Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

collapse the very same way

I'll try again. Do you mean down?

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

on their own footprints all

In their own footprints and also damaging or destroying other buidings. How does that work?

originally posted by: openedeyesandears

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: openedeyesandears

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: openedeyesandears

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: neutronflux

on their own footprints all

In their own footprints and also damaging or destroying other buidings. How does that work?

Is that you Neutronflux??

I suppose that's one way of dodging the question

And I suppose that's one way you troll posts

That's the problem with these phrases that the Truth movement like to throw around. They seem impressive at first glance but fall apart under any kind of scrutiny and anyone who points this out is labelled a troll

Post removed by staff

OK if you can't figure out how buidings fall in their own footprints AND damage or destroy other buildings, can you explain what you meant by "collapse the very same way"?

a reply to: mrthumpy
Stupid question... get a life

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: mrthumpy
Stupid question... get a life

See? Just the slightest bit of pressure and these impressive sounding phrases fall apart, they're utterly meaningless

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

Then what mechanism caused the outer vertical columns to bow straight inward if it was not from the pulling of the contacting misshapen floor tresses?

Heat.

Take a look at these two pics of the North Tower.





As you know I'm not a CD guy, I'm UCD guy, and we'll get to that, but first there's a whole sequence of things that have to be explained and discussed and dealt with first.

Like the bowing for instance.

You're talking about the 'bowing in' failure I presume? Well that's related to heat.

I've been thinking about the whole cascade of things. The planes, the jet fuel, the office fires, the bowing, the tower destructions etc. It's all related. Not like you think: "Of course it's all related!" Not like that. I mean each element and phase is necessary.

Don't forget the towers are copies of each other. "Twin Towers." Well how they were felled is also Twinned. Right? Planes, jet fuel, office fires, bowing/weakening, failure, destruction. Same story.

Two identical towers; two identical takedowns. Intriguing no?!

You think jet fuel and burning furniture over time led to the bowing in but I believe you are mistaken.

That's Phase 1 thinking.

For everything you see happening on 9/11 there are at least 2 Phases. I begin to lay this all out in my prior Hindenburg post.

To recap. People think gravity brought the towers down. Seems reasonable. People think jet fuel and office contents caused the bowing. Also seems reasonable. But the problem with simple reasonable explanations is that once you accept them you stop looking for any more answers.

In fact you start to believe that you now know what happened etc.

This causes you to stop looking for the Second Right Answer. I propose that 9/11 is rife with second right answers, most in plain sight. But nobody sees them because they've already accepted, believe and now even defend the first simple answer completely.

Take yourself. You think/accept that 'the plane knocked off the fire insulation'. What does that mean? It means to you it's settled and therefore you're not really questioning it or looking beyond it. You have instead ceased to really examine it.

That's just a small example but it applies to every aspect of 9/11.

Anyway, something to think about.

originally posted by: NWOwned

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

Then what mechanism caused the outer vertical columns to bow straight inward if it was not from the pulling of the contacting misshapen floor tresses?

To recap. People think gravity brought the towers down. Seems reasonable. People think jet fuel and office contents caused the bowing. Also seems reasonable. But the problem with simple reasonable explanations is that once you accept them you stop looking for any more answers.

Occam's Razor: There isn't any need to look for anything further, there isn't anything about the collapse that needs an explanation

a reply to: NWOwned

You

You think jet fuel and burning furniture over time led to the bowing in but I believe you are mistaken.

More intellectually dishonest by you

Quote where I posted such a think.

This is what I actually posted

Rising in temperature causes steel to expand and weaken. The thin floor tresses heated to the point they lost about 60 percent of their strength, and expanded. The floor tresses that could not expand in length were forced to bow downward under load. The misshapen floor tresses contracted upon cooling. The stress caused floor system failures, and columns to bow inward.

Let me know when your willing to be honest and not waste my time with someone willing to post blatant falsehoods.

a reply to: neutronflux

So it wasn't jet fuel and burning furniture? (Cool. I don't think so either.)

Now you're just being difficult for no real reason.

I'm talking generally conversationally, everything down to specific details is there for anyone to review.

And again with accusations.

Clearly, there is no point in us continuing.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: NWOwned

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

Then what mechanism caused the outer vertical columns to bow straight inward if it was not from the pulling of the contacting misshapen floor tresses?

To recap. People think gravity brought the towers down. Seems reasonable. People think jet fuel and office contents caused the bowing. Also seems reasonable. But the problem with simple reasonable explanations is that once you accept them you stop looking for any more answers.

Occam's Razor: There isn't any need to look for anything further, there isn't anything about the collapse that needs an explanation

I was thinking about this the other day tell me what you think.

What if 9/11 is like a giant David Copperfieldish magic trick of like cutting a woman in half? Right?

Occam: "Omg he just cut a woman in half!"

Richard Gage type: "Don't be daft. He didn't just cut a woman in half."

Occam: "But it's the simplest answer!"

originally posted by: NWOwned

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: NWOwned

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NWOwned

Then what mechanism caused the outer vertical columns to bow straight inward if it was not from the pulling of the contacting misshapen floor tresses?

To recap. People think gravity brought the towers down. Seems reasonable. People think jet fuel and office contents caused the bowing. Also seems reasonable. But the problem with simple reasonable explanations is that once you accept them you stop looking for any more answers.

Occam's Razor: There isn't any need to look for anything further, there isn't anything about the collapse that needs an explanation

I was thinking about this the other day tell me what you think.

What if 9/11 is like a giant David Copperfieldish magic trick of like cutting a woman in half? Right?

Occam: "Omg he just cut a woman in half!"

Richard Gage type: "Don't be daft. He didn't just cut a woman in half."

Occam: "But it's the simplest answer!"

I think you need to consider it some more

a reply to: mrthumpy

Oh but I am considering it you see? Albeit humorously.

But here's the thing.

I'm all for Occam's Twin Blade Razors in a neutral environment. But once you allow of the merest hint of the possibility of DECEPTION being present then Occam's Razor becomes something that cannot be TRUSTED.

Take the thought experiment example, it's an illusionist magic trick.

Possibility of deception? YES. Therefore. Can we trust a woman was truly cut in half? NO.

Is it the simplest answer though? YES.

Edit to Add: "Was a woman actually cut in half?" NO.

---------------------

OS People: "The towers were fire induced gravity collapses."
Possibility of deception? YES. Therefore. Can we TRUST they really were gravity collapses? NO.
Is it the simplest answer though? YES.

"The simplest answer is usually the correct one, except when it comes to 9/11."

originally posted by: NWOwned
a reply to: mrthumpy

Oh but I am considering it you see? Albeit humorously.

No you're not. Cutting a woman in half IS NOT THE MAGIC TRICK, anyone can do that

a reply to: neutronflux

You haven't offered any evidence sir. You offer pretty pictures and nifty diagrams and false claims, that's all.

You offer government talking points but no proof and no evidence.