Broken Columns Laying in the WTC2 Hole

[spooked911]

So let me get this straight.

A HUGE PLANE GOING 540 MPH SMASHES THROUGH THIS WALL AND THEN DISINTEGRATES ONCE INSIDE.

But check out the big central panel of broken columns that the plane smashes into at 540 mph-- they just break slightly inwards and plop down next to the hole???


200 TONS AT 540MPH CAN'T PUSH THE COLUMNS COMPLETELY INSIDE OR COMPLETELY OBLITERATE THE COLUMNS?

Are you kidding me?

Not to mention that one of the columns on the left side is barely even severed.

To me, it looks like this hole was made by carefully-placed explosives blowing the columns inwards, not by a massive high-speed collision.

[szatmar666]

1. u r nuckin futts

[spooked911]

3. lovely pictures

but if anything, they support my point.

Remember, much of that plane didn't penetrate the bldg and fell to the ground.

[defendandprotect]

18. Plus evidently brickwork kept the building up, while STEEL failed in the WTC!!!!

Nor did the building come down!

And, remember, too, re WTC . .. . supposedly the planes not only smashed thru the
steel facade, but then proceeded intact into the center of the building demolishing
the core of steel girders grouped there!!!

And - in the case of the 2nd plane, it did ALL of that -- and then did a NOSE OUT,
the nose being intact!!!!

I want some of this magic aluminum!!!

[spooked911]

29. yeah, I still haven't heard a good explanation for the nose poking out on the video

other than video fakery

[LARED]

30. Why would you expect someone to provide an answer to

something that does not exist?

[spooked911]

32. some videos clearly show the front of the plane coming out of the north face of the south tower

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

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Pinocchio%E2%80%99s_Nose

The talking heads at CNN even comment on how the plane came out the other side when they showed this footage on 9/11! Though curiously a very large banner on the bottom of the screen covered up the plane when they showed the clip.

[spooked911]

33. I am curious about how you think the plane went seamlessly in the tower

and left those large columns in the entry hole

[Flatulo]

34. Look up '2% offset yield stress'

It refers to how an elastic material (steel) can be pushed into the non-linear region of the stress-strain curve, and have its elastic modulus recoil even though permanent deformtion has taken place.

In other words, you can bend a column until it fails, but it does not change state into a viscous material like taffy at that point. Instead, it just undergoes work hardening and remains elastic, but in a (sometimes dramatically) different shape.

[AZCat]

35. Nice to see you back here again, Flatulo.

You took some time off. Are things going okay? No problems with your NWO shill paychecks, I hope? (we now do direct deposit)

[Flatulo]

36. Hi AZ...

I had decided to avoid the dungeon for a while out of concern for my mental health. I've continued to post in GD.

I don't know how long I'll last this time around. I'm on my back this week due to my semi-annual lower back meltdown, so it's something to do.

I did get laid-off in May, but miraculously found another job after only 10 weeks. The OTC paychecks really came in handy during that time. Of the other 100+ engineers who were let go, I think maybe two or three have found work.

Scary times out there.

Hope you're still gainfully employed.

[AZCat]

46. Good to hear you're working again.

We had layoffs at my company last April, and it was pretty stressful. I wasn't let go, but plenty of other people were. Now, of course, we're all extremely busy and could use at least some of the people who are no longer here.

Several of my friends and I are looking to get reciprocity for our licenses with other states (California, for example) in case we can't find work here. I wonder if the NWO can streamline that process?

[spooked911]

38. that's not the answer to the question

please see the original post and here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=266960&mesg_id=267980

[spooked911]

76. Again-- this simply does not address this issue at hand (original post)

it is weird that you seem to think it does!

[LARED]

41. Have you ever considered that object you

believe is the nose is in reality the engine?

[spooked911]

42. yes-- but

the problems are that:
1) it is much too large for the engine
2) it takes the exact shape and size of the incoming nose of the plane

[LARED]

48. There is no way to tell the true size

of the object in the video as it is obscured by debris as it leaves the tower.

The shape is meaningless as you have no way to know how the engine was damaged leaving the building.

Also there is the small problem that the objects trajectory somehow exactly matched the trajectory of the engine found on Church street.

You know this but choose to ignore it .

[spooked911]

50. Not so--

if you had looked at the video, it clearly shows that the object initially coming out of the tower is indistinguishable in size and shape from the plane nose. That is the whole point. The odds of debris taking this exact size and shape are too small to be taken seriously. This by itself is proof of video fakery.

As far as the engine trajectory, I have ignored it only because it is irrelevant to the nose out issue.

[LARED]

54. Wow, irrelevant you say

The engine landing near Church street matches the trajectory of the object leaving the towers, yet you're going to ignore this established fact because......?

[spooked911]

57. it is not directly relevant to the nose out image as proof of video fakery.

and you ignore the nose out image as proof of video fakery because.... ????

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. because there's no evidence that it is a "nose out image"?

I've seen the claims that the "nose out" exactly or indistinguishably matches the image of the nose prior to impact -- but that appears to depend upon which frame one examines. Clearly this isn't a very sensitive test.

Then, of course, there is the sanity check. (This is the part that is hard to communicate to people of your persuasion.) You seem to believe that someone went to considerable lengths to fake footage that was obviously impossible. It's hard for the rest of us not to wonder: assuming that that is plausible, wouldn't it have been even easier to fake footage that wasn't obviously impossible?

[spooked911]

61. all nose-out frames show an image similar to the plane nose--

given the resolution-- that is enough to prove the point, as the odds of debris taking the size and general shape of the front of the plane are too small to be by chance.

While the nose out itself proves some sort of video fakery, it is really in the complete context of the no plane theory that it becomes completely convincing.

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/05/111-reasons-why-i-am-no-planer.html

Why they made this "mistake", is an interesting question. One possibility is simple error, another is MITOP:
http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/logical6

[OnTheOtherHand]

62. unsupported conjecture

...the odds of debris taking the size and general shape of the front of the plane are too small to be by chance.

How on earth would one reckon those odds? And what hypothesis are we trying to reject? As it stands, this statement is pseudo-statistical gibberish.

While the nose out itself proves some sort of video fakery...

You haven't even proven a "nose out," much less a physical impossibility. Hey, I'm just reporting.

[spooked911]

63. obviously you can't handle this

so you're just throwing out some pseudo-scientific jargon.

The physical impossibility is the nose going out the other side! And the extreme improbability is smashed up plane debris forming into a perfect plane nose shape.

And you still haven't addressed the OP-- those huge columns lying in the middle of the entry hole.

[LARED]

66. "so you're just throwing out some pseudo-scientific jargon"

Mind pointing out where?

[spooked911]

67. examples

"And what hypothesis are we trying to reject? As it stands, this statement is pseudo-statistical..."

"You haven't even proven...." "...physical impossibility"

[LARED]

68. Interesting. What someone perceives as jargon is

may be different for each person to some degree. But for someone with a PhD in biology you should not all view that language as jargon.

Frankly there is little in those words that would be considered related to a special field.

[spooked911]

70. my thinking is that there was no need to bring in those terms

it was more like they were just using those terms as a clever way to evade my point

[LARED]

71. So to simplify this you believe the poster was trying to

"baffle you with BS"

But you're too clever to be fooled.

[OnTheOtherHand]

73. ;) n/t

[spooked911]

74. I didn't say either of those things

I said the poster was being evasive and made up some clever excuses

[LARED]

79. Humm, there really is little distinction between

"being evasive and made up some clever excuses"

and

"baffle with BS"

Of course I would be remiss to not point out the neither of the phrases is appropriate for what was posted. It was clear and concise and not difficult to understand.

[OnTheOtherHand]

72. it's interesting that you complain about jargon

This is what you wrote:

...the odds of debris taking the size and general shape of the front of the plane are too small to be by chance.

You don't think "the odds are too small to be by chance" is jargon? Because the words are monosyllabic, perhaps?

It's jargon being used poorly. Hence my previous reply.

[spooked911]

75. do you not understand the phrase?

how is it possibly "jargon"?

[OnTheOtherHand]

82. do you not understand "pseudo-statistical"?

Your statement is jargon because "odds" has -- or should have -- a specific technical meaning in this context. (If you don't intend "odds" to mean anything in particular, well, I guess that would speak for itself.)

It's poorly used jargon because, (1) you have no plausible means of estimating the "odds" you cite, and (2) there's no such thing as odds too small to happen by chance. (That's doubly wrong, actually, because extremely small odds can happen whether or not the associated event occurs.)

[OnTheOtherHand]

69. riiiiight

You haven't demonstrated "the nose going out the other side," nor "a perfect plane nose shape." Other than that, you're in fine shape.

As for the OP, there's really nothing to address. Looks like others have tried to explain this already.

[spooked911]

77. the perfect nose shape was proved in the video and site I linked to above

and in lots of other places.

I am not claiming the nose came out literally the other side-- I am saying it was video fakery.

[OnTheOtherHand]

81. well, no

The video resolution is insufficient to support "perfect" anything, and the analysis focuses on a single 'nose out' frame. It's trivial to find 'in' and 'out' frames that don't appear to match at all. In fact, the original "micro-precision match" in September Clues doesn't appear to match at all.

[spooked911]

83. simple experiment

take four frames of the nose coming in, and then four frames of the "thing" coming out before the explosion. Mix them up and have someone else try to pick whether they are the plane's nose or exiting "debris".

for instance:
http://acebaker.blogspot.com/2008/06/nose-out-challenge.html

there's also the issue of how different videos show different types of "debris" exiting, for instance, the GammaPress vs the naudet vs Chopper 5.
http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Pinocchio’s_Nose

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. this exercise underscores the whimsy of the "micro-precision match"

By no means do all eight of those images look identical.

there's also the issue of how different videos show different types of "debris" exiting...

I couldn't follow that link. That said, for videos to show "different types of 'debris' exiting" seems utterly bizarre if one postulates that all the videos are faked, more readily explained by differences in perspective and/or equipment.

[spooked911]

88. sigh

no one ever claimed they were all identical, the point is: which are nose in and which are nose out?

As far as the other issue, just look at the pictures. It is NOT a simple matter of "perspective and/or equipment."

[OnTheOtherHand]

92. look, it's your problem, not mine

no one ever claimed they were all identical...

Perhaps not, but Simon Shack claimed to have obtained a "micro-precision match."

the point is: which are nose in and which are nose out?

That isn't a "point."

As far as the other issue, just look at the pictures.

I can't, because the link was broken, but I note your failure to respond to the content of my post.

[spooked911]

94. I gotta hand it to you--

you are a master at evading the key points. And you have so much company here too!

"Simon Shack claimed to have obtained a "micro-precision match.""

I am not defending Simon Shack, but you have not proved him wrong either. There are certainly nose-in and nose-out frames that are very close matches-- and may even be "micro-precision matches" depending how you define that.

The question you have not answered is: which are nose in and which are nose out?

[OnTheOtherHand]

97. spooked...

People try to point you at your assumptions that we can't make, but evidently you just don't see them. I don't know what else to do.

Basically, Ace Baker has six blobs. It might be interesting to see whether I can distinguish any three from another three, but it has no bearing on whether all six blobs are CGI fakes.

[spooked911]

100. No, he has 8 images

and do you truly not understand the significance of the test?

[OnTheOtherHand]

101. pardon my forgetting

I deny the significance of the test.

Let me put it to you this way. I've never tested this myself, but I'm told that onions and apples are indistinguishable by taste alone; we rely on our sense of smell. So, deprive me of my sense of smell, blindfold me, and feed me eight samples of onions and/or apples (presumably small samples, so I can't try to use my tongue to test for the presence of onion layers). I should be able to rule out that any of the samples are actually oranges, but I should have little idea whether I'm tasting four onion samples and four apple samples, eight onion samples, or whatever. My inability to distinguish the samples doesn't reveal whether they are drawn from the same 'population.'

Where the analogy breaks down is that while I probably wouldn't notice any distinction among the onion/apple samples, in Ace's case the samples visibly vary. It's more like presenting eight pH values, which vary more or less uniformly, and arguing that unless I can reliably sort the values into two bins, they must be from samples of the same body of water. The within-subjects variability impedes any comparison across subjects.

Presumably this is why you earlier offered the claim that the odds that expelled debris would so closely resemble the nose were improbably small. But you provided no evidence for that assertion. Without it, you're nowhere. How telling is our inability to distinguish blurs from blurs? not very.

[spooked911]

105. Yeah, that's cute, but it still doesn't address the point--

the nose out and nose in samples are indistinguishable from each other. You're NOT trying to distinguish onions and apples, you're trying to tell if these are all onions. The hypothesis is that they are all a CGI image of the nose of the plane. The experiment is you can't tell them apart. The null hypothesis is that they are the same population, meaning that they are statistically all nose images.

Your hypothesis is that half of these are debris exiting the tower? So how do you prove that?

[OnTheOtherHand]

106. maybe you should try reading my post again

Your comment strongly suggests that you tuned out within four sentences.

I'm not trying to prove anything; you're the one claiming "proof of video fakery."

[spooked911]

108. Actually, this thread is supposed to be about the hole in WTC2

and you haven't explained the columns blocking the hole yet.

But about the nose-out issue, it's really not that complicated. Not sure what your deal is.

[OnTheOtherHand]

110. I see nothing to explain

For reasons best known to you, you think the visual evidence is more consistent with "carefully-placed explosives" than with a "massive high-speed collision." I and others don't agree, and you haven't presented any coherent arguments for your interpretation, so there's nothing to discuss.

I agree that the nose-out issue isn't that complicated, which is why I'm disappointed that I nonetheless took the time to write post #101, but you apparently took no time to read it.

HAMLET

Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel?

LORD POLONIUS

By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed.

HAMLET

Methinks it is like a weasel.

LORD POLONIUS

It is backed like a weasel.

HAMLET

Or like a whale?

LORD POLONIUS

Very like a whale.

Meh.

[spooked911]

114. oh bullshit-- I read it

you are nothing but a time-waster, like many here

[OnTheOtherHand]

116. in trying to communicate with you, apparently so n/t

[spooked911]

109. you wrote

"Where the analogy breaks down is that while I probably wouldn't notice any distinction among the onion/apple samples, in Ace's case the samples visibly vary. It's more like presenting eight pH values, which vary more or less uniformly, and arguing that unless I can reliably sort the values into two bins, they must be from samples of the same body of water. The within-subjects variability impedes any comparison across subjects."

Well, that's exactly the point! They are statistically no different. So there is a prima facie case for video fakery. And I maintain the odds of debris taking that shape for several frames are miniscule.

But I imagine you will continue to pretend otherwise.

[OnTheOtherHand]

111. yeesh

It's nice that you managed to quote me, but it would be more satisfying if you gave some sign of understanding me.

You can "maintain" whatever you like, but no one has to pretend to take your word for it.

[spooked911]

115. oh I understand you perfectly

just perfectly

[spooked911]

95. "I couldn't follow that link"

Actually, I thought you meant you couldn't understand the link, not access it. Try it again:
http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Pinocchio%E2%80%99s_Nose
Or go here:
http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
and click on "Pinocchio's nose"

The site loads a little slow, but it works.

[OnTheOtherHand]

98. OK, thanks for the link

I don't see meaningful evidence there that the frames from various sources are logically incompatible.

[icee2]

272. The clown nose is one of the funniest things in the entire faked video

The only thing more absurd are goofy efforts to deny it was video fakery.

[newlib]

359. it's weird, because it does have a nose shape, but how could

a big plane actually stay in one piece after flying into a skyscraper? Answer: it couldn't. draw your own conclusions.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. well....

missile hole?

[hack89]

4. Missile holes are about 2 feet across. nt

[LARED]

5. So if I understand your point

you a claiming explosives were placed outside the perimeter columns, then detonated blowing the column in?

Yes

[AZCat]

6. Maybe he's looking to top the post he made the other day.

This is rabbit-cage boy, after all.

[Realityhack]

7. After a few of the recent threads I miss the rabbit cage.

At least it was easy to explain what was wrong with that... and it was a good laugh.

[spooked911]

9. what do you mean "yes"?

are you agreeing with me?

[jberryhill]

12. Yes, Lared suddenly became a no-planer....

Sheez.

[LARED]

13. One can only assume my forgetting to put a question mark after

'yes' caused confusion.

Or perhaps he really believes the persuasiveness of his position has finally seen fruit.

I'm guessing it's the latter until told otherwise.

[spooked911]

14. well you answered a question supporting my position with "yes"

so, pardon me for being confused

[snooper2]

37. What do you do for a living again?

nt

[spooked911]

39. why?

is it relevant here?

[SDuderstadt]

40. Yes.....n/t

[spooked911]

44. answer this question and I'll tell you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=266960&mesg_id=268219

[snooper2]

45. None of the three options you posted..

I believe the purdue study...have you looked at the complete study and the computer animations it took them years to generate?


http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2006/060911.Sozen.WTC.html

Your turn for my question :)

[spooked911]

52. typical bullshit

First, the Purdue study offers NO insight into my question about the columns in the hole. The link you gave has no specifics except for that silly animation.

Second, they modeled the first hit, not the second, and I am showing the second hit hole.

Third, you have NOT answered my question-- because I said if I was none of the three, then you should have an alternative explanation.

I don't know if you don't want to answer the question or can't answer the question, or you just want to waste my time.

But fine, I am a research scientist-- molecular biology.

Happy?

[SDuderstadt]

53. For the record, I don't remotely believe your claim that....

you're a "research scientist in molecular biology, Spooked.

[spooked911]

56. well that's your problem

my problem is getting a straight answer from you about various aspects of 9/11-- such as this odd hole in the tower with the columns blocking the way

[Realityhack]

60. You have a degree in biology? n/t

[spooked911]

65. yes

I have a PhD in biology and a BS in biochemistry.

Now, can you please answer this question?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=266960&mesg_id=268219

[jberryhill]

8. Carefully Placed, um, How?

You are suggesting there were explosives placed on the outside of the building which bent the columns inward?

Really?

[spooked911]

10. yes and yes

to the 2nd and 3rd questions.

The key question, though, is would a 200 ton plane smashing through the wall at 540 mph leave the columns just lying in the hole?

[jberryhill]

11. As you know...

...finite element analysis was conducted of the mechanics of that collision. I understand that you simply reject it on grounds of fraud, bias, etc.

That type of question you ask "would a 200 ton plane..." is only answered by that type of FEA, and not by some seat of the pants "Well, I think it would do X" posturing.

You have posited a theory under which explosives mounted to the outsides of the columns would be capable of producing the result you observe. Hence it is incumbent on you to explain why and how explosives mounted in some manner would be capable of producing that result - i.e. something other than "yes and yes". What type of explosives and in what quantity, rigging, etc. would produce that result.

If we are simply going on "it looks to me as if..." then it is a completely subjective exercise. Quite frankly, it looks to me as if an airplane shaped and sized object punched its way into the hole, and I do not believe that the computer and engineering staff and grad students at Purdue are "in on it", and simply spent months jerking around with a lot of equipment to produce the finite element analysis underlying this simulation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

Having not worked in a university research environment, I understand it is easy for you to simply assert they are part of a cabal which is attempting to hide something from you.

[spooked911]

15. several points here

1) that FEA was NOT of WTC2, but of WTC1, which was a lower speed impact and an impact with weaker columns at the upper floor

2) the simulation clearly was not an accurate simulation, for many reasons, so it carries no weight with me

3) the simulation, if anything, shows the columns being pushed completely inwards-- which is not what happened even at WTC1

4) I do actively work in a university research environment, so I am familiar how these things can work

5) I do not assert a cabal-- I assert that they got govt money to obtain a pre-determined conclusion and that no one at Purdue was willing to go against the official story

[spooked911]

16. but what is your common sense view?

how do you account for these columns lying in the hole?

[jberryhill]

20. My common sense view

Having studied engineering for a good deal of my adult life, my common sense view is that intuition is an extremely poor analysis tool. My common sense view is that Purdue is a leader in the development of large scale FEA computational techniques upon which the engineering community relies for things in the real world to work, and upon which public safety relies. No, they don't just make shit up and guess. That's your field of expertise.

[spooked911]

21. but you realize their analysis doesn't portray even the official story properly--

don't you?

It FAILS on every level except to make eye candy for brainwashed consumers.

[anigbrowl]

22. My common sense view is that when I hit something

it is deflected out of the way, it doesn't ride forward on the front of my fist until I reach the limit of my reach. As fr as the pictures in your OP, it really does not surprise me in the least that large parts of the smashed columns would fall within a very short distance of the impact that created them, as opposed to being carried forward into the middle of the building.

I understand you don't agree with the best-known analytical approaches and I don't expect to convince you otherwise - all I'm doing here is answering your question above, and pointing out that my intuitive, non-analytical view about how things break is different from yours. When I look at the photos in your OP, they remind me of what would happen if you whacked a section of drywall with a crowbar or suchlike - a few bits would be carried forward and pulverized, but quite a bit of it would simply break, deflect and then fall quite close to the hole you made.

[spooked911]

23. thanks-- however there are a couple problems with your answer:

1) your fist or the sledgehammer doesn't disintegrate into small pieces after you punch your fist in the wall
2) the sledgehammer would certainly push the section of wall out of the hole-- if the sledgehammer entered the hole

In fact the only way this "a few bits would be carried forward and pulverized, but quite a bit of it would simply break, deflect and then fall quite close to the hole you made" would happen is if the sledgehammer didn't go in significantly but deflected completely after the strike. Which is NOT what happened with the plane.

The plane went in without slowing and disappeared completely inside without any significant immediate explosion or immediate deflected debris.

[anigbrowl]

25. No, it's just fine

Your comparisons are meaningless. Trying to extrapolate from what I stated as a general understanding of how things break - which you asked for - to exactly what happened in the towers is ridiculous. Nor do you seem to have understood my answer properly as written. Please don't try rewriting it to make it say what you want it to.

[spooked911]

26. ???

"Trying to extrapolate from what I stated as a general understanding of how things break - which you asked for - to exactly what happened in the towers is ridiculous."

Why?

[defendandprotect]

19. Here's another way to phrase the question ....

since when are aluminum plane wings, with fuel, able to crash thru STEEL???

When did that happen?

And to leave behind a cartoon hole?

:evilgrin:

[vincent_vega_lives]

199. accelerate you fast enough

and you would have went thru the facade of the WTC towers too. A little less worse for wear however...you would most likely have not remained intact.

Simple physics.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Well I guess it could work, if you used the right kind of explosives, and placed them on the inside.

They would have to be the type of explosives that suck, though.

Sucking explosives. That would do it. Yup.

[spooked911]

24. possible explanations for the large column set lying in the central hole

1) a plane smashed into the tower and punched the columns upward like a garage door flipping up. After the plane goes through, the columns fall down into the hole.

Problem: the "garage door" breakage pattern is highly unlikely at best, as 1) it is assymetric and the initial breakage is away from the precise point of collision, and 2) flipping the columns up means two or more floors are pushed and broken away greatly increases the overall resistance-- while the plane slid in without resistance.

2) a plane smashed into the tower and punched the columns inwards as the plane goes inwards-- then as the plane blows up and disintegrates, the columns get pushed back into the entry hole.

Problem: highly unlikely the plane blows up with enough force to propel the columns backwards and intact, and highly unlikely that the columns would be propelled perfectly backwards.

3) a plane smashed into the tower and punched the columns slightly inwards as the plane breaks apart and goes inwards around the columns. The columns don't move much after the initial displacement.

Problem: highly unlikely the plane is going to bisect around these columns after initially displacing them-- if the plane is going to break up completely around the columns during the initial collision, it would have had problems breaking the columns away in the first place. There also should have been much more deflection of debris backwards from the initial collision-- which was not seen.

4) explosives carefully placed on the outside of the towers in the shape of the plane hole-- they blow a large chunk of columns slightly inwards, and the fall into the hole.

Problem: powerful explosives have to be placed very precisely, without being detected, on the outside of the towers. This could be done by operatives posing as window washers.

[spooked911]

27. so what do the official story believers think?

1) the plane punched the columns upward like a garage door flipping up and after the plane goes through, the columns fell down into the hole

2) the plane punched the columns inwards as the plane goes inwards-- then as the plane blew up and disintegrated, the columns get pushed back into the entry hole

3) the plane punched the columns slightly inwards as the plane breaks apart and goes inwards around the columns. The columns don't move much after the initial displacement.

Or do you have a different scenario?

[spooked911]

28. Is this such a hard question?

How did the plane get through the hole and leave those columns there?

[Flatulo]

31. The WTC towers used an automatic window washing mechanism...

So having people posing as window washers would have been highly unusual.

You can see the mechanism on the South Tower in a view from the North Tower.

http://johnii2.tripod.com/wtc3d.htm

[spooked911]

43. yes, but curiously

this footage shows a scaffold with what looks like a person on it in 2001-- right at about the position where the hole was made in the north tower:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KWFHlih-wU

[Flatulo]

47. Yes, that is a scaffolding. nt

[spooked911]

51. Well, in any case, someone clearly had access to the outside of the towers

which is how they planted the explosives.

[Flatulo]

55. You really believe this, don't you...

[spooked911]

58. I suscribe to this theory because the hole in the tower is not consistent

with the official story, and because the evidence for video fakery is overwhelming.

[backwoodsbob]

49. didnt you use to argue

the planes should have bounced off the walls?

And now you want to know why they didnt atomize the walls?

[spooked911]

64. No, I never argued that

I argued that they should have broken up as they went in, rather than sliding in seamlessly and without deceleration.

I didn't say the plane should have atomized the wall. Please reread the original post.

Thanks.

[spooked911]

78. JUST AMAZING

all these posts here, but no one can explain how the plane left these columns lying in the hole!

[LARED]

80. The colums were laying in the hole because

a plane crashed into the side of the building. There is absolutely nothing odd or usual about the columns postion.

[spooked911]

84. how did the plane get past them, is the issue

Do you really not understand the question?

I've laid it out a few times here.

[AZCat]

86. No, that's not really the issue.

The issue is, why you can't conceive of any explanation other than explosives for this result?

[spooked911]

89. No, that *IS* the issue that I have brought up in this post

thanks for yet again failing to address the question!

[AZCat]

91. No, I'm sorry - no.

The problem here is you, spooked.

[spooked911]

93. Yeah, I know you think this is all a big joke and this is some referendum on how crazy I am

or something. Or at least that is the message you want to send.

But isn't this hole issue the crux of the matter of whether a plane struck WTC2? And if you can't explain how the hole was made by a large plane that disappeared inside the tower, then you really have no leg to stand on in terms of the official story.

So, I'm still waiting for your explanation.

Thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Dude...

if your claim were remotely true, people would be all over this. Instead, as far as I can tell, it's just you and a couple of misfits.

By the way, I might have misvoted in the ''referrendum'', taking it to be a simple yes/no as opposed to a matter of degree.

[spooked911]

99. still waiting...

still waiting...

[SDuderstadt]

102. Dude...

no one cares about your stupid questions. I don't take "no-planers" seriously.

[spooked911]

103. so basically

you are in denial or you can't answer the question, or both.

[SDuderstadt]

104. What part of "I don't take 'no-planers' seriously" confuses you, dude?

BTW, nice stupid false dilemma you tried to construct there, dude.

[spooked911]

107. I'm not confused-- but you refuse to answer a serious question

and your refusal to answer makes me think you have no answer

[LARED]

87. Are you suggesting the planes should have bounced off

the building? Or perhaps stuck in the building like a lawn dart?

[spooked911]

90. NO!!!

Do you really not understand the issue here or do you just like wasting my time?

[Bassman66]

112. Nose out.

Is crap and has been soundly debunked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034

The person who put forward the 'nose out' claim is a lying deceitful toad.

No-planes is pure disinfo put out there to obfuscate real 9/11 issues.

[Subdivisions]

113. +1. n/t

[spooked911]

117. Unfortunately both Simon Shack and Anthony Lawson are disinfo artists

and neither are to be trusted. It is silly to just focus on two frames like they did.

The nose-out is still great evidence of video fakery.

"The person who put forward the 'nose out' claim is a lying deceitful toad."

First-- did you see the beginning of the video you linked to?
Second-- lots of people have put this out, I was one of the first. Shack jumped on it later.


ANYHOO-- this thread is supposed to be about the WTC2 hole.

[spooked911]

118. kick

until someone has an explanation for the official plane story leaving columns in the hole

[spooked911]

119. kick

until someone has an explanation for the official plane story leaving columns in the hole

[spooked911]

120. kick

until someone has an explanation for the official plane story leaving columns in the hole

[spooked911]

121. kick

until someone has an explanation for the official plane story leaving columns in the hole

[spooked911]

122. kick

until someone has an explanation for the official plane story leaving columns in the hole

[LARED]

123. kick for insanity

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”

Albert Einstein.

[spooked911]

124. I'd rather have an explanation

thanks

[LARED]

125. You've been given a couple of answers that make sense

The fact you choose to ignore these is not in the least surprising.

[spooked911]

126. No I haven't, and I have asked for further explanation to no avail.

I am not ignoring anything.

I saw one "explanation" that was about elasticity of steel columns. Unfortunately, that doesn't address the point here in any direct way. I have not seen a second explanation.

I'd be happy if you could point me to the answers that "make sense".

Thanks.

[spooked911]

127. kick

until someone has an explanation for the official plane story leaving columns in the hole.

No-- '2% offset yield stress' and column elasticity doesn't address the issue, neither does the Purdue study. If they do address the issue in some way that I have missed, I would appreciate more explanation.

I can only assume that no plane made this hole in the tower, as nothing close to a coherent explanation has been put forth to explain how columns are lying in the hole after the passage of a large plane through the hole.

Thank you.

[spooked911]

128. kick

until someone has an explanation for the official plane story leaving columns in the hole.

No-- '2% offset yield stress' and column elasticity doesn't address the issue, neither does the Purdue study. If they do address the issue in some way that I have missed, I would appreciate more explanation.

I can only assume that no plane made this hole in the tower, as nothing close to a coherent explanation has been put forth to explain how several large columns are lying in the hole after the passage of a very large plane rather tightly through the hole.

Thank you.

[LARED]

129. I think it's time to start a pool

for the date of Spooked911's last kick.

I'm in for ten bucks.

[SDuderstadt]

130. I'M in for $10 but...

knowing Spooked, I frankly don't expect a payout anytime soon.

[OnTheOtherHand]

131. do you need something like a 36-hour rule?

Otherwise it would be hard to declare a winner, no?

[SDuderstadt]

132. If Spooked would quit kicking this stupid OP...

we'd all be winners.

[spooked911]

133. Again, how about either answering the question or just admitting no plane hit the tower?

Thanks.

[LARED]

134. Do you understand how the perimeter columns were constructed? nt

[spooked911]

136. do you mean the columns themselves or how the wall was constructed?

yes, on the latter; I can guess for the former.

In any case, what is your point?

I'm SURE you have an important point. You'd never want to waste time or beat around the bush.

[LARED]

137. If you know how the perimeter walls were constructed

you should have an answer to your question.

As you are aware each perimeter column was constructed in 30 foot sections and bolted together. A simple reason why some columns were laying in the hole was because they were knocked over. Perhaps they bent, perhaps they broke at the 4 bolt connection flange between each 30 foot section. Perhaps it was a combination of both.

Your whole issue does not just border on the absurd, it does cartwheels past the absurd right into idiotic.

[spooked911]

138. but they weren't simply "knocked over"-- they are still in the hole

30 foot columns would have to break through 2 or 3 floors to be "knocked over", as I have explained before. Also, they weren't "knocked over" because they aren't lying in the bottom of the hole.

I'm glad you're thinking about this a little bit, but you still aren't answering the question-- which is how the plane went through the hole but left several columns still in the hole.

Earlier in this thread, I outlined three scenarios where a plane COULD leave columns in the hole, and asked people to say which one they thought was what happened. I don't think you answered, but you still can.

Simply explain how the plane went into the tower, breaking a hole in the outer wall, disappearing completely inside, but left several columns blocking the middle of the hole.

The three possible scenarios I can see are:

1) the plane flipping the columns up like a garage door, and then they fall down into the hole after the plane went through
2) the plane pushed the columns in, then blew up, and pushed the columns backwards into the hole
3) the plane broke up around the columns as it entered

If you have another scenario, let me know, because each of the three scenarios has severe flaws.


Thanks.

[LARED]

139. What columns were left in the hole?

which is how the plane went through the hole but left several columns still in the hole.

It's not even possible to know if there are columns in the hole because of the angle of the camera image.

[spooked911]

140. columns are plainly blocking the hole

please look at the pictures

thanks

[spooked911]

141. kick

at least until someone bothers to look at the pictures

[spooked911]

143. amazing how not one of the experts here can answer a simple question

why is it so hard to give an explanation for the columns in the hole?

[OnTheOtherHand]

144. you seem to be the only one struggling with this question n/t

[Neily]

145. See post #142 yesterday for your answer

[SDuderstadt]

135. "just admitting no plane hit the tower"

On your own, you do more to marginalize the "truth movement" than anyone else could possibly do, Spooked. This is why you're remotely taken seriously here, dude. Claiming that no plane hit the Tower is like claiming JFK was not actually shot in Dealey Plaza.

[icee2]

275. If you ask me...

I'd say that anyone who has studied the evidence knows damn well that no plane hit the tower...and if they say otherwise,
then it's reasonable to wonder just exactly why they embrace nonsense...unless maybe they don't really, but for some
strange reason say they do.

[SDuderstadt]

276. So, you ARE a "no-planer"...

that's what I thought. Adios.

[icee2]

277. dude - your act is way past it's use-by date. Get a new one. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

278. Dude...you're a "no-planer"...

I rest my case.

[Neily]

142. Plane goes in...

Exploding fuel goes out... columns are pushed in at impact, but pushed back out with the exploding fuel. Not too hard to understand the different directions of the columns...


Edit: By the way, stop kicking your own post so much. Let the natural progression of interest and search capabilities bump your post. If it is sinking to the dungeon, that should tell you something. If you have nothing more to add, then just let the post follow its natural course.

[spooked911]

146. thanks for giving an answer-- yours is the first direct answer so far

and I wouldn't even had gotten that without all the kicks.

Now, your answer is in fact one of the scenarios I posted earlier.

The problem is the the columns are pushed in at the front of the plane, and so even if the jet fuel explodes in such a powerful fashion, the columns should be pushed further inwards. Your scenario indicates that the plane slipped past the columns and then blew up.

Further, as I noted before, it is highly unlikely that the columns would be propelled perfectly backwards.

Another issue, is that if you look carefully, a couple of the columns around the central hole are barely even severed-- which is very odd, as that is where the wing root would have gone in, which is the strongest part of a plane.

I know you all would rather I just forget about this, and you don't give a shit about something so "obvious". But I still think that there is no good explanation for how a Being 767 could make this hole, not explode on the outside of the tower, and still leave large columns in the hole.

[Neily]

147. Didn't see your scenario...

But, then again, I didn't read all of the way through the thread...

spooked911 - "Your scenario indicates that the plane slipped past the columns and then blew up."

Well according to what I saw on the videos, the plane did just that. We watched the tail enter and then came the explosion.

I guess I am not getting what you are trying to say. I don't see anything that stands out as unusual on the photos you provided.

Edited to Add: But if you look at the construction of the towers and they way the side mesh-like steel was constructed, I think you will see why there are perfect lines across in places where you would normally think the shape of the plane should be.

I am trying to think of a word to describe it. The only thing I can think of is wafle-like Legos that are stacked on each other, but not in a linear and perfectly aligned shape. Am I making sense...

[spooked911]

148. Maybe I need to draw some figures here

but let me try with words one more time.

"Your scenario indicates that the plane slipped past the columns and then blew up."


The plane blew up AFTER somehow getting past the intact block of columns? Wouldn't it blow up at the same time as it smashed into the columns? It seems illogical that the plane gets PAST the broken chunk of columns and then blows up.


This is not about how the columns broke -- yes, the pattern is congruent with how the wall was constructed.

The issue is about the putative interaction between the plane and the columns-- how a plane can break a hole in the wall, disappear inside completely and then break apart, but leave a chunk of columns in the hole.

The issue is-- is this physically possible? I don't see it, myself. Hence the pushing of this isse to see if someone else can explain it.

Thanks for reading.

[Neily]

149. Are you suggesting?

with this statement... "The plane blew up AFTER somehow getting past the intact block of columns? Wouldn't it blow up at the same time as it smashed into the columns? It seems illogical that the plane gets PAST the broken chunk of columns and then blows up."


That the videos of the planes entering the towers is fake? If so, I didn't get that from any of your posts, but your quote above leads me to believe that is what you are suggesting.

[SDuderstadt]

150. Spooked is a "no-planer" and maintains that all videos (plus the...

real time broadcast of the second strike) were all faked. That's why almost everyone basically ignores him. Now you know, if you hadn't guessed already.

[spooked911]

155. yes, I am a "no planer" and I think the videos were faked

however, that is not really relevant to the issue here.

But I won't be surprised if you completely avoid the issue now that you know my point of view.

[SDuderstadt]

156. Why would that surprise you, Spooked?

Your "no-planes" bullshit is not just nonsense, it's offensive.

[spooked911]

159. I said it WOULDN'T surprise me.

You're getting sloppy, SD.

Thanks for your input though.

[chaddyt]

151. Spooked...

Perhaps you could posit an explanation for your scenario in which bombs/mini-nukes were used in the towers.

If this was the case, and these explosive devices were in fact used, why are there not more columns blown outward?? Why aren't we seeing more evidence of an OUTWARD explosion from the NWO bombs?

[Bolo Boffin]

152. Because fourth generation nuclear devices employ smart technology to land debris in specific places

Turns out that a side effect of Hush-a-Boom technology is the ability to place debris wherever you need it to land.

[Neily]

153. Sweet...

Wonder if they used that on the Moon tests.. j/k


:rofl:

[spooked911]

154. I have posted that before

see here:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

but we're talking about the initial hits here, not the eventual complete demolition.

[SDuderstadt]

157. Spooked.....

you seem to be under the delusion that people think you're relevant to the debate.

[spooked911]

158. This is my thread.

So of course I am relevant-- especially when someone asks me a question.

Thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

160. Well, most of the entries are you kicking it....

because hardly anyone is asking you questions, dude...I think that qualifies as irrelevancy.

[spooked911]

162. Yeah, it's funny-- I ask a simple question, then someone ventures a preliminary answer,

then I ask them another question, and they scurry away.

No one seems to be able to rebut my key point.

[SDuderstadt]

163. No one cares about your key "point", dude...

eventually, it'll sink in but, unfortunately, not before you continue to embarrass DU with your theories.

[spooked911]

166. all I've wanted all along was a proper explanation for how the plane went through the hole and left

all this debris behind in the hole.

I do not think that is unreasonable-- to ask for an explanation.

So far, no one has given a proper explanation. If someone can explain it, then I will drop the thread.

Thanks.

[Neily]

167. See this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0


The test is similar in that you do not see an explosion until after it enters. In addition, this wall is much thicker than the walls of the towers.

[spooked911]

168. thanks, but the plane disintegrates when it hits the wall--

it doesn't enter the tower. There isn't much there to help understand the columns in the hole.

[ryan_cats]

171. Where, according to you, should the debris have gone?

Where, according to you, should the debris have gone?

I'd like to know how internal Nukes (good lord) caused the columns to bend inward???

[LARED]

164. Relevant; a definition for you

Main Entry: rel·e·vant
Pronunciation: \ˈre-lə-vənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin relevant-, relevans, from Latin, present participle of relevare to raise up — more at relieve
Date: 1560
1 a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion <relevant testimony> c : having social relevance

[SDuderstadt]

165. Hmmm, none of those....

appear to fit Spooked. Hmmmm.

[chaddyt]

161. I'm not talking about the total "demolition"...

I'm talking about the explosives that caused the holes in the two towers. Or was the fireball video fakery as well?

Please explain how bombs planted on the INSIDE of the buildings (unless you are suggesting they were hovering bombs that held their position 80+ stories off the ground) bent columns INWARD.

[spooked911]

169. No, I don't think the fireball was video fakery

as far as the columns going inwards, I posit that explosives were fixed on the outside walls as well as inwards. Though I can't rule out that some sort of beam weapon was used to make the holes.

But the whole point here is that the holes have big debris in them, AFTER the plane passed through somehow without exploding. And no one here has managed to explain this.

[chaddyt]

172. So apart from the mysterious Beam Weapon...

which you have no proof even exists, you're now also adding the WTC window washers to the list of conspirators. Apart from them, I'm not sure exactly who would have access to the exterior of the building to plant said bombs.

In regards to your concern over the debris, a plane crashing into a building is a chaotic event. Columns will be destroyed, upper floors collapse below into the hole created by the impact, etc. I really don't understand how this is so hard for you to grasp. Are you suggesting the hole should be devoid of any debris? Is there just too much debris for your liking? What exactly qualifies as the correct amount of debris YOU would expect to see in this scenario. Please cite your sources.

And while we're at it, please explain how the mysterious Beam Weapon's destruction would've behaved since you're obviously versed in its uses since you "can't rule it out".

[spooked911]

183. I am raising a specific point about the outer wall columns being in the central hole

and how they were left there. I have posed this question several times, along with possible scenarios, in this thread and see no reason to repeat it.

The beam weapon is indeed mysterious. I don't think one was used, but I can't rule out that there is some advanced technology used by the perps that we do not know about.

[HannibalCards]

184. First

you need to prove what you think are outer wall columns are actually outer wall columns.

[spooked911]

185. What do you think they are?

I can't "prove" this, as I only have these pictures. But the objects are the right size and shape.

Let's hypothesize they are outer wall columns. Do you admit this is a problem with the official story or not?

[LARED]

186. If they are perimeter columns

it poses no problems whatsoever with the so called official story.

They are simply columns that broke as the plane entered and fell back into that position.

[spooked911]

187. Not that simple at all

as I have written over and over again here. And you still haven't explained the mechanism of exactly how the plane got around them.

[LARED]

188. The plane did not "get around them" -nt

[SDuderstadt]

189. You know...

I'd love to see Spooked at the scene of a fatal auto accident, telling the family of one of the victims that the scene doesn't look the way he thinks it should and, therefore, he concludes the crash was fake.

[LARED]

190. It actually hard to believe Spooked is serious - nt

[spooked911]

191. really?

please explain, then, with step by step details.

Thanks.

[spooked911]

192. Still waiting.

Thanks.

[AZCat]

193. Of course you are. n/t

[spooked911]

194. there's an easy way to make this stop

i.e. give an explanation

[SDuderstadt]

195. There's an even easier way to make it stop...

you could quit kicking it.

[spooked911]

197. sorry-- I'd really like an explanation

I still don't get why it is so hard to for the OCTers to give a detailed explanation.

[OnTheOtherHand]

198. sorta like a detailed explanation of last night's Lotto number?

As far as I can tell, the vast majority of people who have looked at that picture -- not just "the OCTers" -- see nothing that requires "a detailed explanation." The burden of proof is entirely upon you.

[spooked911]

200. I have laid out four different scenarios here

and I can't get any of our "non-truthers" here to say which one they think is the case.

You're saying the event was "random", but the fact is-- there HAS to be an explanation for how the outer wall columns were left in the hole. There clearly was a sequence of events that we can reconstruct that left those columns there.

[OnTheOtherHand]

201. interesting you put it that way

When absolutely nothing is going for you, you can still take a shot at "non-truthers."

...there HAS to be an explanation for how the outer wall columns were left in the hole. There clearly was a sequence of events that we can reconstruct that left those columns there.

As a matter of logic, the former doesn't necessarily imply the latter. The extent to which we can reconstruct the sequence depends on the available evidence. When someone bowls a split, one may or may not be able to reconstruct exactly why the 4 pin didn't take out the 7 pin, or whatever. One doesn't ordinarily conjecture sabotage, although I've known one or two bowlers who would.

[AZCat]

202. spooked911's confusion seems to spring from an unfamiliarity with physics.

While events such as the collision between an aircraft and a building might be deterministic, they are not necessarily reproducable (especially if they are highly nonlinear).

[OnTheOtherHand]

203. that formulation might even help him

(although I won't hold my breath).

[spooked911]

204. I am not talking about reconstructing every little detail of the event

but specifically how the plane knocked the columns loose by hitting them, then went around them.

In your bowling analogy, rarely if ever do the pins that are first impacted by the ball end up close to where they are first struck. That's partly my point here-- the plane (ball) pushes them forward, and the plane (ball) does not break apart around those first impacted pins.

[SDuderstadt]

205. Maybe you could start "Scholars for Bowling Truth"....

Spooked. It would be a great use of your talents. You might want to start by figuring out how all the pins were "faked". Personally, I think the pins were all taken out by "mini balls".

[chaddyt]

206. It wouldn't surprise me

to learn that Spooked subscribes to the idea that the disco ball during "rock 'n bowl" is a cleverly disguised BEAM weapon that is used exclusively on Neo-Con League nights.

[SDuderstadt]

207. Remind me to not open your posts without....

swallowing first. Damn, that was funny.

[OnTheOtherHand]

209. at the risk of repetition

I'm not aware that anyone else in the universe looks at that picture and imagines that the plane "went around" the columns. As far as I know, that's only you.

I don't know what more to say, except, good luck with that.

[spooked911]

211. so you are saying the plane BROKE UP around the columns then?

it knocked them in slightly and then broke up?

Again, all I would like is a mechanism for what happened-- which no one seems willing to provide, 200 posts on.

[OnTheOtherHand]

213. obviously I'm not saying that

I'm not sure what to say at this point. "Keep digging"?

[spooked911]

215. so then either

1) the plane flipped the columns up like a garage door, and then they fall down into the hole after the plane went through
2) the plane pushed the columns in, then blew up, and pushed the columns backwards into the hole

Someone else here pushed #2 but didn't address why blowing up would push the columns backward through the explosion.

[spooked911]

216. once again

no one can follow up or back up their claim

[spooked911]

217. kick

still waiting

[spooked911]

218. kick

for kicks

[spooked911]

221. kick

for the truth

[AZCat]

219. Not really.

We just don't care to indulge your fantasies.

[spooked911]

222. I'm ASKING you to indulge the official story

Criminy-- why is this so hard to explain?

If no one can explain the official story, just so say. Don't ask like I am crazy for asking people here to provide a mechanism defending the official story.

[AZCat]

223. Unfortunately, it's not that you're crazy.

You just have a very poor (if any) understanding of complex dynamics.

[spooked911]

224. Look, just answer whether you can provide a detailed mechanism for the damage

that fits with the official story of a plane entering -- or not.

[spooked911]

225. Once again, you run away from supoorting the official story

how odd.



1) Column on left has odd skeletal remains, looks blasted out; this damage is well above where the wing would have hit. Column on left also looks blasted at bottom, but wing would have hit right at the lower border of the picture, one can see a faint mark there

2) More odd, very irregular damage to these columns-- the leftwards column is sticking down, whereas the right two have been blasted away, including damage to the spandrel plate; it looks like something has taken a bite out of the spandrel plate.

3) the most striking part of the hole, to me, is here-- this is supposedly where the engine went in, which would also have been a strong part of the wing. Note the small round hole flanked by busted but NOT SEVERED columns. It is hard to see how, according to the official story, the wing root went in causing so little damage when the outer wing ripped out big chunks of the wall further to the left. A real smoking gun here. Also here is some strange bumpy object on the outside of the wall. Almost looks like a rope with big knots in it. What is this? There actually, oddly enough is something similar in the same place on the WTC1 hole. See: http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/01/holey-weirdness-batman.html

4) looks like barely busted in outer columns; again, hard to see how the strong wing root went through here, the official story. Another smoking gun here.

5) the bent structure is most likely a partially collapsed floor; this means there is a huge hole on this side where the engine officially went in. Why such a difference with the other engine hole, which is barely a hole?

Also, see these:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/09/more-wtc1-hole-weirdness.html

[OnTheOtherHand]

226. prolly NOOKS!

The evidence is incontrovertible! Heck, it's practically undetectable!

[SDuderstadt]

227. "Truther Logic"...

a jetliner crashing into a skyscraper is a symmetrical, orderly event with predictable results.

[spooked911]

228. that's not my point. Apparently "your logic" is not understanding what my point is.

My point is that we should be able to explain the damage in some logical way THAT FITS THE OFFICIAL STORY.

NO ONE SO FAR HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO THIS!

[SDuderstadt]

229. Dude...

you're pointing to all these self-defined "oddities" and asking all these "questions" in an absurd quest to "prove" that the towers were not struck by planes but were, instead, blown up with "mini-nukes". Do you ever stop to ponder why you're not taken seriously by rational people?

[AZCat]

230. Again you demonstrate your misunderstanding of complex dynamics.

I think the concept is beyond you, spooked911. Maybe you should just accept that, since it's been like eight years and you still haven't understood it.

[spooked911]

236. if you understand it, then EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED!

IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

I'M LOOKING FOR AN EXPLANATION OF THE OFFICIAL STORY.

'COMPLEX DYNAMICS' DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED!!!

[LARED]

237. A perfectly good explanation was provided here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=266960&mesg_id=273628

[spooked911]

243. No it was not, and you know it-- that is not the issue. I want a specific explanation

and what I say is that the more all of you fail to support the official story, the more I have to think I am right.

[LARED]

244. Are you really that dense?

It has been explained in a number of ways to you by a number of people. There is no specific explanation. Why?

The response of the structure of the plane impacting the building is highly chaotic and unpredictable. Other than a bunch of holes formed when the plane passed through the building no one can detail why a specific column or floor joist found its way to a specific location after everything came to rest. This is self evident to anyone with a modicum of functional experience in the world. Even a child figures out early that when the blocks he was playing with falls over the blocks do not follow a specific path when coming to rest.

What you seem to believe is smoking gun evidence is as stated by another is "hardly detectable evidence." If you are looking for someone to provide specific and detailed reasons why the image looks like it does it simply is not possible for anyone, no matter what expertize they bring, can provide your answer.

So please keep kicking this post.

[spooked911]

245. Thanks for finally admitting you have no explanation.

"Other than a bunch of holes formed when the plane passed through the building no one can detail why a specific column or floor joist found its way to a specific location after everything came to rest."

I am not sure what you mean by "no one can detail". I have been asking for reasonable hypotheses and reasonable guesses for the damage pattern. This is different than saying you know exactly what happened.

You seem to be saying that it is impossible to reconstruct what might have happened. I completely disagree, as I am not talking about the complete event but rather one specific question about the outer columns.

Randomness should still follow basic logic and basic physics.

Certainly a tower of blocks may fall in an unpredictable way, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't reconstruct a reasonable mechanism for how a certain block ended up where it was found. And you should be able to see that a block on the very top shouldn't normally end up on the very bottom of the pile, underneath all the other blocks. Right? Or if this does happen, you should be able to reconstruct a plausible mechanism for why it occurred, right?

So I completely disagree that these complex events are incomprehensible.

But it is interesting, as this seems to explain how much of you and your fellow OCTers view the 9/11 physical evidence. You seem to think these events are completely unpredictable and therefore whatever happened, must have happened according to the official story, because it is all so unpredictable. Thus, no physical evidence can EVER look strange, no matter how many incongruities I might point out.

So it does seem like I have wasted my time as you and your fellow OCTers have absolutely no interest in probing beyond the idea that it is chaotic and therefore unknowable.

[OnTheOtherHand]

246. it might help if you marshaled a causal argument

I don't see anyone saying that "these complex events are incomprehensible." That's a wild misrepresentation on your part. If anything, it is more nearly the case that you're the only person who finds the outcome especially surprising.

You seem to think that the outcome is incompatible with the Official Story^TM, but would be well explained by some alternative. Please remind me, what is that alternative that (so to speak) makes all the pieces fall into place?

(edit to fix typo)

[spooked911]

249. The natural implication of what he said was that it was unknowable

and that I was stupid for trying to find an explanation.

He said quote "There is no specific explanation."

But either way, no one yet has explained the damn thing.

So, I think the hole is more consistent with being made by explosives-- not by a massive plane passing through completely and then disintegrating inside.

[HannibalCards]

250. The fact remains

that a massive plane did fly into the building.

[OnTheOtherHand]

251. you think so, but where is your argument?

If you tried to 'specifically' explain things yourself, you might come to understand what people are telling you. It seems like a long shot, but it might work.

[spooked911]

252. please read all my posts here

I have explained the scenario IN FAR MORE DETAIL OVER AND OVER FOR WEEKS HERE-- FAR MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE HAS EVEN ATTEMPTED.

Thank you.

[AZCat]

255. That doesn't really mean anything.

A fifth grader can describe the act of making sex in great detail to his friends on the playground, but it doesn't necessarily resemble the actual event (at least in my experience).

[OnTheOtherHand]

256. "the scenario"?

To an appalling extent, I've tried to read all your posts here. I sure can't find the one where you explain why placing explosives on the outside of the building would be expected to cause the results you regard as anomalous.

[AZCat]

257. He made an attempt upthread...

Check this post, item 4 (excerpted below):

4) explosives carefully placed on the outside of the towers in the shape of the plane hole-- they blow a large chunk of columns slightly inwards, and the fall into the hole.

Problem: powerful explosives have to be placed very precisely, without being detected, on the outside of the towers. This could be done by operatives posing as window washers.

:eyes:

[OnTheOtherHand]

258. yes, that's the best I can find, and it isn't good at all

Is spooked's only problem that the columns didn't go in very far, and he thinks that explosives could explain this more readily than a plane? Neither part of that makes much sense to me. (Never mind the OPAWW who are speculated to have planted the explosives.)

[spooked911]

259. another problem is that in the video, the plane goes completely in without signs of breaking up

meaning, the plane went in fairly intact if we believe the videos-- but then we have this debris blocking the hole and I am still asking how it got there after a plane went through.

Other problems are the "port engine hole" where the columns are barely even severed (#3 below)-- it's very hard to understand how the massive wing root and engine went in there in contrast to what happened further out.

[spooked911]

260. yeah, I know-- isn't it weird?

wild!

[spooked911]

261. so LARED

can the damage in the hole be explained-- or not?

[LARED]

262. I'm sure the answer is the damage in the hole cannot be

explained to you.

[spooked911]

263. please try

please please please please please please please

[spooked911]

264. I'm holding this thread hostage until LARED gives the explanation he now says he has

Though I'll be amazed if I ever get it.

[spooked911]

265. day 2 of hostage crisis

how long will this go on?

[Name removed]

266. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

267. Hopefully for a long time

Also I said the problem is you don't understand the explanation already given. Not that I have a new and improved version for you to consider.

[spooked911]

269. No specific explanation WAS given

that is the problem

[LARED]

270. Spooked, what your are really asking for an an answer with

no ambiguity. No one can provide you with an ambiguity free answer that you with accept and understand.

But seriously please keep kicking this op as I'm sure it will soon be recognized as the longest and dumbest post ever posted on DU.

[SDuderstadt]

271. I think it's already recognized as the....

longest and dumbest post.

[spooked911]

279. Not really sure what you mean by ambiguity.

It's okay not to know what exactly happened. But surely you can pick a mechanism or two-- such as:

a) does the plane break up around the columns as it pushes them in?
b) does the plane push the columns up like a garage door and then they fall back down after it has passed?
c) does the plane push the columns in deeper, but then when the plane breaks apart, it pushes them back in the hole?

And then defend your position.

I have asked this many times. I think one person answered this (not you LARED) and said it was (c), but when I asked a follow up question they bailed and didn't defend their position.

[LARED]

280. A, and/or B, and/or C, all are plausible explanations

I fail to see why this presents a problem for you.

You want the answer to be A or B or C or something else. There is no reason to conclude that level of specificity is needed to explain the hole in the side of the WTC, as none of those answers are exclusive.

[spooked911]

281. Thanks. But, upthread, I explained why each of those three explanations is problematic.

And based on what I've seen so far here, I doubt that you will defend any of those explanations beyond vague hand-waving.

[LARED]

282. But your explanations regarding why those three

explanations are problematic lacked specificity, so I discounted them as not sufficient to form a conclusion.

[spooked911]

283. Now, *I* am not being specific enough????

For 280+ posts here, no one has been more specific about the damage pattern than I have.

The "garage door" "flipping up" mechanism-- where 20+ feet of columns gets pushed inwards and upwards through floors? Do you really think that is feasible?

Or, do you think it is feasible for a plane to push columns inwards, then break up around them, then explode and push the columns back into the hole?

Or you like the idea that the plane broke up as it hit and slightly broke the columns inwards and then all the debris went around the columns? Even though there is no evidence that the plane broke up as it went in from the videos?

[SDuderstadt]

284. Jesus, Spooked....

Since there were no inside cameras trained on the jet as it smashed into the building, how the fuck do you think one could tell if parts of the plane broke up as it entered? You do, of course, realize that the speed of the plane not only contributed to its ability to penetrate the building, it also means we're not going to see all that much of the crash mechanism.

Again I ask, is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy even YOU won't embrace it? I'm sincerely begging you to quit embarrassing the Democratic Party in general and DU in particular. This is, by far, one of your dumbest posts yet.

[LARED]

285. Not nearly specific enough

The three scenarios you listed are all possible explanations in part or in whole. If you want to be taken seriously you need to be far more specific stating why you believe the three scenarios you listed are not feasible. It is your responsibility to provide a logical well thought out argument.

I look forward to seeing this happen. Maybe you can elevate your position from no-plane silliness to an actual argument.

[spooked911]

286. ok, here is a very specific issue

check out hole #3 here:


This is supposedly where the engine and wing root went in-- the strongest part of the plane! Yet on the left side, the column is barely knocked in, and weakly severed. This alone demolishes the official story as it is ludicrous that the strongest part of the plane would produce such weak damage.

Is there ANY explanation for this damage consistent with the official story?

[LARED]

287. Small problem

Hole number three does not represent where the engine went through. The engine centerline is lined up with column 427, which lines up far better with the big hole under column 427. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-2.pdf Page 74

Also the hole at column 428 (the one I think your panties is in a bunch over) is about 10 to 13 feet high. Clearly large enough for a plane wing to pass through. The remnants of the column is pushed back or bent. Something that is hardly shocking given that a large plane wing just crashed through it.

You need to do much better.

[spooked911]

288. Yes that hole DOES correspond to where the engine went thru

it also corresponds to columns 426-428


No freaking way the gash in 428 is 10-13 feet high-- there is hardly any gash at all.


The NIST diagram, not too surprisingly is very misleading. There is an engine hole, but hardly any space for the wing to pass through.

[LARED]

289. The "gash"

is ~ the size of an entire floor. At least 10 feet high.

[spooked911]

290. the gash in 427 is that large-- 10 feet or so

But the gashes in 426 or 428 are not-- not even close!

In 426, the column hangs down where the wing should have gone through.

And at 428, there is only a small cut, which doesn't even line up with where the wing would have hit.

[LARED]

291. All of them are at least ten feet wide. -nt

At column 426 a column (or floor or something else) is hanging down. SO WHAT!!!!. Provide some specific logical reason why that is a problem.

Same goes for column 428.

Face it Spooked you're floundering. You have nothing but your personal (and misguided) views of reality to guide you and it's failed miserably.

[spooked911]

292. well you seem to be contradicting yourself

first you say the gashes are ten feet wide (I assume you are referring to the vertical direction, as we are talking about specific columns here), then you admit that 426 and 428 have significant sections hanging down. So the gashes CAN'T be 10 feet wide.

The gash in 426 is particularly notable as the top of the column next to the spandrel at floor 80 is exactly where the wing root should have blown through, yet there is a large chunk of column there.

Unless you are claiming the column disappeared when the wing hit then reappeared after it went past, or that the wing root disintegrated against this piece of column, then there is a problem.

[spooked911]

293. kick for LARED

contradicting himself, and for not admitting the problem.

[spooked911]

294. kick for LARED

again

[AZCat]

295. Continuing to throw a hissy fit...

won't change the fact you simply don't have the capacity to understand what happened.

[LARED]

296. It is sort of fun to watch. And who know: if spooked keeps it up

we all could be part of history. The longest and most ridiculous thread ever

[spooked911]

297. what hissy fit?

I've asked pointed out inconsistencies and incongruities, and asked for explanations. Clearly none of the official story supporters are able to articulate a coherent explanation for the official story. I'm not surprised, given that the official story is clearly bogus, but it is still amusing to see you guys sputtering around trying to support the official story without being able to coherently support it.

[SDuderstadt]

298. Ummm, Spooked....

No one's answering because your "theory" starts with a flawed premise...what you THINK the crash site should have looked like. Why don't you model it first, provide your math and we'll take it from there. I won't hold my breath.

Again, I ask. Is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy even YOU won't embrace it? I beg you to quit embarrassing the Democratic Party in general and DU in particular.

[spooked911]

299. Wrong-- I have no preconceived notion of what the hole should look like if a plane crashed there

but I do know that there are clear problems with this hole and the official story. For instance, there are columns hanging down where heavy parts of the plane should have blown them away. And something you seem also to ignore is that this hole is not the only evidence that the crashes were faked.

If you insist on a model, my model is that the wing root should have broken away column 426 at the spandrel plate, and the column would not have torn through the wing root completely. Because if that column tore through the wingroot, then the rest of the wing should never have busted through the other columns further out. This is the basic problem-- we have the plane going in ghostlike, going past columns, then magically disintegrating once inside, without any significant disintegration and deflection of debris on the outside.

[SDuderstadt]

300. Provide some math for your goofy claims and...

someone might actually engage with you.

[chaddyt]

301. I don't expect math from Spooked....

This is, after all, the same guy whose idea of an accurate model to recreate the events of 9/11 involved rabbit fencing, wire cutters, and a cup of kerosene.
...
I'm more interested to know what, in his mind at least, caused this damage that was so obviously not a plane....

[SDuderstadt]

302. Spooked was behind the infamous "bunny cage" experiment???

You're kidding.

[chaddyt]

303. Yep... Not joking.

I thought it was comedy genius at first, before realizing he was serious. Tried to do a quick search of his blog to find the link, but it's possible he deleted it out of shame.

Here are a few other gems of his though.

Wooden Wings

Good Old Fashioned Pencil and Paper

Another Foray Into Arson

[Make7]

304. DU thread: "Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment."

 
link
 

[chaddyt]

305. There it is :)

Always brings a smile to my face.

[spooked911]

306. the math is elementary logic

A= the wing root is one of the strongest parts of the plane
B= the plane crashed through the wall with minimal deflected debris according to the video

Therefore, C= if any part of the plane crashed through the wall intact, the wing root is likely to have done so
D= if the wing root went through the wall intact, it would have broken the column in its path

However, E= the column where the wing root should have gone through is intact

Therefore, F= the official story does not compute

[AZCat]

307. There is an "F" here, but it isn't one of your points.

Rather, it's the grade you've been given.

[spooked911]

310. care to explain what was wrong with what I wrote?

thanks.

[AZCat]

311. Not really.

I'm not into beating dead horses.

You don't get it, spooked, and it's obvious to everyone but you. Why don't you just accept your limitations?

[spooked911]

312. what exactly don't I get?

I do get that you have done nothing here except waste my time.

If SOMEONE would deign to explain precisely why I am wrong and then stick around to defend their explanation, I would be satisfied and give up here. As it is, all I am getting is the runaround.

[AZCat]

313. We HAVE explained it, but you still don't get it.

The only person's time you are wasting is your own. Accept your limitations, spooked. You're not an engineer, and you never will be.

[spooked911]

315. Um, yeah

your posts are so worthless, words cannot even begin to describe it.

[AZCat]

336. Your inability to gain from exposure to my posts is not my problem. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

314. nonsense

You've managed to suck up an enormous amount of other people's time. Congratulations for that.

[spooked911]

316. I never forced anyone to read this post

At least I have brought up specific issues. Everyone else here on the "official" side has eluded any possible specific explanation. THAT IS CLEAR.

[chaddyt]

317. That's the problem Spooked...

The "issues" you present are only in your head. You expect everyone else to see the world through your childish, paranoid prism and get all sorts of indignant when folks try to explain that you can't use "elementary logic" to explain a complex and chaotic event.

You might as well ask why a shingle from a house landed in Location A in the aftermath of a tornado instead of Location B.

You do all of this while refusing to offer up YOUR chain of events. What, in your warped mind, would cause the damage you so aptly pointed out with Microsoft Paint?

[spooked911]

318. I've already said I thought it was done with explosives, likely both external and internal

I have never refused to offer up what I think happened. So right off, you're off base.

In terms of randomness, I understand full well there is going to be randomness in such a purported event. But there should also be some logic to the collisions (as I have already said in this thread). Thus, randomness does not explain what I am referring to, for instance, when there is an intact column where a strong section of the wing should have gone through.

The problem, as I have said over and over here is that the OCTists here simply won't bother to explain ANY anomaly of the hole-- and generally avoid any anomaly associated with the south tower hit overall.

[spooked911]

319. Even worse!

"You do all of this while refusing to offer up YOUR chain of events. What, in your warped mind, would cause the damage you so aptly pointed out with Microsoft Paint?"

Dude, I offered up my scenario in the original post! It's not like you had to search for it!

[LARED]

320. Kicking for good times nt

[chaddyt]

321. Oh right...

The "carefully placed explosives." I forgot.

And in your world, elementary logic would dictate it's far easier to secretly and covertly place explosives on the inside and outside of two 110 story sky scrapers to create the hole to support the illusion that a plane had crashed into the building rather than just... crash a plane into the building.

[SDuderstadt]

322. Chaddy....I love you man, but...

you do realize you're trying to reason with a "no-planer", right?

[chaddyt]

324. Yes...

It probably has something to do with Catholic guilt and trying to atone for something in a past life.

[spooked911]

323. there are in fact a few good reasons why the perps would not use a real plane.

Plus, there is the fact that abundant evidence supports no real plane crash and video fakery.

[chaddyt]

325. Abundant evidence?

Then why are we over 8 years after the event and you "no-planers" remain on the fringe of already dying truth movement?

[spooked911]

328. hate to break it to you

but we're hardly fringe, and hardly dying. who the heck are you anyway? coming here only now and supporting the o.c.t.? what's up with that?

[chaddyt]

330. You're not fringe??

Then why does even the mainstream truth movement do their best to pretend you don't exist? I'll make ya' a bet, Spooked - to determine if you have the courage of your convictions.

I bet that even by 9/11/2021, (20 years after the events) your no-plane theory in particular, and the truth movement in general will still be relegated to posting your rantings on the internet with no new investigation, no new proof, no nothing.

If I am wrong, you can be the first to arrest me as an agent for the PTB/NWO/whatever other dark and mysterious organization you feel is bent on taking over the world.

And for someone who's so in tune with this topic, I'm surprised you're not smart enough to figure out who i am....

[SDuderstadt]

331. I thought we were working for the...

Bush Crime Family this week and until further notice. Did someone forget to cc: me on a memo or something?

[spooked911]

333. the truth movement is not a monolith

and it is riddled with agents, who distract from the truth, anyway.

I am not going to try to guess what things will be like in another 11 years. But I think at the rate things are going sour, the least of our worries will be the 9/11 "truth" movement.

However, if things don't completely fall apart, I imagine in 2021, most Americans will see 9/11 as an inside job. But the Powers that be will continue to suppress all of this from the mainstream news. I don't know what will happen with no planes, but I imagine that people who take time to look deeply into 9/11 will take no planes seriously.

As I said, no one yet has managed to rebut any of my points besides casting general aspersions.

As far as who you are, perhaps you are Chad who used to comment on my blog. If so, why is it that you feel the need to come here and criticize such a fringe idea?

[chaddyt]

335. Well done Spooked...

And you pose a good question as to why I come here to criticize such a fringe idea.

I think it's mostly because folks like yourself fascinate me. The delusion and paranoia you display and the lengths you go to try to prove the most innocuous points (not to mention your "experiments") are... entertaining to say the least.

But I see where you're leading with your question, and I don't want you to fool yourself into thinking that I'm here "doing battle" with you because I feel you're a threat. I'd liken it more to a kid who just wants to take part in the circus, freaky clowns aside. :)

[SDuderstadt]

326. Spooked...

I support free speech, but your posts are offensive to reason and logic, and an affront to those who died that day and their families. Just when I think you can't post something dumber, you surprise us.

The only people who believe your nonsense are those with less of a grasp of reality than you, which is, in itself, a rare find. You should be ashamed of yourself. Again I ask...is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it? I sincerely beg you to cease embarrassing the Democratic Party in general and DU in particular. It's time for this thread to die on the grounds that it simply does not deserve to live. Think of it as DU euthanasia, dude.

[spooked911]

327. dude

you are so silly.

I have written nothing new here. Why are you throwing such a hissy fit?

The thing is, I will go away if someone actually engages my points, instead of putting out one lame rebuttal at best then giving up.

[SDuderstadt]

329. Dude.,..

your question is fucking stupid, based upon your flimsy grasp of physics. No one is going to take a "well, I think it should have looked like this and it doesn't, so wtf?" question from your seriously unless you can provide some math that shows conclusively what it should've looked like, dude. This is why you've inherited SLAD's mantle as a sort of inside joke here.

[spooked911]

332. Again, no math is required, it is basic logic

something that seems to have eluded you all these years.

A= the wing root is one of the strongest parts of the plane
B= the plane crashed through the wall with minimal deflected debris according to the video

Therefore, C= if any part of the plane crashed through the wall intact, the wing root is likely to have done so
D= if the wing root went through the wall intact, it would have broken the column in its path

However, E= the column where the wing root should have gone through is intact

Therefore, F= the official story does not compute

If you can't rebut this, then please stop calling me names.

Thank you.

[SDuderstadt]

334. Jesus, dude...

if Logic is all that is required, why don't we have logicians design high-rise buildings rather than architects and engineers? This is truly one of the dumbest things you've ever said.

If you're right, than I can postulate as well as you about biology using Logic. With all due respect, you're so invested in your goofy theories and warped way of looking at things, trying to reason with you is (in the words of Barney Frank) like trying to have a debate with a kitchen table.

P.S. Please point to ANYWHERE where I called you a name, dude.

[spooked911]

337. Do I really need to point out that the simple and obvious problems with the hole are

not at all analogous to designing a complete building?

Jesus, yourself. It's like you don't even try to understand what I am saying, and you just come in with this attitude that you are going to mock my post no matter what.

Once more-- one clear problem is that the wing root should have busted away column 426 near the spandrel plate-- but it didn't. If the wing root couldn't break this column, how could weaker parts of the wing bust huge holes in the wall? And where did the wing root go if it didn't pass through the column?

[SDuderstadt]

338. Dude...I'll mock your post if I want to...

If the "problems" with the hole are so "obvious and simple", then you shouldn't have any problem providing a mathematical model that demonstrates why. Quit boring everyone, Spooked.

[spooked911]

339. Once more with feeling

The wing root should have busted away column 426 near the spandrel plate-- but it didn't. If the wing root couldn't break this column, how could weaker parts of the wing bust huge holes in the wall? And where did the wing root go if it didn't pass through the column?

Why on earth does this need to be expressed as a mathematical model? It's like you asking me to write out that 1 + 1 = 1 is false.

[chaddyt]

340. Jesus...

First of all, column 426 looks pretty broken to me, but hey... what do I know. You're the internet photo expert here.

Secondly, what you're saying is, in The Mysterious Case of Column 426, two, and only two variables need to be accounted for: the column itself, and the wing root. You are totally ignoring how column 425 acted after the plane hit. Or column 424. 423 for that matter. The hull of the plane. The force of the explosion. The contents of the building.

This was not as simplistic of an event as you strive to make it out to be. It was a chaotic one, with numerous variables of force and inertia taking place within milliseconds of each other. The reason you are considered a joke is because you either A) willingly ignore this fact or B) do not possess the cognitive ability to recognize that you're not as smart as you think you are.

[spooked911]

341. For the umpteenth time, I realize that the official story would be a complex chaotic event

and again, for the umpteenth time, that does NOT mean that there should be no logic to the collisions.

Columns 423, 424 and 425 are irrelevant unless you are saying they destroyed the wingroot before it got to column 426. But that is rather improbable and can be discounted.

Column 426 is indeed damaged, but the point is that it is hanging down in the exact spot where the wingroot should have impacted. Column 428 is also damaged, but again, damaged in the wrong place. The overall damage pattern is inconsistent with official story, when you look carefully at it.

[chaddyt]

342. So the answer is B...

..."do not possess the cognitive ability to recognize that you're not as smart as you think you are."

Thanks for clearing that up.

You cannot, in one breath, state that you realize it IS a chaotic event while going on to "discount" events that don't apply to your "logic". Especially when it's YOUR logic, Spooked.

The very definition of chaos is that it does not conform to what we would perceive to be likely. There are thousands of variables, some large, some miniscule, that can and will project a certain outcome. Just because YOU see a column that doesn't look how YOU think it should, does not make it a conspiracy dude. Logic tells me that people can't believe the stuff you spout off because it's just too far gone, and yet here you are. A guy who thinks no planes hit the towers and Tiger Woods is a product of some Pentagon/Illuminati mind-control psy-op....

I'll steal from Jurassic Park and ask you to explain, using your logic of course, how a butterfly in China can affect the weather in Manhattan.

[spooked911]

343. I had a feeling you would say that.

Yes, such an event *would* be chaotic, essentially meaning unpredictable. But when I say it should conform to logic, I mean, physical objects should still conform to physical laws. A wingroot shouldn't just disappear when hitting a column, for instance. A huge plane that enters seamlessly into the tower, without breaking up, should be able to push a chunk of outer columns deeply inside, for instance.

Yes, I think the evidence supports no planes hitting the towers. And I have over a hundred good reasons for thinking that:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/05/111-reasons-why-i-am-no-planer.html

I never claimed to definitely believe that Tiger Woods was an Illuminati psy-op, although if you read the article I linked to, there is reason to believe that.

[SDuderstadt]

344. :Let me give you a dire waring, Spooked,,,,

You're getting MUCH too close to the truth for comfort. We disbanded the Illuminati and regrouped into a far more sinister, all-powerful group called the Omniscientianti.

How powerful are we, you ask? You know when you're in the mall and you go up to the directory that says, "You are here"? We're the people that know precisely where you are at every moment. Those are our signs. Right hnow, for example, we know you're in your bathroom "concocting" another one of your goofy theories.

Be afraid...be very afraid.

[chaddyt]

345. So physical objects are immune from chaos?

And where do you make such ludicrous claims that the plane didn't break up.

Are you some sort of super-human that can detect on a pixilated YouTube video the lack of disintegration of an object entering a building at 750 feet per second?? I've read your 115 reasons... They amount to about 115 solidly pathetic and sick jokes. Oliver Stone not showing any plane in his 2006 movie "World Trade Center"... Really? That's one of the reason's you're a no-planer?

... Really?

[SDuderstadt]

346. Is that really on the list?

Omigod.

[spooked911]

347. It didn't break up as it entered as there would have been massive amounts of deflected debris.

That deflected debris would have shown up on any video.

As far as my 115 reasons, they add up to a damn good case. Not all the reasons are equivalent. Clearly the Stone movie by itself proves nothing, but it is still noteworthy.

[LARED]

348. Spooked I think I found a suitable lesson on Newton's First Law that

will help. Yes the plane did break up on impact and no there is no reason there should be massive amounts of debris raining down on the street.



http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law1.

[spooked911]

350. First, the link is buggered

Second, of all, that is not a good analogy at all, in terms of what officially happened-- because you are implying either the WTC wall was air (where the test-tube goes forward after the skateboard stops) or that the plane completely broke up as it hit (the test-tube crashing to the ground). So, FAIL.

Though, this analogy works in one way-- both the test-tube and the plane are CGI cartoons.

[LARED]

353. You've missed the point

Mass once traveling in a direction likes to continue to travel in that direction. So when the plane hit the towers as it broke up most of the parts/pieces/debris continued to move in the same direction.

[spooked911]

354. Oh, geez--

and you make fun of *MY* understanding of physics?

You do know about deflection, don't you?

[LARED]

355. Please tell me about deflection - nt

[spooked911]

356. it happens during collisions

things get knocked off course, even knocked backwards from their original course (like a baseball being struck by a bat).

There can't have been much breakup of the plane as it hit, because there is hardly any deflected debris.

[chaddyt]

357. Going out on a limb here, but...

Do you think the player swinging the bat might have something to do with it being knocked backwards?

[spooked911]

361. of course

but what happens if you throw a baseball at a brick wall?

It bounces backwards.

Deflection.

If you throw a rotten tomato at a brick wall, it will disintegrate and be deflected.

What is very unusual, if not impossible, is for something to knock a hole cleanly through a wall, disintegrate and not show deflected debris.

[chaddyt]

362. And what if

that baseball is traveling over 500mph when it hits that wall?

[spooked911]

364. it will smash apart as it hits

with lots of it being deflected backwards.

What won't happen is the baseball will smash through the brick wall, leaving a round hole, and where the baseball then disintegrates on the other side of the wall.

[HannibalCards]

365. So then

Why do bullets work?

[HoarseWhisperer]

366. Good question.

Based on the underlying logic of what's being touted here, it does make you wonder.

[AZCat]

367. I would be careful using spooked911's posts as the underlying logic for anything.

He has been famously wrong about physics for several years now (and had it pointed out to him why - multiple times) yet he hasn't changed his tune.

[spooked911]

368. you mean "fragmenting bullets"?

Regular bullets obviously work by being dense and punching a hole in the object. They typically don't disintegrate if they penetrate an object.

Fragmenting bullets are a little different-- and a little more complicated. What I haven't been able to find is a high res video of a fragmenting bullet hitting an object to see how much deflection occurs-- and of course it will depend on the object...

[LARED]

369. There was a recall on hollow point bullets, as they were deflecting

http://www.vidoemo.com/yvideo.php?hollow-point-bullets-recalled-that-fail-to-explode-targets=&i=RXhrVU9PcWuRpWGtHdGc

[spooked911]

370. Okay....

thanks for nothing

[LARED]

358. So according to Spooked law of deflection

please explain how in years past when I shot little lead balls in my 12 guage at a hard steel sign the little lead ball go through the sign.

[spooked911]

360. because the lead ball didn't disintegrate after hitting the sign

duh

[LARED]

363. You know with logic like that I am seriously over matched - nt

[spooked911]

371. do you have a problem with it or not?

for all the fuss and derision you guys have cast, I don't see where you have shown I was wrong.

[AZCat]

372. Exactly.

You don't see, and that's the problem. You're blaming your blindness on others, when you should be contemplating why you're the only one who doesn't see.

[spooked911]

373. I find it curious how the OCTists take a gang style of responding here--

different posters respond all the time to a post I made to someone else.

And the problem with your premise is that it is only OCTists who are arguing with me. This would be no different than me arguing that the towers were blown up with explosives. The other problem is that not one of you has taken time to explain the so-called fault in my logic in detail. Every time I try to debate with one of you, I bring up a point or two, and you run away.

So what am I to think?

[AZCat]

374. Curious?

Only in your warped mind, spooked.

The only problem with my premise is your inability to understand simple concepts. That's why you're a no-planer in the first place.

[Name removed]

375. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

376. You are proving your embarrassingly poor recall again, spooked.

I have explained time and time again my concerns with the NIST investigation and reports. I have even done so to you specifically.

There is no point in engaging you, spooked - your inability to understand simple physical concepts (proven so many times it's begun to lose it's humorous appeal) renders such an attempt worthless.

[HannibalCards]

377. Concerning Spooked

"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."
Epictetus

[AZCat]

378. Well put. n/t

[spooked911]

379. that's cute

but, I suggest that it could equally be turned around on you.

[HannibalCards]

381. The difference

is that I can show evidence to support my narrative. You have neither narrative nor evidence, only a conclusion.

[spooked911]

387. Nonsense-- I have presented evidence over and over and over here.

No one seems to want to debate the evidence with me-- they only seem to want to present THEIR conclusion that the official story is true-- and then give some hand-waving argument about "chaos".

That is why this fucking thread has gone on so long. Everyone just dicks around without directly confronting my points.

[HannibalCards]

389. Nonsense

You have presented no evidence. You speculate and propose false scenarios, but you have yet to provide an iota of evidence.

[spooked911]

391. define "evidence" then

I showed how the hole doesn't fit the official plane overlay

[SDuderstadt]

401. No...

you show how you THINK the hole doesn't fit the official plane overlay, dude. Again, that's why you're regarded as an inside joke here.

[spooked911]

380. I apologize if I have forgotten those posts

If you support the idea that the WTC was demolished with explosives, then I clearly have misread you.

I do know that the last two or three threads I have engaged you in, you have been maddeningly vague about what you think and all I could figure was that you supported the official story.

And why you find it so amusing to bold my username, I really have no idea.

[AZCat]

382. I think you misunderstand me.

I do not support any of the controlled demolition theories, but I also have expressed reservations multiple times about the NIST's investigations and subsequent reports (including their recommendations to the various code and standards organizations).

The only reason I have been vague is that I don't think there is a point to engaging you in an in-depth technical discussion. I had a professor once who pointed out you could save a lot of time by doing a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation early on and determine the feasibility of an idea. If it isn't, then you can avoid wasting time discussing details when they're really irrelevant. The same thing applies to most of your theories - they fail at such a fundamental level that it precludes any other investigation.

I don't find it amusing to bold usernames - I do it so they stand out, and I do it for everyone, not just you.

[spooked911]

383. So it seems I *didn't* misunderstand you after all.

You support the official collapse story.

But back to the O.P.

I still would appreciate an explanation for the crash hole and the broken column set in the hole, besides saying it was just chaos.

[chaddyt]

384. "Just" chaos??

It must be really convenient to be able to brush off explanations that you can't comprehend and go on pretending that your argument is still valid.

Reminds me of that line from Wedding Crashers....

Vince Vaughn: "Erroneous! Erroneous! .... Erroneous on all counts."

[AZCat]

385. Exactly. n/t

[spooked911]

386. You talk about not comprehending--

"chaos" doesn't mean that objects teleport themselves past each other, nor does it mean that we can't understand what happened AFTER THE FACT.

Chaos in this context only means that things aren't completely predictable AHEAD OF TIME.

To resurrect the bowling analogy, it's like getting a strike. You may not be able to know how the pins are going to hit each other before hand, but with a video of the event, and seeing where the pins fall, you should be able to construct a basic sequence of events. And clearly the ball does not skip over the first two rows of pins, but then bounce back and knock those first two rows down and then change direction again and go off the end of the lane.

With this event at the WTC, we see a video (which may be fake) of the plane going in and there is essentially no deflected debris upon entry-- meaning the plane goes in without breaking up upon contact. So officially, it pushes in these columns slightly and does what? Breaks apart on them without any deflected debris? Is that what you think happens???

[chaddyt]

388. Dude....

You're going to lecture and make analogies about chaos when you can't even wrap your head around F=ma??

[spooked911]

392. why do you think I can't "wrap" my "head around F=ma"?

be specific, please.

[chaddyt]

398. Because...

... you're under this deluded impression that an object traveling 735 feet per second is going to be showering the streets of Manhattan with deflected debris when it hits what amounts to a stationary hollow tube.

Your grasp on the concept of momentum is lacking as well.

But please, go on cherry picking definitions of chaos to enlighten us all with.

[spooked911]

409. I'm afraid YOU still don't understand--

the issue is NOT penetration.

The issue is that if the plane disintegrated upon contact and within the 208 foot width of the tower, there should have been a huge amount of deflected debris-- deflected out of the tower from the entry hole. This is a huge anomaly that the OCTists can't explain.

And how did I cherry pick an explanation of chaos? Please be specific.

[AZCat]

390. No, that's not what "chaos" means.

Thanks for proving explicitly once again that you don't understand what happened.

[spooked911]

393. actually, it IS what chaos means, in the scientific sense

"Chaotic systems consequently look random. However, they are actually deterministic systems governed by physical or mathematical laws, and so are completely predictable given perfect knowledge of the initial conditions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos

Why oh why, are you wasting our time on this sort of ridiculous rebuttal?

[HannibalCards]

394. In the very next sentence

The article you link to states;

"However, such perfect knowledge is never attainable in real life; slight errors are intrinsic to any physical measurement. In a chaotic system, these slight errors will give rise to results which differ wildly from the correct result."

Why, oh why can't 'truthers' tell the truth?

[AZCat]

395. Bingo. Unfortunately, spooked will never get it.

He's proven time and time again that he just doesn't see things that don't match up to his theories.

[spooked911]

399. Are you serious???????????????

I *LIED* because I left out that sentence (which does not change any of my points)???????????

When did I *EVER* ask for perfect knowledge? What does this have to do with anything I said?

You are being ridiculous.

Indeed, it is this kind of idiotic behavior you display that makes me think I am right.

[HannibalCards]

400. Lying by omission

is still lying.

The sentence you left out changes the meaning of your post. Note; "in reality".

[spooked911]

404. "in reality" is not in that sentence you quoted

In any case, you need to explain why that sentence changes the meaning of my post. I know it takes some time, but maybe it will actually lead to some progress here instead of this silly bickering.

[HannibalCards]

406. Start with the word "however"

Then read the rest of the sentence.

In reality, chaos is unpredictable.

[spooked911]

407. that's what I said too

so what?

[HannibalCards]

408. I agree.

Spooked will never get it.

It's pointless trying any longer.

[spooked911]

410. WHAT TRYING?????????

YOU AND AZCAT AND CHADDYT AND LARED ETC HAVE NEVER TRIED TO REALLY EXPLAIN ANYTHING IN ANY DETAIL HERE.

SAYING "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND" AND "YOU JUST DON'T GET IT" ETC, ARE NOT EXPLANATIONS.

[AZCat]

411. Now they are.

Given the amount of time several of us have invested in you over the years, "you don't understand" and "you just don't get it" are more than sufficient responses.

[spooked911]

420. Look, AZCat

I am not dumb.

I respond to logic and reason.

When I am wrong, I can admit it, and I have done so here in the past.

Whatever you think you have invested in me, was bullshit. Particularly I find it hard to take that "investment" comment seriously when you say your comments to me are not for my benefit but are some lesson that are giving to someone else (though you won't explain that further).

[chaddyt]

416. That is because

we understand that looking for a detailed explanation for how a particular column of a building came to rest in a particular spot after a 757 had just slammed into it is not something one can determine by posting a few pictures and asking questions. We understand that, for me at least, the details are so laden with minutiae beyond my comprehension and skill set to understand, let alone try to explain.

That is the difference here between us and you, IMO. I am fully aware of the limits my of my knowledge when it comes to chaotic events like this. You, on the other hand, have convinced yourself you're capable of such a thing. The funny thing is, is that you have provided no more detailed a chain of events than any of the folks you just called out apart from "the wing root would've pushed it in further."

You still have not provided details about how those nukes were planted in the towers. Or the details on how the thousands of on-lookers in Lower Manhattan that day were fooled into thinking they saw a plane hit the South Tower. So please... Stop using all caps like a child and try to realize your limits.

[spooked911]

419. Actually

I have posted three possible scenarios for the central columns in the hole, and tried to get people to either support one or come up with a different one. The possibilities are not endless for what happened.

I couldn't get anyone to discuss any of these scenarios in detail, so I moved onto the wingroot thing. The wingroot issue is pretty black and white, as I have explained-- it should have blown that column away. But the column was still there.

So I have provided reasonably detailed chains of events, but haven't found anyone willing to discuss it.

I point out something, and the typical response is "you just don't get it, etc".

You guys say I don't understand chaos, but I think I do. I pulled up wikipedia on it that backed up what I said and you guys say "oh you're cherry-picking" or "You're lying", but don't bother to explain how I am wrong.

And so it goes.

As far as nukes being planted in the towers, how could I possibly know exactly how they did it? But the beauty of nukes for them is that extensive preparation would not be needed as relatively few devices are needed. A couple of secret operatives could have done it. And the towers underwent quite a bit of renovation before 9/11, which would have helped the perps.

As far as how people were fooled about the plane, I have talked about that EXTENSIVELY. The basic idea is that there were fly-by planes to fool witnesses, fake plane witnesses, and extensive video fakery.

As far as using all caps-- I got extremely frustrated with the ridiculous behavior of "Hannibal Cards". I can only take so much crap.

[chaddyt]

421. Are you serious??

You think you understand chaos because you looked it up on wikipedia?!?!?!!?

WOW

[spooked911]

423. I didn't say that or try to imply that

but nice try.

And nice to ignore everything else I wrote. Or are you tacitly agreeing with me?

[chaddyt]

424. What else was I to imply

from, "I looked it up on wikipedia"...?

And funny how you tell me "nice try" for apparently implying something to what you actually wrote and you go off assuming my tacit agreement just because I didn't respond to your nuke theory....

No, Spooked. You really have no need to assume I will ever agree with anything you say regarding 9/11. Just for future reference.

As you say... "nice try."

[spooked911]

426. What I wrote was that wiki backed up my understanding of chaos.

I thought that my words were clear.

The point is that I didn't simply understand chaos from reading wikipedia. OK?

But even if I did, so what????

You still haven't explained just what it was that I got wrong about chaos! Note, that means quoting me, and then showing what exactly I got wrong.

[chaddyt]

427. Ya' know what....

It's been stated here that trying to get you to understand things is an exercise in futility. No doubt you take those kinds of remarks as reinforcement of your beliefs.

So let's cut to the chase. No one on here has been able to prove you wrong to your satisfaction, so please Spooked.... What do you hope to accomplish here? Where does posting these theories on this forum fit into your plan of "exposing the truth"? And what's the next step?

You've been posting on here since 2004, and the "truth" about 9/11 has still not come to light. How are you gonna help rectify that so that the NWO doesn't pull something else over on the general public.

[spooked911]

428. I asked you something specific about my understanding of chaos and you haven't answered it.

Please answer my specific question about my understanding of chaos.

Thank you.

[chaddyt]

430. It was already pointed out to you.

Here... I'll bold it for you.

However, such perfect knowledge is never attainable in real life; slight errors are intrinsic to any physical measurement. In a chaotic system, these slight errors will give rise to results which differ wildly from the correct result.

Do you have perfect knowledge of the conditions of the crash? Are you immune from committing a slight error or two? 'Cause if you're that good, than I might suggest a career in meteorology, because the paragraph goes on...

A commonly used example is weather forecasting, which is only possible up to about a week ahead,<8> despite theoretically being perfectly possible at any level (ignoring the effects of the uncertainty principle).

Oh poop! So even WITH perfect knowledge, being able to exactly recreate the event is still monumentally unlikely.

Yet you sit there and claim that a column should not be where it is because of the wing-root.

KNOW. YOUR. LIMITS.

[spooked911]

433. I am aware of my limits, thanks.

Thanks for the explanation. There is unfortunately for you a problem with your criticism.

In the sentences you quoted, they are talking about forecasting a conclusion purely from starting positions. So of course, it would be difficult if not impossible to predict ahead of time exactly how the plane would interact with the building, how the columns would break, etc.

But my point is, and has been from the beginning-- we know the putative final position of the columns and where the plane went (it went in and disintegrated). Thus, we can reconstruct in a basic fashion, how things got broken, what putatively impacted what and where things ended up. Thus, the chaos of the situation is rendered effectively moot.

Why is this not clear?

[chaddyt]

435. Dude....

You are using the words "basic" and "chaos" in the same post and you wonder why people say you don't get it?

You are saying the plane went in and disintegrated. Since you apparently had eyes inside the towers that day, at what point did it disintegrate to where it no longer had any effect on the environment it was in? Did column 420 impact anything after the plane removed it from its previous position? If so, what did it strike? Same question goes for column 421, 422, 423, 424, 425,426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, as well as 419, 418, 417, 416, 415, 414, 413, 412, 411, 410....? Keep in mind the impact zones spans a couple floors as well, so please also account for the floor spans, floor contents, etc. as well. Let's also not forget the subsequent explosion from the impact (bombs/nukes, whatever). They also must've had some effect on the resulting resting place of what we see.

So please... basically explain that for us real quick since "chaos is rendered effectively moot".

[spooked911]

436. Dude-- you're grasping at straws.

So what if I used "the words "basic" and "chaos" in the same post"???

The only eyes I had were the pictures I've shown and the videos we've all seen.

If it disintegrated upon contact, there should have been a huge amount of deflected debris, and there wouldn't be a plane-shaped hole. So it disintegrated inside.

The rest of your questions are not relevant to the anomalies I am speaking of here.

Chaos-- as I said, we know the final damage.

In a weather prediction chaos scenario, you are saying it is impossible to predict exactly where a storm will go in say 48 hours. Yes, I agree.

I am saying the storm has already passed. Now we need to figure out whether the damage we see on the ground was from storm 1 or storm 2. It's a totally different type of calculation. We have the damage-- and we have videos of storms passing through. Is the damage consistent with a tornado or an electrical storm? See? Chaos, is not the issue anymore.

[chaddyt]

439. No...

You're making shit up as you go.

You go from using the legitimate weather prediction example and moving the goalposts to the "destruction" X number of storms may or may not have caused.

You do this because you do not grasp the concept of chaos (or are just ignoring it because it doesn't conform to your world view).

[spooked911]

440. you do understand that the hole was the end result of "chaos", right?

In the evidence I am looking at-- the hole-- chaos has run its course. Chaos is much more of a factor for predicting events, not for figuring what happened later.

Is this really so hard to understand?

[chaddyt]

443. So if the hole was a result of chaos

explain to me why chaos would not be a good way of trying to determine (if one could actually grasp the concept and multitude of variables involved) why we see what we see in that picture? Why would chaos not apply in attempting to recreate what we see?

It's a science that can be used both ways.

For those that understand it anyway.

[spooked911]

445. That is because we don't have to determine what MIGHT happen

i.e. all the possible outcomes of the collision.

We only need to figure out if what happened-- the creation of the hole and the destruction of the plane-- is plausible, particularly within the framework of the videos showing the plane go in.

[chaddyt]

446. Typical...

... that you would rely on YouTube videos rather than actual science.

[spooked911]

448. I'm relying on the evidence we have!

If you have better quality videos, I'd love to see them!!!!!!!!!

Glad you're finally conceding the silly chaos argument. :P

[AZCat]

450. The chaos "argument" isn't silly...

It's just apparently beyond your comprehension.

[spooked911]

456. I have asked for someone to explain how it is useful and I have not seen the explanation yet

How can I comprehend something that isn't presented to me?

Again, you can't simply invoke chaos and say that the official story is true because of chaos. Even chaotic events follow physical laws.

[AZCat]

459. I don't think you have the capacity to understand it.

Regardless, nobody here has "simply invoke{d} chaos and {said} that the official story is true because of chaos." The "official story" (whatever that is) is most likely true because it is the best explanation for events and is based on an overwhelming amount of evidence. Chaos merely helps us understand minor details.

[spooked911]

460. I understand things VERY well.

Thanks.

[SDuderstadt]

461. Really, Spooked?

If you didn't, how would you know?

[spooked911]

465. I can see what is happening here

of course the same question can be asked of you, as I'm sure you also think you understand all this.

[SDuderstadt]

469. Listen, Spooked...

your whole silly "no-planes" premise can be destroyed with two simple questions you cannot remotely answer:

1st, how could the live witnesses possibly have seen the "fake planes" you're yammering about and, secondly, why is there ZERO video that shows either of the Towers explode into flames WITHOUT being hit by a plane, dude?

Again, this is why you're regarded by almost everyone here as an inside joke.

[spooked911]

470. I have answered those before

You simply choose to ignore my answers.

Btw, your first question doesn't really make sense-- what do you mean "fake plane"? I have said there was no plane hitting the towers but there was a flyby plane that witnesses saw.

[AZCat]

463. Nope, you don't.

You forget I've witnesses several years of your posts here on DU and have read your blog. I'm very aware of your limitations.

[spooked911]

466. as I am very aware

of your obfuscating abilities

[AZCat]

468. Obfuscation? No.

Just a simple refusal to continue to engage in technical discussion with a poster who has repeatedly shown an inability to hold up his end.

[spooked911]

471. "hold up his end"

perhaps you could given an example where you made a technical point and I didn't "hold up" my end?

[spooked911]

472. You can't think of an example?

I'm not surprised.

[AZCat]

473. I've been a little busy, spooked.

There should be a number of examples, but I'm not going to go back through our history and find them all. One recent example should suffice, considering it deals directly with your pet theory.

[spooked911]

474. hmm, that was a funny one--

you disputed an official claim about a nuke test that had nothing to do with one of my claims about 9/11.

I'm not sure if your numbers were accurate, as you didn't give a citation. I can't find that kJ value for vaporizing steel myself.

Even if your numbers were correct, which I am not sure of as I can't find the reference, I would guess that the definition of vaporization was different for the Trinity test than the chemical definition. Which only means that vaporizing steel by a nuclear bomb is defined differently than the chemical definition.

Nonetheless, I was surprised you were challenging a non-conspiracy nuke citation. I didn't even try to challenge your numbers but I am happy to as I am curious where you got the figures from.

[AZCat]

475. Not really that funny.

The claim is from www.nuclearweaponarchive.org, which (as far as I know) is not an "official" site. I'll look through my library of nuclear weapon-related books to see if I can find any official quotes that sound similar, but I'm not making it a priority (since it's your claim anyway).

I'll find the sources for my numbers, although I'm surprised someone with a doctorate in biology and a bachelor's degree in biochemistry can't find the specific heat of vaporization of iron or the amount of energy stored in one tonne (equivalent) of TNT.

[spooked911]

478. what IS kind of funny is that if you google "steel vaporization"

the top hits are my blog.

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=steel+vaporization&btnG=Google+Search

:)

actually, this comment at that hit is very relevant here:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=720

NEU-FONZE
Posted: Feb 23 2007, 06:29 PM

The energy to "dustify" iron depends on the particle size you want to reduce the iron to. Very roughly I estimate ~ 0.7 kJ per kg for 1 micron iron dust or 0.7 MJ per kg for 1 nanometer iron dust. (This is consistent with the vaporization energy of 7 MJ per kg because vaporization is equivalent to atomization and the atomic radius of iron is about 0.1 nm)

So, if you want to vaporize 1 tonne of WTC steel during a tower collapse it would require about 7000 MJ of input energy in 10 seconds or an input power of 700 Megawatts per tonne!. That's the electrical energy output of a typical nuclear power station for 10 seconds, JUST TO VAPORIZE ONE TONNE of structural steel!

As for "dustification" the numbers are, of course, a little better, but you still need a mechanism to fracture steel rather than bend it. I believe there WAS fracturing, but mostly of the bolts or welds at the column splices.

[AZCat]

480. I'll try to find a way to check these numbers.

So we're looking at 0.7 kJ/kg for 1 micron, and 0.7 MJ/kg for 1 nanometer. At ~4.2 kJ/tonne TNT, your fizzled nuke (200 T) is worth about 1200 kg of 1 micron iron dust, or about 1.2 kg of 1 nanometer iron dust.

[AZCat]

476. Ok, for the google-less posters here's some references.

Densities of various solids, including iron

Heat of vaporization for various solids, including iron

Description of one tonne equivalent TNT

I hope you are capable of doing the conversions yourself. If not, then you are in far worse shape than I thought.

[spooked911]

477. Your calculations are basically similar to mine

that was not the point. The point was that the non-CT source said the tower was vaporized in the nuke test.

So yes, your numbers indicate the tower was not vaporized in the strict chemical sense.

The steel tower was clearly blasted into very small pieces by the nuke. I'm not sure this really changes a whole lot relating to my original point.

[AZCat]

479. Except that wasn't your original answer.

You waved your hands and pretended there was some sort of other mechanism that you didn't know anything about but were willing to grant the capacity for tremendous things. You've been claiming vaporization, and there is no evidence for vaporization either at the WTC or in the (admittedly simple) calculations.

[spooked911]

481. I didn't pretend there was some other mechanism!

I grant you that there was not much in the way of chemical vaporization. Along with that Trinity reference, I was using a more general definition of vaporization:
2 : to cause to become dissipated
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaporization

There's still no doubt that the WTC was extensively "dissipated" by nukes.

[AZCat]

482. Except you have no evidence of that.

Regardless whether or not nukes (or more specifically, nukes the size you're hypothesizing) could cause that sort of damage, you're missing a whole lot of associated evidence.

[spooked911]

483. Associated evidence such as what?

Please tell.

[spooked911]

484. When you have time

I'd really like to know what you were referring to. Thanks.

[chaddyt]

464. ::: sigh :::

If only we lived in a world where typing things on the internet (SOMETIMES EVEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS) made them true.

Unfortunately, we do not.

[spooked911]

467. thank you

have a nice day

[chaddyt]

452. Where the hell

do you get that I'm "conceding" the chaos argument???

You yourself said that a plane flying into a building is a chaotic event. But for some crazy, messed up reason, you'd rather just watch TV on the internet than admit that chaos and science just might be a better means of determining what happened that day.

Much easier to peddle ridiculous theories that way I guess.

[spooked911]

455. But as I said, chaos isn't so useful when we have the end result.

Is the damage consistent with a Boeing 767 going in a 540 mph with essentially no deceleration and nothing breaking apart and deflecting as it goes in?

[chaddyt]

458. Yep.

It is.

[spooked911]

462. Obviously I disagree

and I guess we're at the point where nothing I can show you will have an effect on you.

[spooked911]

429. as to your questions

we've discussed this on my blog.

One reason I come here and continue arguing with you guys is that I am fascinated by your tactics and it still amazes me how efficiently you and the other OCTists evade the majority of the issues of substance regarding 9/11.

Now, if you'll kindly answer exactly what it was that I got wrong about chaos that got your panties in a twist, maybe we can get somewhere.

But I won't hold my breath.

[chaddyt]

431. That's all well and good

But how is your fascination with our "tactics" going to prevent the next false flag op.

I'm workin' on one for when I'm in Indianapolis this summer.


.... it's gonna be a DOOZIE!!

[spooked911]

432. eh?

What are you working on exactly? And why Indianapolis?

[chaddyt]

434. If I told you...

... it wouldn't be much of a false flag, would it??

Consider that a lesson learned after we accidentally published our little 9/11 operation in that Northwoods fiasco.

And I've been assigned Indianapolis due to it's vulnerability and Middle America-ness. Gunning for early to mid-August, but it's hard to really plan for these things. When ya' gotta go, ya' gotta go.

[spooked911]

437. Ha ha, it is SO freaking hilarious

when people who say they aren't govt agents go and act like secret govt agents. Oh, I just love that. Awesome.

[chaddyt]

438. So which is it?

Am I a government agent, or just pretending to be one?

[spooked911]

441. How should I know?

Why don't you tell me?

[chaddyt]

442. Because you wouldn't believe me one way or the other....

[spooked911]

444. true

but you could still go "on the record" about it.

[chaddyt]

447. On the record??

You're of the mind that some mysterious, shadowy organization is responsible for murdering thousands on 9/11 and that I may or may not be working for said mysterious, shadowy organization...

... and you think that I'd go "on the record" on some internet forum about a false flag operation that I may or may not be planning??

Don't you think if I did, I'd be a pretty shitty government shill?

[spooked911]

449. well, then you could simply deny it

"on the record"

[chaddyt]

453. Nah...

... I could be a lot of things, but I wouldn't want to give the impression I'm a liar.

[spooked911]

454. why would you give that impression?

Especially if you were telling the truth?

[chaddyt]

457. Exactly...

[AZCat]

396. I'm not wasting our time.

I'm making sure anyone else browsing the thread sees how poorly supported your theories are.

By the way - you need to pay better attention when quoting sources, especially if they don't support your arguments.

[spooked911]

397. for your multitude of posts in this thread,

95% of them have been a complete waste of time, as you mostly give vague contrary posts like this one. I think there were two posts you made that actually had some useful information. But mostly getting anything from you is like pulling teeth.

"By the way - you need to pay better attention when quoting sources, especially if they don't support your arguments."

That is totally worthless to me without more explanation.

IF YOU THINK YOU ARE RIGHT, TAKE THE TIME TO EXPLAIN WHY!!!!!!!

Thanks.

[AZCat]

402. My posts are not generally for your benefit.

So it is not surprising you don't find them enlightening. I've tried to discuss technical matters with you in the past and all attempts were for naught.

That is totally worthless to me without more explanation.

It would be totally worthless to you with more explanation.

[spooked911]

403. and so the tooth pulling continues

"My posts are not generally for your benefit."

What is this then? Some sort of lesson for other OCTists in how to obfuscate and stall and waste my time?

[chaddyt]

405. Wasting your time?

I'm sorry... is this little internet forum the last thing standing in your way of breaking out TEH REAL TRUTH ABOUT 9/11!!?!?!

Please, Spooked.... You can carry on with whatever ludicrous ideas keep popping into your head, but lets not get all melodramatic about the importance of what it is that's posted here. If you're actually coming on an internet forum to "solve 9/11", you have bigger problems than I first imagined.

[spooked911]

412. First, I wasn't talking to you.

Second, you misunderstand.

My whole point in coming here is to try and test my ideas against you and your ilk. I want to see if you guys have a good rebuttal against my points.

All of you have failed, because saying "I don't get it" is NOT the same as trying to explain why I am wrong. If you want me to stop this thread, simply take the time to show how I am wrong, in detail.

[AZCat]

413. Why would we do that...

when taking the time to explain things to you has not worked out well in the past?

[spooked911]

417. WHEN

did you ever "explain things" to me before?

[chaddyt]

415. Oh, my bad...

Here I was thinking it was a public forum. I must've missed the part where you specified who you were "talking to".

And since we've all failed, and your ideas are all air-tight, then I have to ask why are you still here "testing them"? If DU is some sort of "proving ground" for your photographic analysis and theories, then what's the next step? Who will you take your solid broken column theory to next?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[spooked911]

418. well, you keep saying I am wrong--

so I hang around trying to figure what I am wrong about. And I keep getting disappointed.

But hope springs eternal that one of you will actually explain the problem in my theory in some detail.

[chaddyt]

422. So either this is all a game to you

or you're a liar who has no desire to ever take his theories beyond the relative safety of the internet.

You said you looked at this forum like a "proving ground" which, according to you, has been unable to prove any of your theories false. You say we dance around the subject with one-liners and ad homs but never give details.

Maybe we can't, Spooked! Oh my gosh, maybe you've won!!! Maybe your theories ARE legitimate and we're just scared and in awe of your cognitive capacity!!! .... Why do you stay here then?

I'm guessing you're running into the exact same scenario with any other forums you're posting your theories on. No details. Snide comments. People telling you you're nuts. But no concrete rebuttal to what you've exposed.

Wouldn't you say it's time to take that next step??

[jberryhill]

425. Lol

You have no idea.

Welcome to DU.

This subforum on DU is a critical beach head in our efforts to contain the TRUTH from breaking out into the world.

[chaddyt]

349. Again...

You're confusing what YOU, in your limited understanding of basic physics, feel you should've seen with how the real world works. See Lared's crashing test tube and look up Newton's Law of Inertia for more information on reality.

As far as your "damn good case" goes, I'd be willing to agree with that label if more than a handful of people actually took it seriously. Normally when one has a "damn good case" they take it to court. It's also commonly referred to as a "Slam dunk." You're sitting here posting on the internet about what you believe to be the greatest cover-up of mass murder since we as a human race started taking notes. That, in my mind, makes you no better than the people you claim carried out this "false flag".

I would have much more respect for you if you at least had the courage of your convictions and took your "damn good case" to the authorities. But I know what you'll say... they were in on it too, right?

[spooked911]

351. Apparently, I am not the one with a poor understanding of physics, if you think Lared's crashing

test tube cartoon is in any way applicable to the physics of the WTC hit.

As far as doing something about the no-planes issue-- taking it to the authorities-- that is rather more complicated than you seem to realize-- and we've been over this before anyway.

[Name removed]

352. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

308. Wouldn't it just be easier to admit...

you cannot provide the math, Spooked? I mean, it's not like anyone had high expectations of your abilities...

[spooked911]

309. what part of "basic logic" do you not understand?

more complex math is not required.

but thanks for trying to understand-- assuming you tried.

[SDuderstadt]

268. Why don't you threaten to kill one OP per hour until....

Lared answers your question. After you kill this one, I have several candidates for the next executions.

[AZCat]

247. He didn't admit that at all.

It's just not an explanation that satisfies you, but I don't think any of us really cares about that. You've proven time and time again how poor your understanding of physics is, so your disagreement with us is easily dismissed.

[spooked911]

248. of course he did

He said quote "There is no specific explanation."

[OnTheOtherHand]

253. so if "specific" means nothing whatsoever, you've made your point!!1!

Otherwise, you've just given us another reason to resort to animated emoticons: :eyes:

[LARED]

254. After I figure out what this means, I can maybe respond

Randomness should still follow basic logic and basic physics.

:shrug::shrug:

[OnTheOtherHand]

220. speak for yourself :) n/t

[LARED]

208. a possible "sequence of events"

On 9/11 2001, plane impacts building at high rate of speed --> Plane goes through building, breaking lots of stuff in it path ---> Plane entered building, spraying fuel all over the place, fuel ignites in fireball --> Stuff in and part of building is broken, mashed, knocked, pushed, shoved, all over the place from impact and fireball -------> Stuff falls, drops, bounced, crashed ,etc, etc, into the area in question as the dust settles ----> eight years later Spooked scratched his head in bewilderment at his epiphany that the hole was not perfectly formed as he believes it should have been -----> weeks later Spooked has his panties in a bunch and can't figure out why no one takes this inquiry seriously. -----> one year later Spooked still kicks up this post looking for answers. -----------> 4 billion years later spooked (in an afterlife) is still bewildered as sun goes supernova and life ends in this corner of the universe.

[SDuderstadt]

210. I think you're giving Spooked...

far too much credit.

[spooked911]

212. Great, could you please back up to the second part?

"Plane goes through building, breaking lots of stuff in it path"

Why is it so hard to give a more detailed mechanism? You are willing to write out this nonsense about me, but then aren't willing to engage a serious question. I have written possible mechanisms out here earlier, so you don't even have to come up with your own, but merely pick one of mine. Yet you won't. You'd rather spend time writing up nonsense like this. You people are too much.

[LARED]

214. Are you serious? You want me to back up this statement

"Plane goes through building, breaking lots of stuff in it path"

I would suggest this link

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLJ&defl=en&q=define:self+evident&ei=8XHrStiYOdKrlAenpMH_BA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAoQkAE

[AZCat]

196. Not all things are accessible to all people. n/t

[spooked911]

170. In the top photo, the key issue is what is in the central hole

If it is a set of outer wall columns, this really makes no sense with a plane passing through in the manner shown in the videos. But conceivably, the debris in the central hole-- though it looks very much like outer wall columns-- is something else, perhaps a collapsed floor.

Any thoughts on this?

[spooked911]

173. so either there is a really simple explanation for this or there isn't.

If there is a simple explanation, I'd appreciate hearing it, and then I'd appreciate if the person could defend their answer if I ask a follow-up question.

If there is not a simple explanation, why is no one taking this seriously?

[chaddyt]

174. My thought...

... is that you cannot imagine something that YOU don't feel to be possible to have actually happened without some sort of extraneous, mysterious, outside force. Now, I don't know what makes you an authority on the debris pattern of 757s that have passed through a structure like the Twin Towers, but somewhere along your life, you've convinced yourself you are. Good for you.

But in the real world, people are usually humble enough to admit that they have no idea why a particular section of columns came to rest at a particular spot. They don't pretend to look at two pictures, pick out what they feel is an "anomaly", and see nothing but conspiracy.

I'm still waiting on your explanation as to why you'd expect to see this picture as the result of bombs and beams....

[spooked911]

175. Hello

I never claimed to be an "authority". I have found what I think is an anomaly and then have been asking questions. The problem is that no one seems to be able to defend the official story. Mostly what I have gotten are attacks on me and my motives.

There is no doubt 9/11 was a conspiracy, and hundreds of reasons to think the official story is false. This debris-filled hole in WTC2 is just one piece of a much larger puzzle.

I have laid out my thinking on why the hole is suspicious a few times on this thread, but I will repeat it here if it helps you.


Possible explanations for the debris-filled hole--

1) a plane smashed into the tower and punched the columns upward like a garage door flipping up. After the plane goes through, the columns fall down into the hole.

Problems: the "garage door" breakage pattern is highly unlikely at best, as 1) the action is highly asymmetric and the initial breakage is significantly removed from the impact point, and 2) flipping whole sets of outer columns upwards and inwards means two or more floors are pushed in and broken in, which greatly increases the overall resistance-- while the plane slid in without resistance.

2) a plane smashed into the tower and punched the columns inwards as the plane goes inwards-- then as the plane blows up and disintegrates, the columns get pushed back into the entry hole.

Problems: highly unlikely the plane blows up with enough force to propel the columns backwards and intact, and highly unlikely that the columns would be propelled perfectly backwards. Additionally, the columns would be in front of the plane as it blew up and an explosion would push the columns more forward.

3) a plane smashed into the tower and punched the columns slightly inwards as the plane breaks apart and goes inwards around the columns. The columns don't move much after the initial displacement.

Problem: highly unlikely the plane is going to bisect around these columns after initially displacing them-- if the plane is going to break up completely around the columns during the initial collision, it would have had problems breaking the columns away in the first place. There also should have been much more deflection of debris backwards from the initial collision-- which was not seen in the videos and no large piece of the plane were found outside of WTC2 on the entry side.

4) explosives carefully placed on the outside of the towers in the shape of the plane hole-- they blow a large chunk of columns slightly inwards, and the fall into the hole.

Problem: powerful explosives have to be placed very precisely, without being detected, on the outside of the towers. This could be done by operatives posing as window washers.

I'd be happy to hear your explanation of what happen, and then I would appreciate if you could defend your position from a few questions.

[HannibalCards]

176. One frame from a video

How are you sure those are even columns? How long after impact is this shot? Looks like internal debris and exterior cladding from my PoV.

Also, just playing devil's advocate here, but why go to all the trouble of rigging the outside of the building with explosives? Why not just fly a plane into it?

[spooked911]

177. I showed two pictures, not one, and there are other images of the hole as well

The time after impact does not seem to be relevant as no one has ever claimed the hole shifted significantly with time.

I don't see cladding in the hole. And I am not sure what you mean by internal debris. Those big things in the central hole look like columns to me-- size-wise and shape-wise.

In any case, we have a LOT of debris clogging the hole through which a plane supposedly passed at massive speed, with no real slowing, no explosion on impact, no deflected plane debris, and no real mechanism to explain it. My point is a real plane would have behaved differently.

There are several reasons why the perps would use explosives instead of a real plane--

1) guaranteed hit in the right spot, no risk of missing
2) guaranteed complete penetration, no risk of major aircraft parts coming off and being identified as being the wrong plane
3) psy-op aspect with video fakery

[spooked911]

178. so many anomalies

[spooked911]

180. Cataloging the WTC2 Hole Anomalies, Part 1

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/10/catalogue-of-wtc2-hole-anomalies-part-1.html

[spooked911]

181. OK, here

Notes on the numbered circles:
1. Large debris, apparently outer steel columns, are clogging the main hole. How could a plane smash inwards here without slowing, and not push these inwards more?
2. Indentation supposedly made by the tail of the plane -- where did the tail go? It couldn't have gone in.
3. This is where the port horizontal stabilizer would have impacted-- but no mark is here. Where did this large piece of the plane go? It couldn't have gone in.
4. This little hole is supposedly where the engine went in
5. This large and very irregular hole is supposedly where the outer part of the wing smashed in the wall-- why is it so much larger than where the engine hit?
6. This line of indentations supposedly marks where the wingtip hit. But if you extend this line of wing towards the center hole, the wing should have knocked in more of the region on the upper part of circle 4.

[spooked911]

182. so the engine makes a little neat hole but the outer wing smashes in a large irregular

hole?

[LARED]

179. KIck for giggles. nt

[thepeopleunited]

231. It is exceedingly odd, yes.

It's possible that some kind of weaponized cutter flew in there, but it sure as hell wasn't any jumbo jet.

[SDuderstadt]

232. Dude....

where did all the jetliner parts come from then?

[chaddyt]

233. NNGTs

Neocon Ninja Garbage Trucks. They were all over downtown that morning, disguised as RPGTs (Regular People Garbage Trucks). Since there's nothing really going on in the mornings in that part of town and the area is barely populated, they ninjas had no trouble whatsoever unloading their jetliner cargo at certain spots to strengthen the illusion of a plane crash.

Little did the ninjas know, that years later, people like spooked would have access to high-tech tools like teh interwebs and Microsoft Paint to circle "anamolies" of "photos" taken from that "day" to show conclusive proof that we were fed a bold and seemingly impossible-to-pull-off story of planes crashing into buildings. In reality, it was much simpler, though no less nefarious.

Beam weapons. Mini-nukes. A sundry of other unheard of or appropriate weaponry. Holographic planes. Thousands of conspirators who would agree to never talk. Etc., etc., etc.,.....

[thepeopleunited]

235. So that's what happened to the luggage and seats.

Thanks for filling us in.

[SDuderstadt]

238. "Truther Logic"

Luggage and seats should uniformly survive a plane being smashed into a building...

[thepeopleunited]

240. Call it an inconvenient question

without a convenient answer.

[vincent_vega_lives]

273. You are McLovin

:toast: :hug: :loveya:

[thepeopleunited]

234. What jetliner parts?

I don't see any in the photo.

[SDuderstadt]

239. This question is so stupid...

it deserves no answer.

[thepeopleunited]

241. Inconvenient questions are never easy to answer

but one expects an effort.

[SDuderstadt]

242. Why don't you make one then?

Your personal incredulity is not a bar to the truth.

[Name removed]

274. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

414. Can we move the thread over here?

It getting hard to follow.

Spooked. Never give up. The answers are out there.

[AZCat]

451. There's nothing substantial going on anyway.

Just spooked repeatedly misunderstanding physics and engineering.

[ryan_cats]

485. Hell, I'll kick it just to see where this goes...

Hell, I'll kick it just to see where this goes...

I do like the bombs that cause the columns to explode outward. The fact that anyone could type with a straight face that there were explosives placed outside the columns to make them bend inward is incredible. That and the hush-a-boom technology means America is still #1! Let's see some other country come up with a hush-a-boom nuclear device, ha! USA!USA!

[spooked911]

486. I've been asking for an explanation of what I have gotten wrong

but the best you all can come up with is "chaos", which is total hand-waving.

[spooked911]

487. still waiting for an explanation besides "chaos"

http://ghostplane.blogspot.com/2006/06/i-call-bullshit-frames-from-here-which.html

[LARED]

488. Kicked so Spooked may finally get an answer - nt

[spooked911]

489. thanks but

1) you could actually try, to you know, answer it
2) I won't hold my breath

[SDuderstadt]

490. This has been answered multiple times, dude...

your inability to grasp things right in front of you is why you're the object of such derision here, Spooked.

[spooked911]

491. show me the post where someone explained a specific mechanism for how the columns ended up there,

dude.

Note, chaos is not a specific mechanism.

[SDuderstadt]

492. Dude...

this is pointless...nothing will penetrate your "this doesn't look right to me" defensive shield. This is why no one takes you seriously. It's like Tom Cruise as Charlie Babbit trying to explain to Dustin Hoffman as Raymond (Rainman) Babbitt that "who's on 1st?" isn't a riddle. dude.

Again, this is why no one takes you seriously. You're like a conversation piece.

[spooked911]

494. what seems to be pointless

is getting a specific explanation from any of you.

[SDuderstadt]

495. You mean like your "specific explanation" elsewhere...

where you simply declare that "no laws of physics are broken", dude?

Nice game you've got going.

[spooked911]

493. if it was answered "multiple times"

surely you can show me one time.

[SDuderstadt]

496. Jesus, Spooked....

read the fucking answers. The only one who seems not to get it is you and a few others who suffer from the same delusions.

Maybe you should take this up with Sy Hersh and ask him why he's not taking up your cause, dude.