Conspiracy Theories are true! mmm not so much?...

1) Physics, in reality, is messy and chaotic.

Our 'Intuitive Physics' (how we expect things to work) only tracks real physics to a very limited extent. The mere fact that it appears to "defy the law of physics" is comparable to a plane appearing to 'defy' gravity.

2) "There's no way it could have made the whole tower fall onto themselves like they did"

Again, why do you think this? Because it's not what you would intuitively expect to happen?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_physics

  On 2/2/2016 at 5:43 PM, LimpyLoo said:

1) Physics, in reality, is messy and chaotic.

Our 'Intuitive Physics' (how we expect things to work) only tracks real physics to a very limited extent. The mere fact that it appears to "defy the law of physics" is comparable to a plane appearing to 'defy' gravity.

 

2) "There's no way it could have made the whole tower fall onto themselves like they did"

 

Again, why do you think this? Because it's not what you would intuitively expect to happen?

Laws of physics are choatic? maybe at molecular or atomic level, but not when it comes to huge masses.

WTC7 is impossible and how the towers collapse is inconsistent with laws of gravity and how when two masses when impact they absorbed energy and slow down. the top of the tower have not slow down because the structure inderneath have been damaged by thermites and secondary explosions that have been captures on abc camera, ect and reported by firefighters and workers in the buildings.

Limpyloo, I really suggest listening to that video. listen from 05 min to 1hour.

Fire couldnt have collapsed the WTC7. steel frame do not collapse due to fire.

watch from 1h15 of that video which clearly explain WTC7

One obvious thing that never made sense about 9/11 conspiracies was the fact that it was always presented as a pretext to go to war with Iraq, but that makes no sense. If they were going to do that they would have used Iraqis as the patsys, not Saudis, or created some bogus link to Saddam orchestrating or facilitating it. 9/11 was a justification for the Iraq war in a symbolic sense (lots of dumb americans in vox pops seemed to think he had something to do with it), but the only actual formal legal justifications were WMDs and stuff, there were only vague allegations relating to collusion between Sadam/the Iraqi security services and Al Qaeda, all of which were investigated and ruled out by various US government agencies (including the 9/11 commission).

If they had genuinely wanted to manufacture a pretense to go to war it would have been a lot easier to false flag a downed fighter over Iraqi airspace or something similar, something that wouldn't have required the implausible levels of cover-ups required to get away hijacking multiple passenger jets and killing thousands of people. In the end the only thing they needed to manufacture was a bogus WMD link.

To me it doesn't even look or sound like controlled demolition. WTC7's roof fell through the middle, and then it stood for several seconds, and the walls never broke down until much after it started collapsing. In controlled demolition videos, you have at least 2 rounds of explosions before the building even starts to collapse, and when it does the entire thing including walls goes down at the same time. Isn't is more plausible that things were breaking down at the bottom of wtc7, and they made big thundering sounds, and it took forever until the roof caved in, then that big box and the roof and whatever happened at the bottom what was brought it down

from 1:46

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcb37yyHgT8

  On 2/2/2016 at 5:51 PM, Ayya Khema said:

 

  On 2/2/2016 at 5:43 PM, LimpyLoo said:

1) Physics, in reality, is messy and chaotic.

Our 'Intuitive Physics' (how we expect things to work) only tracks real physics to a very limited extent. The mere fact that it appears to "defy the law of physics" is comparable to a plane appearing to 'defy' gravity.

 

2) "There's no way it could have made the whole tower fall onto themselves like they did"

 

Again, why do you think this? Because it's not what you would intuitively expect to happen?

 

Laws of physics are choatic? maybe at molecular or atomic level, but not when it comes to huge masses.

 

WTC7 is impossible and how the towers collapse is inconsistent with laws of gravity and how when two masses when impact they absorbed energy and slow down. the top of the tower have not slow down because the structure inderneath have been damaged by thermites and secondary explosions that have been captures on abc camera, ect and reported by firefighters and workers in the buildings.

 

Fire couldnt have collapsed the WTC7. steel frame do not collapse due to fire.

 

 

regarding free fall bullshit: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

the fire damage is not the only thing that contributed to collapse of wtc7, so this is a strawman.

  On 2/2/2016 at 6:13 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/2/2016 at 5:51 PM, Ayya Khema said:

 

  On 2/2/2016 at 5:43 PM, LimpyLoo said:

1) Physics, in reality, is messy and chaotic.

Our 'Intuitive Physics' (how we expect things to work) only tracks real physics to a very limited extent. The mere fact that it appears to "defy the law of physics" is comparable to a plane appearing to 'defy' gravity.

 

2) "There's no way it could have made the whole tower fall onto themselves like they did"

 

Again, why do you think this? Because it's not what you would intuitively expect to happen?

 

Laws of physics are choatic? maybe at molecular or atomic level, but not when it comes to huge masses.

 

WTC7 is impossible and how the towers collapse is inconsistent with laws of gravity and how when two masses when impact they absorbed energy and slow down. the top of the tower have not slow down because the structure inderneath have been damaged by thermites and secondary explosions that have been captures on abc camera, ect and reported by firefighters and workers in the buildings.

 

Fire couldnt have collapsed the WTC7. steel frame do not collapse due to fire.

 

 

regarding free fall bullshit:

 

  On 2/2/2016 at 6:13 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 2/2/2016 at 5:51 PM, Ayya Khema said:

 

  On 2/2/2016 at 5:43 PM, LimpyLoo said:

1) Physics, in reality, is messy and chaotic.

Our 'Intuitive Physics' (how we expect things to work) only tracks real physics to a very limited extent. The mere fact that it appears to "defy the law of physics" is comparable to a plane appearing to 'defy' gravity.

 

2) "There's no way it could have made the whole tower fall onto themselves like they did"

 

Again, why do you think this? Because it's not what you would intuitively expect to happen?

 

Laws of physics are choatic? maybe at molecular or atomic level, but not when it comes to huge masses.

 

WTC7 is impossible and how the towers collapse is inconsistent with laws of gravity and how when two masses when impact they absorbed energy and slow down. the top of the tower have not slow down because the structure inderneath have been damaged by thermites and secondary explosions that have been captures on abc camera, ect and reported by firefighters and workers in the buildings.

 

Fire couldnt have collapsed the WTC7. steel frame do not collapse due to fire.

 

 

regarding free fall bullshit: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

 

the fire damage is not the only thing that contributed to collapse of wtc7, so this is a strawman.

 

 

 

this seems to be about the towers.

the WTC7 appear clearly to have freefall.

perhaps lets present another argument. the symetry in how the WTC7 felt.

asymetrical damage couldnt have made possible the collapse of wtc7 appear symetrical. Also, what about the explosiions that have been reported by firefighters, workers in the wtc7 before the towers even colapsed.

if you have 30 minute, listen to that video from about 45 minute.

1) "...Reported by firefighters and workers in the buildings"

This is the Grassy Knoll all over again.

Once again, relying on the Intuitive Physics of observers is as low-quality as evidence gets.

Very often when there's a shooting involving a lone shooter, multiple witnesses will report a second shooter based on weird acoustic phenomenon (the media is notorious for prematurely reporting a 'second shooter' and later retracting).

I can't stress this enough: relying on Intuitive Physics is a terrible way to understand the world.

The last thing I would ever expect a 9/11 witness to say is "that is exactly what'd I'd expect to see happen from planes crashing into skyscrapers." Huge billows of dust and the sound of massive, chaotic destruction will of course make some witnesses think there are "secondary explosions."

2) are we really gonna talk about thermite?

3) Ayya, I don't know how to say this without being rude, but you have a tendency to believe some very fringe, thin-on-evidence (to put it kindly) things...have you considered that this might be one such thing?

I mean, your belief in supernatural and What-the-Bleep-Do-We-Know quantum hokum really, really, really brings your critical thinking into question.

  On 2/2/2016 at 6:08 PM, coax said:

To me it doesn't even look or sound like controlled demolition. WTC7's roof fell through the middle, and then it stood for several seconds, and the walls never broke down until much after it started collapsing. In controlled demolition videos, you have at least 2 rounds of explosions before the building even starts to collapse, and when it does the entire thing including walls goes down at the same time. Isn't is more plausible that things were breaking down at the bottom of wtc7, and they made big thundering sounds, and it took forever until the roof caved in, then that big box and the roof and whatever happened at the bottom what was brought it down

 

from 1:46

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcb37yyHgT8

 

asymetrical damade to the WTC7 couldnt have made possible the obvious symetrical collapse of the wtc7.

and fire cannot have collapsed the wtc7, nor the damage done by the towers that falled next to it.

4) "Laws of physics are chaotic?"

Yes ffs

fire did not collapse the wtc7, the massive falling debris contributed to it much more, and the collapse is not even symmetrical, its insides collapse first.

Ayya, you are relying on you Intuitive Physics to tell you how things should look/happen.

That is like saying "aliens must be levitating that plane because objects don't float through space like that".

(Fuck, I just realized it's beautiful out and I'm inside debating fucking 9/11)

  On 2/2/2016 at 6:28 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Ayya, you are relying on you Intuitive Physics to tell you how things should look/happen.

 

That is like saying "aliens must be levitating that plane because objects don't float through space like that".

(Fuck, I just realized it's beautiful out and I'm inside debating fucking 9/11)

nope, I dont have the time to explain all the evidence that was put forward.

if you dont want to do the research, I wont make it for you.

+1 for limpyloo

Also I disagree that it was so symmetrical. Look at 1:47 to 1:56 ish in the first video. The big box on the top literally fell into the middle of the building, and the building stood for a full 5 seconds before the rest of the roof started to fall, and only then did the actual structure start to fully collapse down, with the walls intact until the very end mind you.

  On 2/2/2016 at 6:29 PM, Ayya Khema said:

 

  On 2/2/2016 at 6:28 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Ayya, you are relying on you Intuitive Physics to tell you how things should look/happen.

 

That is like saying "aliens must be levitating that plane because objects don't float through space like that".

(Fuck, I just realized it's beautiful out and I'm inside debating fucking 9/11)

nope, I dont have the time to explain all the evidence that was put forward.

if you dont want to do the research, I wont make it for you.

If you don't want to read how that "evidence" has been debunked, then I guess we can move on to the Sandy Hook hoax or Bigfoot

Ayya, I like you but I don't trust your scientific judgement even a little bit

Neither one of us is an engineer but mate you've said that

a) literally everything is conscious, even our atoms (did you not?)

b) consciousness itself affects quantum phenomena

c) there is good evidence for some astral afterlife or other

So maybe you would admit that you are bad at sciencing...?

I'm gonna 'guess' that you believe in alien abductions and Spiritualism (aka ghosts) and all the other obligatory pseudo-science beliefs...?

I would literally bet that you have more than a passing interest in the Illuminati...?

you might be dissin afex dog

  On 2/2/2016 at 7:19 PM, MisterE said:

you might be dissin afex dog

Afex makes great music, and seems like a genuinely good bloke (quite good, in fact)

And from what I've dreamt, he has soft lips and lovely-smelling hair

But that doesn't mean that certain beliefs aren't worthy of harsh criticism

Your "harsh criticism" sounds childish and spiteful. Bringing up myriad points that are irrelevant to the "argument" is not a good way to conduct a debate. It is similar to a Gish Gallop - after the strategies of creationist Duane Gish.

Also, learning to win graciously is of personal benefit - cause right now, you just seem like a dick.

You're right Chen

Sorry Ayya...no reason for me to be nasty to you...you are indeed a nice chap, dunno why I'm being such a dick to you

Limpy loo i wont loose energy. popular mechanics report has been debunked. new pearl harbour documentary should help understand some very relevant problems of the 911 official report.

I don't necessarily agree with the official report...we're dealing with the positive claims that 9/11 was the result of a controlled demolition, and that what's-his-face took out insurance on the WTC based on foreknowledge of an attack (or "attack" or whatever).

I think I get pissy about this stuff because bad ideas get championed with the same confidence as good ideas, and often more

And it's just this never-ending game of Whack-a-Mole with these harebrained, unscientific ideas from people with no actual interest in science or scientific rigor, but with more confidence than actual fucking scientists

It's a fucking disease

It's why 40% of Americans reject Evolution...because it 'don't feel right in their gut'

I remember I used to constantly bring up P-values and the null hypothesis with JE, and he couldn't possibly see what that shit had to do with beliefs about 9/11

He would cite the insurance thing and say 'explain that'

And I would say 'you would 100% expect to see fishy details like that no matter what'

And then I'd rant about P-hacking

But since most people don't know what a P-value is I look like I have fucking Tourette's bringing it up every post when he says 'explain that'

So yeah, scientific illiteracy rustles my jimmies

Same shit with my mom

She's like "I thought about my friend's foot, and then her foot felt better...explain that"

There's no one-sentence way to explain to her why that is bad evidence for psychic healing

if someone isn't scientifically curious to begin with, it's hopeless

But just to be clear: the Bush admin wanted to invade Iraq, so they blamed Saudis? They could've easily drawn a straight line to Iraq, but instead they jumped through all these 'weapons of mass destruction' hoops...? (That is almost as bad a plan as that insurance scam)

Walk me through the full hypothesis, here

JE is going to haunt this board for years seemingly

but on a serious note I agree with you. I think it's hard enough as it is to simply understand the status quo of knowledge, but then we also have to deal with quantum magic and conspiracies and ghosts and whatever else too. Religion has gone on the way out, but then alternative medicine and other modern superstitions takes its place. I also agree that government should be under scrutiny at all times, but it has to be based in reality, and I think that also would make it a lot more effective since shooting into the dark isn't really a good plan