The Truth about 9/11
I have proven that the collapse of the twin towers could not possible be true. I have been participating in a forum online called the screw loose change forum (google it), and it has taken me three or 4 days to come up with this. I have already sent you links to a few of the threads dealing with the lateral ejections of debris. Now, obviously I need to work this up more, incorporate pictures and whatnot,
This is my post, follow the logic. 
Occam's razor sugests that in the case of competing theories, the simplest explanation is the one that is most likely correct. But wait, "Cheney could never be responsible for this- they would't do such a thing? How could the media cover it up? 3 people can keep a secret if one of them is dead."
You're right. Science, logic, inductive and inferential reasoning have no place. Deductive reasoning trumps all that. Theories should proceed facts. Sorry. I forget. Nevermind.
Listen. There is a reason that the 9/11 truth movement exists. I have just proven that the collapse of the towers couldn't have possibly happened. If you find my reasoning sound, and you don't like the idea of elements of our government being responsible, if you feel that society needs shaking up, then I suggest that this be forwarded to everyone that you know. Soon I will be making this is a little better with pictures. But I suggest that you search google for the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) which is out of the University of Buffalo, NY. Find their study on the damage to the surrounding buildings. Download the CNN video and watch it. Prove me wrong. I dare you to try.
I have proven that the collapse of the twin towers could not possible be true. I have been participating in a forum online called the screw loose change forum (google it), and it has taken me three or 4 days to come up with this. I have already sent you links to a few of the threads dealing with the lateral ejections of debris. Now, obviously I need to work this up more, incorporate pictures and whatnot,
This is my post, follow the logic.
here is a link to the cnn video- http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/tower1_dust_cloud_afterglow.mpg
here is a link to the thread- http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1167
I suggest forwarding this to everyone that you know.
These modules weigh and estimated 8,000 lbs and they are about 400 and 600 feet away, give or take.
------
There is a problem with every analogy that tries to look at this. They all fail because what we see could not possibily have occured in a gravity powered collapse. I urge everyone to download the CNN Video. What we see here, when we see these fountains of debris, is a singular event. Can we prove that it was a singular event, no? It is hard to "prove" anything. But we can certainly infer that from looking at the video. In other words, if this was not a singular event, then it was multiple events that came together and looked like one.
Its a matter of inferential reasoning. The debunkers need to be able to explain one of two things. 1) If this was in fact in a singular event, then what aspects of the buildings collapse and design could produce the fountains of debris and the lateral ejections that sent steel modules off 500+ feet into the distance. It is alleged that gravity could be responsible for this. But lets remember that the buildings were 1350 feet tall. 2) screw two- just follow the rest of my logic.
Here is a simple thought experiment. Draw a vertical line 13.5 centimeters tall. At the buttom of that line draw a horizontal line 5 centimeteres across. (and it has been alleged that modules made it as far as 600 feet, so I am using a conservative figure here) Now draw a line from the very top (and we clearly see from the video that this fountan did not occur at the very top (so I am actually making it easier on the official side), down to the end. Now obviously objects in flight do not fall in a straight line, they fall in an arc, but that point is absolutely irrelevant. Now draw line at the base of our imaginary tower in the opposite direction. In the CNN video (at around 43 seconds) we can clearly see pieces falling this way as well. And now plot an axis coming towards you, are figure out the distance from the north tower, and draw a line that represents the debris that can be seen in the video stricking WTC7.
Some force other than gravity is at play here. It has been alleged that steel behaves elastically, that steel, when stressed, is capable of loading its energy into a single point, and that is called the stress point. This is quite true. And if the stress is released, the energy that is loaded into the point needs to find a release. This is the principal behind a rubber band. When a rubber band is pulled back its energy becomes stored at the stress point, and when you fire it, it shoots off from that point. But the pieces of steel that landed in the Winter Garden are not steel beams, but steel modules. The stress is not loaded into a single point, but across the various load-bearing aspects of the module. If enough force was loaded into these modules, would the stess point become more sharply defined, or would it snap at one of the connections?
(this absurd elasticity idea is the best that anyone has been able to come up with)
------
There is a problem with every analogy that tries to look at this. They all fail because what we see could not possibily have occured in a gravity powered collapse. I urge everyone to download the CNN Video. What we see here, when we see these fountains of debris, is a singular event. Can we prove that it was a singular event, no? It is hard to "prove" anything. But we can certainly infer that from looking at the video. In other words, if this was not a singular event, then it was multiple events that came together and looked like one.
Its a matter of inferential reasoning. The debunkers need to be able to explain one of two things. 1) If this was in fact in a singular event, then what aspects of the buildings collapse and design could produce the fountains of debris and the lateral ejections that sent steel modules off 500+ feet into the distance. It is alleged that gravity could be responsible for this. But lets remember that the buildings were 1350 feet tall. 2) screw two- just follow the rest of my logic.
Here is a simple thought experiment. Draw a vertical line 13.5 centimeters tall. At the buttom of that line draw a horizontal line 5 centimeteres across. (and it has been alleged that modules made it as far as 600 feet, so I am using a conservative figure here) Now draw a line from the very top (and we clearly see from the video that this fountan did not occur at the very top (so I am actually making it easier on the official side), down to the end. Now obviously objects in flight do not fall in a straight line, they fall in an arc, but that point is absolutely irrelevant. Now draw line at the base of our imaginary tower in the opposite direction. In the CNN video (at around 43 seconds) we can clearly see pieces falling this way as well. And now plot an axis coming towards you, are figure out the distance from the north tower, and draw a line that represents the debris that can be seen in the video stricking WTC7.
Some force other than gravity is at play here. It has been alleged that steel behaves elastically, that steel, when stressed, is capable of loading its energy into a single point, and that is called the stress point. This is quite true. And if the stress is released, the energy that is loaded into the point needs to find a release. This is the principal behind a rubber band. When a rubber band is pulled back its energy becomes stored at the stress point, and when you fire it, it shoots off from that point. But the pieces of steel that landed in the Winter Garden are not steel beams, but steel modules. The stress is not loaded into a single point, but across the various load-bearing aspects of the module. If enough force was loaded into these modules, would the stess point become more sharply defined, or would it snap at one of the connections?
(this absurd elasticity idea is the best that anyone has been able to come up with)
The big bang theory holds that because all things in the universe are observed to be moving apart, all things in the universe were at one point in time together, and this point is called a singularity. Watch the video of the demolition. Think of the the dust clouds in this fountaion of debris as representing the flow of energy. Are the dust clouds all moving apart from each? Are you going to now challenge our basic understanding of the universe?
At one point in time all of the energy that we can see represented in the fountain was once together. A massive explosion then caused what we all see. Once again, this is called inferential reasoning, it is not a conspiracy theory; it is logic and science.
There is a reason why the official theory is unable to model the collapse. It is because they do not understand that there was a massive explosion that created the fountains of debris that we see. At this point in time we must abandon the official theory for the collapse of the Twin Towers. We need to seek a new hypothesis. This is what we do as scientists and as people who think logically. Are there alternative hypothesis? Well, of course there are. Perhaps it was disaffected Cubans, or the Soviets, or the Mafia who were responsible for the massive explosion.
At one point in time all of the energy that we can see represented in the fountain was once together. A massive explosion then caused what we all see. Once again, this is called inferential reasoning, it is not a conspiracy theory; it is logic and science.
There is a reason why the official theory is unable to model the collapse. It is because they do not understand that there was a massive explosion that created the fountains of debris that we see. At this point in time we must abandon the official theory for the collapse of the Twin Towers. We need to seek a new hypothesis. This is what we do as scientists and as people who think logically. Are there alternative hypothesis? Well, of course there are. Perhaps it was disaffected Cubans, or the Soviets, or the Mafia who were responsible for the massive explosion.
(there is no official theory for this. People on the forum that I have on have been floundering with psuedoscience and conjecture to try and explain this) The reason why the offical theory cannot model the collapse has nothing to do with "chaos theory" does the energy flow represented in the fountains look chaotic to you?)
Occam's razor sugests that in the case of competing theories, the simplest explanation is the one that is most likely correct. But wait, "Cheney could never be responsible for this- they would't do such a thing? How could the media cover it up? 3 people can keep a secret if one of them is dead."
You're right. Science, logic, inductive and inferential reasoning have no place. Deductive reasoning trumps all that. Theories should proceed facts. Sorry. I forget. Nevermind.
Listen. There is a reason that the 9/11 truth movement exists. I have just proven that the collapse of the towers couldn't have possibly happened. If you find my reasoning sound, and you don't like the idea of elements of our government being responsible, if you feel that society needs shaking up, then I suggest that this be forwarded to everyone that you know. Soon I will be making this is a little better with pictures. But I suggest that you search google for the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) which is out of the University of Buffalo, NY. Find their study on the damage to the surrounding buildings. Download the CNN video and watch it. Prove me wrong. I dare you to try.
Here we see the location of the Winter Garden in relationship to WTC1.
2 comments:
Hi, guantanamera121212
не факт
Post a Comment