General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

These are statements. Not claims. Sorry.

Hi Acombfosho,

You seem to be totally ignorant in how logic and science works, and it because of that its unfortunately not surprising at all that you are very convinced of your own viewpoint. An apt comparison is probably that of a weak poker player that is convinced that raising AK preflop is a mistake because you don't have a pair yet. The less you know the easier it is to believe in retarded shit, and the more emotionally you are invested in an argument the harder it is to recognize your mistake. Hopefully you will realize this one day.

Regards, Hielko

PS. I'm not even saying that a 911 conspiracy is impossible, because that's a statement that's hard to prove or disprove, but most if not all the arguments provided in this thread - especially those based on physics - are extremely weak.

Yes exactly to your first question. Fires do not account for the vast amount of energy required to do that to a building. With regards to the second question, there is not an easy answer, other than to say fires and impact damage are clearly not responsible. Look at the picture for a few minutes, then ask yourself, are fires and impact damage really responsible? It's quite clearly impossible. If it were possible, please cite a single reference where anything similar has occurred in any steel framed concrete reinforced building, be it fires, impact damage, or both.

So you are saying that a,b,c...x,y,z not controlled demo.
So is now the problem is simply too much dust?

Hielko, I almost chose to ignore your statement, however I couldn't because what you are saying is basically an ad hominem attack dressed up in pseudo-meaningful language.

To paraphrase,

Dear X,

You don't have a clue how logic works, you are ignorant and stupid thats why you believe this crazy theory. I'm going to take a huge tangent and make that huge tangent appeal to the audience on a poker forum to make my point seem to have any grounding in sense.I won't give you any examples of where what you have stated are factually wrong, nor suggest anything to defend the theory you are attacking. At the same time, while yes, it could have been a conspiracy -in the end because your arguments are weak, in my opinion, and I don't have any evidence to support my theory, I'll just write a nicely worded post and hope no-one notices it is lacking in substance.

Regards,

Y

The physics argument is basically this. Newtons third law of motion : "The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear."
This means you can not have accelerated free fall as NIST claims (unless explosives are used to remove resisting structures braking the collapse)
The building would slow down when collapsing NOT free fall in acceleration as WTC7 did..
Why does this not make sense to you? What is weak about it? Rivers bend due to following the path of least resistance.. yet, you are now suggesting that buildings collapse through themselves at speed of gravity? The energy to dustify a building does not exist in office fires. This is a statement of fact, hence why no other buildings have ever exploded through themselves due to fires before.

Anyway, here's a fairly new film which has quite a lot of rare and exclusive footage from the initial eye witnesses of the day, as well as the now declassified info from former CIA agent Susan Lindauer and 9/11 whistel blower, as well as clearer footage of the explosions, and eye witnesses accounts of 'military plane'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6eMq5Rit1w

The amount of people disagreeing with the official account includes not only 'people totally ignorant in how logic and science works' as you so eloquently put it, but top levels of government and its agencies, professional engineers and architects, fire-fighters, pilots, police officers, politicians, lawyers, scientists, military personnel.. yet to quote them all again, and have people just ignore their words yet again, is clearly a waste of time.

Hielko, I almost chose to ignore your statement, however I couldn't because what you are saying is basically an ad hominem attack dressed up in pseudo-meaningful language.

Except it basically wasn't.

You don't have a clue how logic works, you are ignorant and stupid thats why you believe this crazy theory. I'm going to take a tangent and appeal to the audience on a poker forum to make my point have grounding in sense.

fyp

and the insult was justified. you don't understand logic in the same way you don't understand technical terms and theories. for instance, "you're momma's fat, so that proves you're wrong" is an ad homimem. it does not follow logically and is completely irrelevant to the discussion. on the other hand, "you don't understand physics and logic, so that's why you're wrong" is not an ad hominem. it is a valid and relevant attack on your ability to continue a debate like this.

and i'm still wanting for you to respond to my criticism of your abuse of logic btw.

The physics argument is basically this. Newtons third law of motion : "The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear."
This means you can not have accelerated free fall as NIST claims (unless explosives are used to remove resisting structures braking the collapse)
The building would slow down when collapsing NOT free fall in acceleration as WTC7 did..
Why does this not make sense to you? What is weak about it? Rivers bend due to following the path of least resistance.. yet, you are now suggesting that buildings collapse through themselves at speed of gravity? The energy to dustify a building does not exist in office fires. This is a statement of fact, hence why no other buildings have ever exploded through themselves due to fires before.

NIST did nor state that the WTC7 fell in free fall - it clearly did not, and I cannot understand why you keep throwing in stuff like this. Please try do some research about it don't just promote some clearly false web headline. I can imagine that an early draft may have had a typo on one poage but they are not stating that WTC7 fell at free fall speed. Please read the Nist Faq


Here is the appropriate quote from this faq page.
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

So NIST seems to agree with Newton's 3rd law of motion - wow, what a surprise, it is you Acombfosho who is simply posting material that keeps implying that the the laws of physics would have to be broken if the more official versions were to be believed, it is not true. The official reports are well within the physical laws unlike a lot, actually most, of the material you have linked to. The 10 times the amount of energy in the dust clouds, the Free Energy weapon used to destroy the steel etc.
I would like to again state that there seems to be no logical reason for any agency to bring down WTC7, and no reason for anybody to bring it down for insurance purposed - it was clearly doomed by the fire damage.

The energy to dustify a building does not exist in office fires.

The energy of the fires was only a small part of the energy required to 'dustify' the buildings, mostly this comes from the conversion of the potential energy locked up in the height and weight of the building crushing the concrete in the fall.

info from former CIA agent Susan Lindauer and 9/11 whistel blower, as well as clearer footage of the explosions, and eye witnesses accounts of 'military plane'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6eMq5Rit1w

I will not watch the video you linked to as it is very likely to be as barmy as the Free Energy weapon one. Incidentally, Susan Lindauer is stated as a CIA asset not an agent Also if you actually ever bothered to do some work or research on the links that you spread you could save the rest of us a bit of time.


Susan Lindauer it seems is very probably sadly mentally unstable, on the wiki page about her it says she is an American journalist author and anti-war activist and Lindauer was found mentally unfit to stand trial in two separate hearings and all charges were dropped in 2009

It seems you will believe any rubbish that shows up on the internet so long as it agrees with your quite spectacular speculative preformed beliefs in conspiracy.

You guys are wasting your time. Acomb, and Sneakers like him, aren't really interested in debate or discussion, they just couch their intent that way in order to get you to participate in expressing their delusions. What they really want is just to keep stating what they already are convinced of in order to assert their own rightness. For Sneakers, global warming comes down to one extremely flawed video directed by a proven liar that justifies his political views. For Acomb, it's the collection of weak 'evidence' he has gathered for his paper. That's why Sneakers insists CO2 has no relationship to temperature change and Acomb continues to reassert the fallacies his house of cards is built on. No amount of science will change Acomb's assertion that WTC7 fell at freefall speed, and that explosives are the only way to do that.

You guys are wasting your time. Acomb, and Sneakers like him, aren't really interested in debate or discussion, they just couch their intent that way in order to get you to participate in expressing their delusions. What they really want is just to keep stating what they already are convinced of in order to assert their own rightness. For Sneakers, global warming comes down to one extremely flawed video directed by a proven liar that justifies his political views. For Acomb, it's the collection of weak 'evidence' he has gathered for his paper. That's why Sneakers insists CO2 has no relationship to temperature change and Acomb continues to reassert the fallacies his house of cards is built on. No amount of science will change Acomb's assertion that WTC7 fell at freefall speed, and that explosives are the only way to do that.

Hello, Steppin, I am sorry I have come across that way. That was never the intention. I haven't been a 'conspirational minded' person my whole life, nor about pretty much anything. The fact remains that the only reports that have been released have been categorically refuted by independent citizens from expert positions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

Asserting that I am not interested in debate or discussion is the same as saying that Galileo was crazy for saying that the world is round (for simply agreeing with Copernicus). I have stated many times I would happily do a live podcast with several people regarding this issue. Just because the implications involved means that some cognitive dissonance will have to occur, it seems the majority of responders remaining in this thread are happy to try to vilify the messenger rather than the message.

EDIT: as a follow up, my assertion remains.

WTC7 fell at freefall speed, and that explosives are the only way to do that

please explain a way which satisfies the laws of this planet (science, physics, mathematics) , not the laws of politics (disinformation, manipulation, 'patriotism'). At present, no such explaination exists, hence the ae911truth website, and the video above.

"My name is Lynee Magulis, I have been doing science every day since I was about sixteen years old, I teach at the university of Massachusetts"... "In 1999 I was the recipient the presidents medal of science, from Clinton and received the DaVinci Award, that is the membership of the davinci society." ... "You can't do science when you are deprived of the evidence, and when your hypothesis is the least valid of the most likely, when the most likely hypothesis in the case of building seven wasn't even mentioned, uh, this is not science. So the claim is that it is something else? It's pre-contrived, Pre-conceived ideas."
- Lynee Magulis. Ph.D. Practising professor at University of Massachusetts

Peace

his misdirection level is over 9000!!!

It seems you will believe any rubbish that shows up on the internet so long as it agrees with your quite spectacular speculative preformed beliefs in conspiracy.

It's a shame you see what I am saying in this light.

My ideas are not preformed, I thought Al-Qaeda was ran out of Iraq too. Then I looked at the facts. Iraq, Iran and Al-Qaeda are not linked, check out BBC power of nightmares.
With regards to sources, 'any rubbish that shows up on the internet' .. hmm, not really, blogspot doesn't count in my book. Nor does an 'enquiry' which the participants of that enquiry say 'we were set up to fail', or that had 60% of victims family members questions left unanswered.

I have quoted:
Senator Max Cleland
– Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003
Senator Mark Dayton
– Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services and Homeland Security
Congressman Ron Paul
- Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee
Congressman Curt Weldon
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
- Member of the House Armed Services Committee
Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh
Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, PhD
Assistant Secretary of Housing, Catherine Austin Fitts
U.S. Army Intelligence officer, Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice, John Loftus
Foreign Service Officer, George Kenney
Foreign Service Officer, J. Michael Springman
Deputy Attorney General, State of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, Esquire
Major General U.S. Army, Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Albert Stubblebine
Col. Ronald D. Ray
—U.S. Marine Corps – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director of Field Operations
Col. Robert Bowman
—U.S. Air Force, Director of Advanced Space Programs, PhD Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering
Col. George Nelson
—U.S. Air Force, aircraft accident investigator
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD
—U.S. Army
Capt. Russ Wittenberg
—U.S. Air Force, fighter pilot, commercial pilot flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 ’s.
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD
—U.S. Air Force, Office of the Secretary of Defense, staff of the Director of the National Security
Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, Barbara Honegger, MS
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD
—U.S. Army, U.S. Army Intelligence Officer
Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President’ Daily Brief, U.S. Army Intelligence Officer, Raymond L. McGovern
National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, William Christison
U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, case officer CIA. Robert David Steele
CIA Case Officer, Specialist in the Middle East, Directorate of Operations, Awarded Career Intelligence Medal, Robert Baer
Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the federal Aviation Administration. Team leader of the FAA's Red (Terrorism) Team in the Federal Air Marshall program, Coast Guard officer, Bogdan Dzakovic
and so on...

yet you want to attack me, an anonymous name, Acombfosho... for raising these fair questions, in all honesty, who are you kidding, but yourselves?

Since nawhead did a large quotation of his favourite quotes of me in this thread, I shall respond in kind.

his misdirection level is over 9000!!!

the insult was justified.

this thread is desperately lacking in musical interludes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzkhSJkx7GY

you think this is a pissing contest? this ain't a pissing contest, fella. this is your education, and you are failing.

you may have fooled some people in your time with your endless ramblings, but you can't fool everybody all the time. play the victim card as well if you want, but you will get no such sympathy from me. you've used up all the graciousness i give to the merely ignorant.

and conspiracy theories cannot be proven wrong.

he's spreading this hate message and cloaking it in respectability and niceness. a bigot in a nice suit is still a bigot. i ain't falling for that noise.

crazy people always stay crazy, but tools can be sharpened one day.

with their incredible powers of delusion combined, anything is possible.

and now for a commercial break
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJYxCSXjhLI&t=1m52s

but oh! we do have one last link to send us out in good old fashioned musical style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMjfw9rznrs

the only replies on this topic you're going to get from me from now on are personal attacks. is that cool with you?

you're a tool. you sound just like a racist rationalizing his hatred of a race.

so bugger off, kid.

Some of the most amusing 'debate' tactics I have ever seen anywhere, internet included, have come from this thread.

Please let's have another musical interlude to *prove* our lack of point (other than to agree with people who have proven to not deserve our trust on any other matter the past decade) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbtZI2aGKZs

best quote IMO

Acombfosho Please accept. [An invitation to a live discussion]

nawhead no

now the theory of the myth of Al Qaeda has a logical consistency. amazing documentary. thanks for the link.

The Power of Nightmares Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave



trying to qualify a belief system through the occupations of its members is just an appeal to authority. such a tactic does not prove anything other than that normal, intelligent people who hold skilled jobs can also simultaneously hold onto fantastic beliefs.

and there may be 1500 engineers and architects who believe it was a controlled demolition, but then if we don't count all the other engineers and architects all over the world who don't believe it was a controlled demolition, we're not getting the whole picture. if you believe in things based on numbers (which isn't good either), "everybody else" is a lot more than 1500. so that's a lot more proof for the conventional explanation.

To go back to page one.

trying to qualify a belief system through the occupations of its members is just an appeal to authority.

This is exactly what the US government is doing. The theory they are asking you to believe is an appeal to authority. Yet, there is no substance to their theory. The evidence does not stack up with their testimony. The only proof is we are the government, we would never lie to you. Beyond that, nothing else but insults and slander have come towards those family members, and their supporters, who are asking very reasonable questions.

The US govt, and their supporters, do not want a debate on it in an open forum, that much is obvious.

People in the quote unquote '911 truth movement' want precisely that, an open, fully funded investigation which holds someone accountable.

It may not be a conspiracy, it may be, the fact we don't actually know yet is an eye sore for everyone.

The only way to put this baby to bed is to have an investigation which gets into the nitty gritty, as in; who hosted the hijackers? Who approved the visas? Why did NORAD fail 4 times in one day? Why did the President do nothing when notified of an immediate attack? Why did the Vice President, acting President say 'The orders still stand' (google Norman Mineta)? Why were the plans to invade Afghanistan and Patriot Act drafted before 9/11? Why does the 9/11 commission not mention wtc7, able danger, nor answer 60% of the family members questions? Why was it stalled, under funded, and blocked?

These are reasonable questions. Are they not?

Anyway, I've blogged about this just a moment ago. Let me know what you think, I am always open to discuss it

EDIT: as a follow up, my assertion remains. please explain a way which satisfies the laws of this planet (science, physics, mathematics) , not the laws of politics (disinformation, manipulation, 'patriotism'). At present, no such explaination exists, hence the ae911truth website, and the video above.

"My name is Lynee Magulis, I have been doing science every day since I was about sixteen years old, I teach at the university of Massachusetts"... "In 1999 I was the recipient the presidents medal of science, from Clinton and received the DaVinci Award, that is the membership of the davinci society." ... "You can't do science when you are deprived of the evidence, and when your hypothesis is the least valid of the most likely, when the most likely hypothesis in the case of building seven wasn't even mentioned, uh, this is not science. So the claim is that it is something else? It's pre-contrived, Pre-conceived ideas."
- Lynee Magulis. Ph.D. Practising professor at University of Massachusetts

Peace

I don't really know much about what Lynee Magulis believes about the 911 incidents, I did not watch the video you linked earlier. I am very happy about the more official view of the physical collapse of the towers. Maybe Lynee Magulis has been doing science since an early age but although she works/worked in the Geosciences it was as a biologist not engineering/physics/mathematics and partly due to this I would put less weight in her knowledge of building collapse. Also, athough she clearly knows a great deal about biology she has, even in this field, been a proponent of extraordinary views. eg, from here wiki page "there's no evidence that HIV is an infectious virus" and that AIDS symptoms "overlap ... completely" with those of syphilis". Apparently other people in her field are shocked and cannot understand her HIV/AIDS denialism. Again this does not lend weight in her support for some unorthodox 911 views. I also do not know if she believes that WTC7 fell due to demolition charges etc. but even if she did it would not be near enough to change my view that it was the damage that brought down WTC7.
Once again I would also add that bringing down WTC7 does not seem to lead to any advantage for anybody or any agency and this seems to be the strangest thing to believe.
The people you have been quoting recently leads me more to think that the official view is correct and that a lot of these others have agendas or previous links to other conspiracy beliefs.

In all my best attempts at finding sensible and believable things on the 911 disasters the official ones have all looked fine and reasonable, the other ones often linked to by you have seemed very much weaker.
Anyway, I did find this paper by F. R. Greening http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf and this is far more transparent and easier to understand compared to others I have looked at including the one you labelled brilliant. For all I know there may be errors in this paper but after having looked through some of it in reasonable depth I can say it seems very believable to me. It is clear, it does not require 10x the amount of energy or Free Energy. All in all, it is probably very close to how the two main towers collapsed. It does take into account the amount of energy needed to 'dustify' the concrete etc.
After spending several hours looking at things you have pointed me to I am quite happy to still say I believe these building were simply brought down by the act of a jet liner hitting them.

I am also now quite happy to say that there seems to be no way any amount of research by me will ever change your view. You can keep believing in conspiracy and keep stating the the laws of physics have been broken by the official reports but very clearly this simply is not true and you just refuse to accept this.

I am happy to state that political conspiracy could have played a part in the pre-events or later to the 911 terrors but there does not seem to be any evidence at all of any physical law being broken or needing something else rather than damage by jets in the collapses of that day.

Another thing I would like to mention is that I fear you guys are misinterpreting my words for saying that the USA and its people are evil.

I don't think that.

Simply because I think that certain people are willing and able to manipulate the masses of the public, and those people happen to be US government higher ups, is not to say that I think that the entire US public are evil at large or that the US population are stupid.

What it does mean however is that people in power are willing to manipulate scenarios to their own ends. This has happened many times before in history. American exceptionalism, simply put, is the idea that we are a 'great and good society' and people buy into it, fair play. That same saying does not mean that the people who pay themselves into government are the same as the average person on the street.

I fear that my attacks on the US governments interpretation of the events of 9/11 have been misconstrued as an attack on the average US citizen who loves his country, believes his vote counts, would never fall for that BS, it would never happen here etc. It is not an attack on you, the man on the street, the guy trying to make a living, the guy wondering where his next tax break is coming from or how to avoid said taxes, the guy who is just living life day to day. No.

What this movement is about however is a critical attack on an authoritativeness, white coat theory etc. Authorative statements made by the US government. (the same government who bought off votes in Florida, 'Brownie did a good job' in Katrina. 'Two jobs, Uniquely American ain't it', 'Iraq has WMDs's, 'The Vietnam forces attacked us in Tokin', 'Gladio is a good idea, anything against communism is fair game', 'they killed the babies in incubators', etc). These statements are easily falsifiable. Easily. They have been, by many experts. Not by me. By experts. Please address your concerns with their contentions to them directly, not to me.

The US government and it's people are two different things entirely. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either blind, ignorant, dumb, or all three.

"In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other." Voltaire

What exactly has happened in middle America since 9/11..?

I'll spell it out. It's been a massive wealth transfer in the name of Terror and Freedom. The US government 'defence' budget has gone through the roof, from the stroke of Bush Jr.s Pen. At the same time tax payers have lost out big time. All that wealth has been transfered into the hands of the already rich, the war profiteers, the enrons of the world. Meanwhile, you are winning the 'war on terror', while the Patriot act is passed and Habeas corpus is abolished. gg constitution. At home freedoms have diminished and the wealth gap has grown.The phantom enemy Bin Laden is dead. Who is having the last laugh? Certainly not we the people. Aka us. The founders are rolling in their graves.

Rant finished, but I honestly don't understand why people are still defending the [minority of] people who have done [nothing but fuck the majority of people] since 9/11.

EDIT: Base Metal sent you a PM