

You wanna know why "they" haven't shut him up, and others like him? Because "they" want you to know what they did. The same reason they left so many holes in the official story. Most people just believe what they have been told, and were shocked into believing. But for those who would question, to those who are a real threat to the status quo, to those who dissent, 9/11 is a warning. "Look what we can do, and there is nothing you can do about it. Obey."

The collapse was NOT fast to start it built up speed as it went along. And once you get to a point and your dropping ALOT of weight on those floors they will fail VERY quickly by the sheer mechanism of the massive weights your dropping on them.

Terminal velocity is the same for a one-pond rock and a ten pound rock. The floors would have offered resistance, regardless of the force applied. Even if the cumilative result was only a matter of seconds added to the total collapse time.

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Neither was the core columns one piece. NONE of it was down to the nitty gritty one continuous piece of steel. Or concrete.

I don't see how that would matter anyway, considering that there were solid pieces that failed, not at the joints necessarily.

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Yet every single argument I have you simply ignore despite the fact you say you "like how I think.".

I like the creativity and logic of your premise. It is certainly worthy of consideration.

Your theory is not fact however. Theories must be rigrously tested to determine their validity. I have not "simply" ignored anything. You have offered your explanations and understanding, I have offered mine.

And no it wouldn't just slide off.

Why not? The failing of the structure in the floors affected by the fires, did in fact sever the contitnuity of the structure. If not, then you would not ahve a structural failure, wether or not the top slid off. I am not saying the top HAD to slide off, but it would not have surprised me in the least if it actually had.

It was collapsing inside into the hollows inside the building.

I am not sure what you mean by the "hollows" of the building. If anything, the floors should have collapsed down around the inner structure, which clearly did not fail as easily, judging by what remained intact and standing for several moments after the collapse. Again, further evidence that some unknown/unspecified force acted to undermine the inner steel support structure, and create a failure that has never before been documented in history, despite the long histroy and millions of examples of steel structures.

What say you we drop this? I would prefer to keep the respect between us and I don't think it's going to last long if this continues especially with BS there joining in a good ole double teaming.

The "double-teaming" was not a part of my presentation to you, though I do believe the member has some valid points.

I will stop stinking up your thread though. I just humbly suggest you try to further consider some of the counter-points raised to your premise.





[edit on 3/12/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox

Not direct evidence of CD, I agree. It goes to motive though, as well as knowledge beforehand.

I think the obvious motive would have to have been to scare the American people and by that fear use it to get things they normally would have had people in the streets fighting against.
All that destroying the WTC for profit is purely secondary and not a good reason to execute such a plan.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not the one trying to rewrite physics. I know that may sound harsh, but I think you might be holding on too tight. There is no brick wall of denial here. I have gone back and forth with my opinion on this fluidly, based on all of the evidence I am exposed to. You may be right in the long run, but I have seen no facts presented to challenge my observations at this time.

I am not trying to rewrite physics that comment was just a side note.
Don't take this the wrong way. But talking to you now is not much different to talking to one of those we both could point to and say non-independent thinking drone. You are exhibiting the same pro-CD nonsense you at one point avoided.

Eyewitness testimony has a place, when corraborated with other evidence. There are people who do know what they saw after all. The only way to determine which ones though, is to follow the other evidence.

You can't "taint" eyewitness testimony by corrobarting what they have said with facts that were uncovered independently of their observation. This is why you question people seperately during an investigation.

Actually, the more people you have, the better chance you have of uncovering corroborative testimony. If you have two people who see a hit and run, and one sais the car was yellow while the other sais the car was red, you have no evidence. But if out of ten witnesses, seven say it was red, two say it was yellow, one says it was black, you will probably keep an eye out for a reddish-colored car with a dent.

Read the article I posted please.
Ever heard the term "Lets get our stories straight"?
That happens as a unconscious mechanism as well.

This isn't about Alex Jones, or wether or not he is lieing just to line his pockets. This is about the elites lining their pockets and incremantally enslaving us all.

You wanna know why "they" haven't shut him up, and others like him? Because "they" want you to know what they did. The same reason they left so many holes in the official story. Most people just believe what they have been told, and were shocked into believing. But for those who would question, to those who are a real threat to the status quo, to those who dissent, 9/11 is a warning. "Look what we can do, and there is nothing you can do about it. Obey."

Rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhtttttttt.
Sorry man but look objectively at what you just said get back to me.
I only say this not to sway you to my side but you like most likely me have need of a long look in the mirror.

Terminal velocity is the same for a one-pond rock and a ten pound rock. The floors would have offered resistance, regardless of the force applied. Even if the cumilative result was only a matter of seconds added to the total collapse time.

JACK! Listen to me PLEASE?
It did not fall at the same rate through out the damn collapse.
The collapse sped up as the sheer weight of what was falling accumulated.
The stuff had no time to reach terminal velocity anyway.
Heavy things do NOT need to reach terminal velocity to be destructive in a fall.

Can we please just drop this man????
I see it going to the point we both get sick of each other and I still honestly don't think you are listening to me, REALLY listening to me.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


I'm just going to respond to this post, and then I'll leave it alone.

I think the obvious motive would have to have been to scare the American people and by that fear use it to get things they normally would have had people in the streets fighting against. All that destroying the WTC for profit is purely secondary and not a good reason to execute such a plan.

With this you have to consider that 9/11 was not a singulalry beneficial monolithic event. If it was an outright inside job, there were different prizes for different players. For politicians, it was for political power. The Patriot Act, the ability to help their friends profit in an illegal war, and to consildate political power into direct control over the masses. For the businessman who owned WTC, it was as much about profit as it was about cutting losses. Can you imagine what it would have cost to take down the WTC if it was condemned? And for the secret operatives across the board, it was about ideology.

Ever heard the term "Lets get our stories straight"?
That happens as a unconscious mechanism as well.

I think you're sticking to a point here that is not particularly relevant. I was not "sold" on anything as a result of eyewitness testimony. It pays to listen though, when that account concurs with the physical evidence.

Heavy things do NOT need to reach terminal velocity to be destructive in a fall.

Agreed. But they do need to reach terminal velocity to reach the ground as quickly as they did. The amount of time in which they collapsed does not allow for that. Without any resistance, even from the air and in a vaccum, much less from steel structure, a free-falling object would reach the ground in 9.2 seconds from the top of the WTC. The 9/11 comission report states the following...

At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds

If dropped, would the top of the building on the left reach the ground at the same time as the free-floating building piece on the right?

Image source

reply to post by jackinthebox


Ok my retort.
I have covered that before. Multiple times. With you none the less.
And each element you have felt worthy of inclusion I have refuted.
You where after all looking to convince me were you not?

But anyway.
Cheers to the droppedness of this.

reply to post by WraothAscendant

You where after all looking to convince me were you not?

No.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Oh and the ten second collapse thing I disagree with.
It took ten seconds til the collapse was obscured by the dust.
But the collapse wasn't done.

Ugh.
Sorry.

Dropping now.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
The collapse was NOT fast to start it built up speed as it went along.

Now that is wrong! I want you to try to prove it.

I say the "floor-by-floor" thing was in linear increments in terms of the time intervals between floors. There was no acceleration in how fast the floors were blowing out. It started at the pace it remained, until we could no longer see it. That's not a theory, just watch a video.

Billybob made a thread a long time ago that used a close-up of WTC2's collapse initiation, that had "faster than free-fall" in the title (look it up?). What it actually showed was that a tower's collapse "wave" or "front" (or whatever you'd like to call it) started at the same pace at which it would maintain until it became obscured by debris, while free-fall debris around the collapse was slower at first but then quickly accelerated ahead of the collapse. If you feel in your gut like you want to disagree with that, then go to the thread and look at it and at least come up with a way to prove your assertion that the theoretical additional floors made the destruction accelerate.

The attack was to lay waste the WTC and WTC7 and rebuild.

And thats what happened.

It was helped and promoted by Arabs and perhaps US.

There was a deal somewhere, perhaps people can guess at that.

reply to post by bsbray11


Case you haven't noticed I ended the conversation and you weren't a part of it anyway. I am not inclined to go around with you again.
Especially given past experience.
Now. Perhaps you could have changed and decided to not interpret things how you choose to regardless what the other person said.
But I am not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry.
Once burnt twice shy.