Skip

It's hard to believe...that's there's nobody out there...
May 1, 2007 9:59 PM   Subscribe

4/29 Truth Movement. As already noted within three minutes of the post on the Oakland highway collapse going up this weekend, the successful melting of steel by fire has riled up the 9/11 skeptic-baiters. See also: the entire internet.
posted by pokeydonut (114 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 


This thing is a hilarious parody.
Much like ikeadid429.com
posted by mulligan at 10:09 PM on May 1, 2007


Bah. I meant ikeadid429.com
posted by mulligan at 10:10 PM on May 1, 2007


Cui bono?
posted by euphorb at 10:16 PM on May 1, 2007


Yeah - really funny.

The people who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large, so let's show everyone how clever we are and mock the movement to find the truth with some bullshit comparison.

How cute.
posted by rougy at 10:19 PM on May 1, 2007


Sources tell us the explosion of the gasoline tanker on the Oakland Bay Bridge this weekend was a “black bag op” carried out jointly by the CIA and the Office of the First Lady. This operation was designed to counter the growing criticism of the official account of 9/11.

The Office of the First Lady? These sources, they do know that Hillary isn't first lady anymore?
posted by three blind mice at 10:25 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


The nice thing about conspiracy theories is they let you ignore how much of the world's problems could be solved if people weren't petty, greedy, ignorant, and actually gave half a shit about each other.

It's a defensive mechanism for idealists who see problems but not causes. =/
posted by yeloson at 10:29 PM on May 1, 2007 [6 favorites]


Oh I hear those hoofbeats now. There must be a GAZILLION flying zebras out there! What else could all this evidence possibly be telling us?
posted by iamkimiam at 10:38 PM on May 1, 2007


which way to the 4-20 truth movement
posted by nervousfritz at 10:45 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


There's nothing new here. Mefiers
Kwantsar and c13 have already told us that gasoline fires can't melt steel.
posted by eye of newt at 10:48 PM on May 1, 2007


Governments commit much evil, but those who think the WTC towers fell through controlled demolition are like the biggest dog you can imagine barking up the wrongest tree there ever was.

The truth IS out there, and if we want to talk Bush administration conspiracy then I'm all for it, but this site mocks people who are trying to nail down the wrong conspiracy.

Cute post. I almost posted it myself, but the Dante thing was cooler. :)
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:50 PM on May 1, 2007


which way to the 4-20 truth movement

Which, as we now know, was just a CIA disinfo front organization. The actual 4:20 movement has gone underground.
posted by doctor_negative at 10:53 PM on May 1, 2007


The actual 4:20 movement has gone underground.

...into mom's basement. Put a towel under the door.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:56 PM on May 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


When confronted with the impossibility of his escape, the driver “kind of blacked out and the next thing he knew he was running away.” Are we to believe that the driver ran away from the blaze while unconscious? Mosqueda family friend Rev. Oliver Escalante claims that “If he walked away, it’s only because the Lord was with him”, which also strains the limits of credibility. If the Lord was with him, wouldn’t he have avoided the crash altogether?

My limits of credibility are so strained I might have to get rejuvination surgery. But he's serious, isn't he? Parody isn't usually this sloppy.
posted by maryh at 10:59 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11

Good, keep reposting that every time someone brings up 9/11. That elusive credibility is almost within reach.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:02 PM on May 1, 2007


This is Good.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:13 PM on May 1, 2007


Although the 9/11 Truth Movement is a total batshitinsane farce, was this post really necessary? Besides the fact that a few crazies will always identify a calamity as being part of a coverup or conspiracy, are there large numbers of folks actually linking the two events (9/11, Oakland) together.

I posit there are not, and this post is intended to troll and stir up shit.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:17 PM on May 1, 2007


"the movement to find the truth"

Where "finding the truth" means reading a blog where some twat pretends to know about structural engineering based on knowledge gleaned from disaster movies, with a little bible code thrown in for good measure.
posted by 2sheets at 11:19 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


rougy writes "The people who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large, so let's show everyone how clever we are and mock the movement to find the truth with some bullshit comparison."

It is clever, isn't it?
posted by mr_roboto at 11:26 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


The people who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large, so let's show everyone how clever we are and mock the movement to find the truth with some bullshit comparison.

I'm not going to comment for or against the 4/29 jokes, but I do think it worth noting that many of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists aren't looking for the truth so much as looking for evidence of what they already decided was true without proof. Doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does make their "findings" questionable by default. To really search for the truth, you have to put aside the agenda.
posted by katillathehun at 11:27 PM on May 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


No wonder I rarely read the blue anymore. This place is like a time warp. Sheesh.
posted by squirrel at 11:43 PM on May 1, 2007


Around 4 am on highway 101 coming out of the city Sunday morning, my friends and I saw a car on fire. So that's three auto fires in one night in the same area.

I'm still not buying the conspiracy nonsense.
posted by idiotfactory at 11:49 PM on May 1, 2007


Somebody set up Oakland the bomb.
posted by thatweirdguy2 at 12:00 AM on May 2, 2007


But the irony conspiracy--that 's real, right?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 12:07 AM on May 2, 2007


I thought the irony all melted under the intense heat of the burning fuel?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:11 AM on May 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


As a wise rooster once said: "I say, I say, I say it's a joke, son!"

Like Oakland needs federal help to blow itself up.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 1:12 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Are these people serious? There's one teensy little flaw in the mental processing on that timeline explaining how the sky in the photos of Gov. Arnold at the site houldn't have been dark (at the first link): He didn't inspect the site until that night. And as far as it still being "glowing wreckage" he's standing in front of, no ... it's a construction working on a man-lifter with a cutting torch. So I guess that's two teensy flaws in the mental processing.

I left a comment about it at the site, but it's sitting in moderation. Doubt it will see the light of day.

No, really ... are these people serious?!
posted by Orb at 3:22 AM on May 2, 2007


The people who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large, so let's show everyone how clever we are and mock the movement to find the truth with some bullshit comparison.

The 9/11 "Truth Movement" is the reason there will never be a thorough, impartial investigation into 9/11. Legitimate criticism of the flaws in the 9/11 Commission can now be easily dismissed as wacko conspiracy theories thanks to the efforts of "Truthers". Well done, "Truth Movement" - and that's before we even get onto the Truth movement's recycling of ancient anti-semitic lies for a new century and a fresh audience, its campaigns of intimidation against journalists that criticise it in print, its embedded conventional racism and its creepy, cult-like effect over its own supporters.

When it comes down to it, "bad at physics" is the least of the criticisms the Truth Movement deserves.
posted by WPW at 3:36 AM on May 2, 2007 [6 favorites]


are there large numbers of folks actually linking the two events (9/11, Oakland) together.

Are these people serious?

Um.....no to both of those. Parody is not limited to Weird Al Yankovic songs.
posted by waitingtoderail at 3:55 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


The 9/11 "Truth Movement" is the reason there will never be a thorough, impartial investigation into 9/11

Don't you see?

The 9/11 Truth Movement is a misinformation/red herring campaign funded by the government within the government and designed to discredit anyone who questions the "official" account of 9/11.
posted by psmealey at 4:21 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


You people are smoking 4:29? Where'd you get it? I tried smoking 9:11 but it made me paranoid. Oh well, 4:20 it is.

Seriously, if this was a black op, it was effective. Because whoever made it happen, a gas fire melted a steel structure.

Still doesn't mean Bush and Co. didn't know 9/11 was going to happen. Just sayin', not sure what I believe anymore on that score.
posted by spitbull at 4:35 AM on May 2, 2007


psmealey, you aren't so far off with your sarcasm. While the nutjobs debate whether a plane really hit the pentagon and all the rest, the real conspiracy unfolds every day before our eyes, on our tv screens and front pages. And it's way worse than what the nutters imagine.
posted by spitbull at 4:36 AM on May 2, 2007


I thought it might not be serious, but I have a work associate who keeps sending me links to conspiracy sites, and well ... most of them make about as much sense (which means almost none at all), and those people are serious.
posted by Orb at 4:56 AM on May 2, 2007


Legitimate criticism of the flaws in the 9/11 Commission can now be easily dismissed as wacko conspiracy theories thanks to the efforts of "Truthers".

Oh, please. Dismissing legitimate criticism of the official government story about 9/11 as wacko would have happened with or without the "Truthers."
posted by mediareport at 4:56 AM on May 2, 2007


Dismissing legitimate criticism of the official government story about 9/11 as wacko would have happened with or without the "Truthers."

That may be true, but the charge is now near-impossible to rebut.
posted by WPW at 5:01 AM on May 2, 2007


Consider creationists. For the most part they just can't wrap their mind around some aspect of the evolution thing so they dismiss the whole thing as either a farce or an insult.

The 9/11 "Truth Movement" just can't wrap their minds around the level of incompetence that led up to the fall of the World Trade Center. I mean, "My Pet Goat" for something like 10 minutes after the second plane hit? That's the kind of farce that Warren Murphy and Richard Sapir were so good at, but in real life? You expect me to believe that?

There is a bid difference between looking for data that tests your hypothesis and looking for data that supports your hypothesis. If you don't know the difference you are going to find yourself with some pretty strange theories pretty quickly.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:01 AM on May 2, 2007


9+1+1=11 --> 1+1=2

4+2+9=15 --> 1+5=7

7-2=5

And its been exactly 5 years (and a few months) since 9-11.

Coincidence? You be the judge.
posted by googly at 5:23 AM on May 2, 2007 [2 favorites]


Although the 9/11 Truth Movement is a total batshitinsane farce, was this post really necessary?

If it makes only a marginal reduction in the frequency with which we have to combat their nonsense on metafilter, it's well worth it to me. Let the embarrassment proceed.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:24 AM on May 2, 2007


this post is intended to troll and stir up shit

and the 9/11 truth movement isn't? ... there is a difference, of course ... this post is mostly intended to cause laughter ... their movement is trying to seduce people into a rather sinister and manipulatable viewpoint so future demagogues will have a good band of followers ... even if they don't realize that's what they're doing, that's what the results will be
posted by pyramid termite at 5:41 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Obama did 4/29
posted by matteo at 5:43 AM on May 2, 2007


So many broad brushes and ad hominem attacks... There are many credible people including physicist Steven Jones, architect Richard Gage (1,2,3) and theologian David Ray Griffin out there that doubt the official story of 9/11. I used to dismiss the evidence myself until I overcame my own unwillingness to investigate.
posted by msquare at 6:10 AM on May 2, 2007


Having problems posting links to videos. Any suggestions? They worked in preview.
posted by msquare at 6:20 AM on May 2, 2007


"The people who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large"

I thought they died in the crashes. Jesus. Now we have to figure out how they got out of the planes?

Fuck me.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:27 AM on May 2, 2007 [4 favorites]


Msquare: Talk about broad brushes - that site is another example of serious people with legitimate questions about the 9/11 Commission, such as Max Cleland, being jumbled up with total nuts like David "no planes" Shayler and Wayne "Israel controls the Italian mafia" Madsen, as if to suggest that all questioning of 9/11 is equal. No doubt the conspiracy theorists do this to bask in the reflected credibility of serious critics of the commission - and in fact what they are doing is extending the miasma of lunacy to taint genuine efforts to better understand the events of that day. Sites like that are doing a far better job of smearing everyone who questions the 9/11 Commission version of events than Dick Cheney ever could. It's a really classic example of the damage the "Truth movement" is doing - thank you.
posted by WPW at 6:30 AM on May 2, 2007


Good, keep reposting that every time someone brings up 9/11. That elusive credibility is almost within reach.

The 9/11 coincidence theories may or may not be true, but it was certainly no coincidence that Krrrlson would open his big mouth to shit on someone else without provocation.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:33 AM on May 2, 2007


physicist Steven Jones, architect Richard Gage (1,2,3) and theologian David Ray Griffin

Not a structural engineer, not a structural engineer, and not a structural engineer. Jones also thinks Jesus visited North America. He was in Scholars for 9/11 Truth until they had a schism; now he's in Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. (It's all very Life of Brian.)
posted by kirkaracha at 6:34 AM on May 2, 2007


WPW - I agree that PatriotsQuestion911.com has its flaws, but I thought it might be a good place for people to start, use their own minds and determine who they believe is credible and who isn't. I don't see anything inherent within the design of the site to "suggest that all questioning of 9/11 is equal." I think the careful person reads what each individual listed has to say and draws their own conclusions.

Now who can tell me why my links don't work??!!
posted by msquare at 6:44 AM on May 2, 2007


"The people who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large"

And University of Wisconsin lecturer Kevin Barrett is on a mission to hunt one of them down....
posted by msquare at 6:48 AM on May 2, 2007


"Now who can tell me why my links don't work??!!"

It's a conspiracy.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:09 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


We're just seeing what happens when the Gnomes of Zurich deploy orbital mind-control lasers against the Discordians.
posted by breezeway at 7:11 AM on May 2, 2007


It's a conspiracy.

Set myself up for that one...
posted by msquare at 7:12 AM on May 2, 2007


4+2+9=15 --> 1+5=7

I'm sorry, 1+5=6.

6-2=4.

It's been 4 years since "Mission Accomplished."

There are 19 letters in Mission Accomplished, 4 letters in Bush, that gives us...

23!

Adjust tin foil accordingly!
posted by fungible at 7:53 AM on May 2, 2007


(It's all very Life of Brian.)

How many times have we killed the PFJ's #2 guy again?
posted by trondant at 7:55 AM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


You want 9/11 truth? Give me one shred of evidence to counter the very high level claims of Richard Clarke and now George Tenet that the Bush administration did not lift a finger when presented with the disturbing evidence that Al-Qaeda was gearing up to attack within the US. These are facts that have not been refuted by the administration. I don't know why people need to cling on to crazy theories when the fact that they just let it happen has all but been confirmed. Why is that not an impeachable crime?
posted by any major dude at 8:02 AM on May 2, 2007


any major dude - I'd also suggest that people have a look at the video testimony of Norman Mineta, former Secretary of Transportation, which was interestingly left out of the 9/11 Commission Report.
posted by msquare at 8:17 AM on May 2, 2007


Looks like the Department of Homeland Security garbled that link as well, msquare.

You know you *can* check your links before you post 'em? If they don't work on preview, they won't work afterwards either.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:21 AM on May 2, 2007


PeterMcDermott - As mentioned previously, the links did work in preview.
posted by msquare at 8:23 AM on May 2, 2007


Your links were malformed, msquare, like so:

<a href=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6883441047197474365" ">
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:39 AM on May 2, 2007


Norman Mineta's Testimony
posted by kirkaracha at 8:50 AM on May 2, 2007


Thanks, mr_crash_davis. I knew I should have formed them manually. Let's try this again lo-tech.

Norman Mineta
Steven Jones
Richard Gage (1, 2, 3)
David Ray Griffin
posted by msquare at 8:52 AM on May 2, 2007


Well I guess I got one out of 6 (link to Norman Mineta's testimony). Again, they all worked in preview. Anybody want to try to post it and see what happens? Here's the link to the Steven Jones lecture:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9210704017463126290
posted by msquare at 8:56 AM on May 2, 2007


the successful melting of steel by fire

Next up - solid proof of the ability to mechanically print the same words on sheet after sheet of paper.
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:01 AM on May 2, 2007


Again, they all worked in preview.

Yet Preview apparently works fine for everybody else who isn't trying to post video testimony of the "many credible people...who doubt the official story of 9/11." Coincidence? You decide.
posted by cribcage at 9:13 AM on May 2, 2007


msquare - except for Norman Mineta (the link that works), all of your links end in quotation marks which shouldn't be there. For example:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9210704017463126290"

get rid of the quotation mark at the end.
posted by tzikeh at 9:44 AM on May 2, 2007


I know a lot of you guys hate fark, but you really oughta see some of the "429truth" images that people photoshopped together.

http://phoneboy.org/429/
posted by drstein at 9:55 AM on May 2, 2007


which way to the 4-20 truth movement

Dave's not here, man.
posted by clevershark at 10:17 AM on May 2, 2007


Interesting. As someone who's been writing HTML for too many years now, I know how to post a link. I thought I just made the mistake of not handcoding and using the "link" feature at the lower right of the Post Comment window the first time I posted.

I'm trying this again:
Steven Jones

I'd like to copy/paste my code so you can see that something strange is happening. How do I do that without it showing as a link? I tried double-quotes, but that doesn't work...

And yes it works just fine in preview...
posted by msquare at 10:25 AM on May 2, 2007


OK. That one worked. Why not go for them all?
David Ray Griffin
Richard Gage (1, 2, 3)

These worked in Preview and in a separate HTML document viewed in a browser. Yes I have OCD tendencies...
posted by msquare at 10:45 AM on May 2, 2007


www.0502msquarelinkpostingfailuretruth.com
posted by patricio at 11:23 AM on May 2, 2007


It was the gays.... If you are at a company who's using a content filter, the page will not be displayed due to sexual content... nor will any page with "429" in it. (429 on cell phone is G-A-Y). The gays used their awesome flamingness to melt the bridge. Only teh gay flame may possess enough power to melt steel rods.
posted by Debaser626 at 11:36 AM on May 2, 2007


4+2+9=15 --> 1+5=7

I'm sorry, 1+5=6.

6-2=4.


Sure, you just go on believing that, fungible. But I know of a theologian, three veterinarians, two precious gemstone experts, and a designer of college cheerleading outfits who all cast grave doubts on this reasoning, and indeed the whole mainstream mathematics that its based upon.
posted by googly at 11:51 AM on May 2, 2007


Never one to give up...
Richard Gage (1, 2, 3)
posted by msquare at 11:54 AM on May 2, 2007


I've read "The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11" (linked at the top in the first response to this post) at least a dozen times.

Unless it's a complete fabrication, you would truly have be delusional and/or in complete denial to think this was just one master plan concocted and pulled-off by single a group of terrorists with no other connections.
posted by wfc123 at 12:10 PM on May 2, 2007


I've read "The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11" (linked at the top in the first response to this post) at least a dozen times.

Unless it's a complete fabrication, you would truly have be delusional and/or in complete denial to think this was just one master plan concocted and pulled-off by single a group of terrorists with no other connections.
posted by wfc123 at 12:10 PM on May 2, 2007


"...but I do think it worth noting that many of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists aren't looking for the truth so much as looking for evidence of what they already decided was true without proof."

There's plenty of proof, and it's all being ignored.

The totalitarianism of corporate scAmerica is alive, well, and thriving with all the right-wing dickheads who have never been able to think for themselves without some authority figure patting them on the heads.

The true simpletons are the ones who think three World Trace Center buildings fell at free-fall speeds without demos involved.

You people are a fucking embarrassment.
posted by rougy at 12:21 PM on May 2, 2007


"You people are a fucking embarrassment."
Rougy's right - it's all a big lie. Just like the Holocaust!
posted by 2sheets at 12:33 PM on May 2, 2007


three World Trace Center buildings fell at free-fall speed

Wait, gravity was turned off that day?
posted by dhartung at 12:39 PM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Physics?

We have a physics wunderkind here. Oh, yea! Answer this little riddle for us, Dr. Wizard: it took about 12 seconds for each building to collapse; a ball dropped from the top of the buildings would take about 9 seconds to hit the ground. There is a 3 second difference between the two speeds.

So tell us, how does 80+ stories of reinforced concrete and steel have the same resistive factor as thin air?

Show us the equation, maestro.
posted by rougy at 12:49 PM on May 2, 2007


A woman I know who lives in Oakland told me that her next door neighbour, who's one of them, you know, got a phone call from Israel and the next thing you know there wasn't a single jew on the whole of the freeway when it happened.

Coincidence? I think not.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:55 PM on May 2, 2007


i think there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that people other than just the terrorists on the plane knew what was going on - just as there was already a plan to invade iraq prior to 9/11 but...

this bridge thing... it obviously involves aliens.
posted by ggggarret at 12:59 PM on May 2, 2007


I'd like to see a Mythbusters episode about gasoline fires and their ability to melt steel girders. Keep in mind I'm not saying it's not possible (as we've seen with the Oakland highway incident), I just would like to get some actual science behind it in the fun and informative way that those guys do their show.
posted by Demogorgon at 1:00 PM on May 2, 2007


Show us the equation, maestro.

Hi.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:11 PM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


Rougy, if someone does prove to you that the "free-fall" statement you're making is incorrect, will you stop? Or will you just come up with something else? (I'm betting "b").

On preview ... yeah, like that, Sticherbeast.
posted by Bookhouse at 1:16 PM on May 2, 2007


You people are a fucking embarrassment.

Then why not go away and leave us to our embarrassment? I promise that we'll cry into our milk every night about the lack of your insightful comments. Woe, we will say, woe unto us that we did not heed the words of rougy the rogue poet! Now he is lost to us, and nobody will tell us what fuckheads we are or regale us with free-form odes to his kids! Woe and agony!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:22 PM on May 2, 2007


wfc - You might also want to check out 9/11 Press for Truth. It's a worthwhile intro for anyone interested in some of the questions raised by the families of the victims of the September 11th attack which were mostly ignored by the Commission.
posted by msquare at 1:34 PM on May 2, 2007


Bookhouse,

I should have said "near free-fall" but most cultured people would have understood that.

So, Dr. Bookhouse, are you going to show me how 80+ stories of reinforced concrete and steel collapses at a rate of just 3 seconds more than a ball that was falling through thin air?

ROU - grow up.
posted by rougy at 1:40 PM on May 2, 2007


So, Dr. Bookhouse, are you going to show me how 80+ stories of reinforced concrete and steel collapses at a rate of just 3 seconds more than a ball that was falling through thin air?

Hi.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:50 PM on May 2, 2007


Sticherbeast - a cut and paste job.

I've got one, too. Let me look for it.

Your "proof" claims that when one object is dropped onto another object below it, that it either keeps falling at a constant rate of speed, or accelerates.

That’s the gist of your “proof.”

Would you agree to that?
posted by rougy at 1:58 PM on May 2, 2007


Here's my cut and paste refutation.

Please answer me: you are claiming that when an object falls and contacts another object, that its rate of decent remains constant or accelerates.

Yes, no, or maybe.
posted by rougy at 2:01 PM on May 2, 2007


...descent....
posted by rougy at 2:02 PM on May 2, 2007


Oh man. As if our government feels any need to HIDE anything these days. They certainly wouldn't be interested in trying to disprove nutcases on the internet. Hysterical, the self-importance.
posted by agregoli at 2:04 PM on May 2, 2007


Would you agree to that?

Nope. Respond with detail and accuracy, plox.

I don't have time for much beyond cut and paste, either.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:10 PM on May 2, 2007


Sticherbeast,

Cut and paste is all you have.

Don't have time to stand by your words?

You must love Bush.
posted by rougy at 2:33 PM on May 2, 2007


"As if our government feels any need to HIDE anything these days...."

Does Alberto Gonzales bring any images to fore?

Thanks for your meaningless, and unimportant, contribution to this thread.
posted by rougy at 2:37 PM on May 2, 2007


Cut and paste is all you have.

So we're evenly matched.

Don't have time to stand by your words?

Do you? Respond directly to what I posted, which goes a bit further - and differently - than what think is the "gist."

If you don't want to or don't have the time to, then fine. We'll agree to disagree, and we'll clutch firmly to our respective cut'n'pastes like the great, engorged teats they are. I'm not bothered by this.

You seem to be, so if you don't want to appear to yourself as not having the time to stand by your words, then please do go ahead, by responding directly to each claim. Not just "here is a page that says different things." Take each claim and pick it apart yourself, or with the help of a friend.

Otherwise, we have nothing to discuss, because we've already thrown webpages at one another.

I'll come back tonight to see if you've responded directly to all my page's claims.

You must love Bush.

Obviously. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to go fellate his effigy.
posted by Sticherbeast at 2:55 PM on May 2, 2007


Agree to disagree?

You'll continue to claim that when one object strikes another while falling, it either doesn't slow, or accelerates.

That is the sum total of what "your page" claims.
posted by rougy at 3:41 PM on May 2, 2007


Rougy, if you look at photos of the WTC collapse, like this one, you can see a built-in timer of what falling at or near free-fall speed and what's falling more slowly.

You can see debris that is falling through thin air at free-fall speed at the bottom of the debris cloud - bits of metal that have been ejected from the collapsing building and are now dropping faster than the building's collapse front, which is about 20 or 30 storeys further up, descending a lot more slowly - near the top of the paler dust cloud.

Like many of the "Truth" movement's soundbites (such as "they fell in their footprints" and "symmetrical collapse" and others), "they fell at free-fall speed" is simply untrue, and "nearly free-fall" speed has to stretch the word "nearly" so far that the point is meaningless.
posted by WPW at 3:49 PM on May 2, 2007


This is bullshit right here, from your source:

“The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds.”

Do you agree it takes 12 feet of vertical space, constructed of reinforced concrete and steel, 0.110 seconds to fall?

Successively, over 80 times?

Where in the hell did he get that number, and why do you agree with it?
posted by rougy at 3:52 PM on May 2, 2007


"...the word "nearly" so far that the point is meaningless."

No, it is not.

A ball dropped from the top of the building would hit the ground in about 9 seconds.

The towers fell in about 10 to 12 seconds.

Haven't you paused to ask yourself why all of those floors underneath would give way so easily, especially when the top of the building was being blown up, out, and away from the structure at the time of the implosion?
posted by rougy at 3:56 PM on May 2, 2007


You'll continue to claim that when one object strikes another while falling, it either doesn't slow, or accelerates.

No. No one will. Find the quote which indicates as such. The closest I could find was this:

"The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave."

Which is not at all what you say. Emphasis mine. That is a substantively different statement than, "when one object strikes another while falling, it either doesn't slow, or accelerates," especially in light of the larger case in evidence.

Now take every single other quote from it and show that it either says what you say, or says nothing whatsoever. Don't just say that it says nothing, or say that it says, "when one object strikes another while falling, it either doesn't slow, or accelerates." Quote the page and show how each section says that and not something else.

Also feel free to respond directly - do not paraphrase - to the linked PDF, which goes into far greater detail.

If you have no desire to actually deal with it, simply say again that the sum total of what it says - and what the document linked therein says - is that, "when one object strikes another while falling, it either doesn't slow, or accelerates." That will be our safe word to indicate that you have no desire to continue this.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:08 PM on May 2, 2007


Sticher,

I have responded. You have dodged.

Admit it: you don't understand the post that you're using to justify your argument.

Let's take baby steps here - something you're more comfortable with.

The link you provided starts out by claiming that it takes 0.110 seconds for a floor to collapse.

You must agree with this.

Yes or no?
posted by rougy at 4:17 PM on May 2, 2007


Haven't you paused to ask yourself why all of those floors underneath would give way so easily, especially when the top of the building was being blown up, out, and away from the structure at the time of the implosion?

Not implosion, collapse. The floors didn't have much option but give way given that the great bullk of the mass of all the building above them was falling onto them with considerable acquired momentum. The WTC was extremely vulnerable to progressive collapse because it lacked technical floors. But this is all in the NIST report, not new to anyone.

And the top of the building was not being blown upwards - the only thing going up is dust and smoke.

It's a classic building failure, but on a vastly magnified scale. Not many 100-storey skyscrapers collapse, thank heavens.

On 11 September 2001, I was working for Britain's largest weekly construction and engineering magazine. I watched all this happen in a room containing about 30 or 40 people, all of the construction and engineering journalists, about half with professional accreditation in their fields. In the days and weeks that followed we all spoke to dozens, scores of engineers and people in construction about that collapse. Not once did I hear any suggestion that the collapse could not have happened the way that NIST later described in great detail - it made sense knowing what we did then, NIST just fleshed out a lot of the details. I still work for the magazine fairly regularly, and they get letters from the "Truth" movement - they know the arguments. And they do not think highly of them.
posted by WPW at 4:18 PM on May 2, 2007


"The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave."

This would be plausible if it weren't for the fact that the weight of each floor did not stack up upon the next like a pile of flapjacks.

The upper floors were blown up, out, and away from the structure as it collapsed.

Regarding the billiard ball analogy:

Take 80 billiard balls, line them up in a row with about ten inches between each ball, hit the first one as hard as you can.

Tell me - do the balls cross the table, gaining speed (or staying constant) due to their momentum, or do they gradually and predictably slow?
posted by rougy at 4:20 PM on May 2, 2007


WPW - maybe you'll grow up some day and think for yourself.

You, too, are claiming that it is natural for one floor to collapse upon the next and gain speed in the process.

Jesus Christ, I hope I never step in a building your company built.
posted by rougy at 4:22 PM on May 2, 2007


"And the top of the building was not being blown upwards - the only thing going up is dust and smoke."

You won't even believe your own eyes, will you?
posted by rougy at 4:24 PM on May 2, 2007


rougy writes "WPW - maybe you'll grow up some day and think for yourself."

Stop this shit now.

This thread has become stupid enough without your lame namecalling.



rougy writes "Tell me - do the balls cross the table, gaining speed (or staying constant) due to their momentum, or do they gradually and predictably slow?"

If the surface of the table is parallel to gravity (as was the direction of collapse of the towers), they'll speed up.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:25 PM on May 2, 2007


WPW - maybe you'll grow up some day and think for yourself.

You, too, are claiming that it is natural for one floor to collapse upon the next and gain speed in the process.

Jesus Christ, I hope I never step in a building your company built.


Now you're just not being nice, and name calling is hardly grown up. That isn't what I claimed; I worked for a magazine, as was perfectly clear from my post; my views on the matter are informed by experts rather than imagined or culled from conspiracy websites.
posted by WPW at 4:27 PM on May 2, 2007


The link you provided starts out by claiming that it takes 0.110 seconds for a floor to collapse.

You must agree with this.

Yes or no?


No, it says that's how long it takes for a floor to detach from the structure. From your own quote:

The time required to strip off a floor

Not the time to collapse a story.

I don't even know why I bother.
posted by LionIndex at 4:36 PM on May 2, 2007


Just like Romeo and Juliet, but ended in tragedy.
posted by mike_bling at 4:44 PM on May 2, 2007


Take 80 billiard balls,

African or European?
posted by trondant at 5:08 PM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


It's not the flawed physics that drives me crazy about the "Truth" movement.

It's not the way they make it easier to paint people with legitimate concerns about the government's handling of 9/11 with the crazy brush.

It's not their brilliant leap of logic that if you don't agree with them, you must be a Bush supporter.

It's their absolute belief that somehow they have "discovered" a truth and that anyone who points out the flaws in their reasoning is a sheep who doesn't have the freakin' amazing insight that they possess.

Seriously, in this thread you've got a self-described poet/programmer telling a bunch of construction engineers that they don't know what the hell they're talking about and that he knows better.

That takes more than balls. That takes a whole heap of crazy.
posted by turaho at 5:10 PM on May 2, 2007 [1 favorite]


turaho - That's an awfully broad "they're all crazy" brush you yourself wield - seemingly painting a whole movement of people as insane. Methinks you might consider investigating the group more thorougly before you simply dismiss it. I used to wield such a brush myself until I looked into matters further than Counterpunch, Democracy Now! and Noam Chomsky were willing to go. Yeah, there are nutjobs out there claiming all sorts of conspiracies, but after you "swim in the waters" a bit, I think you'll be surprised at how many reasonable people have serious doubts and serious questions about the official story. As mentioned previously, you might want to check out PatriotsQuestion911.com to start. 9/11 Press for Truth is a pretty good intro point also.
posted by msquare at 5:39 PM on May 2, 2007


This is an awesome thread. I sit in awe of some of you.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:00 PM on May 2, 2007


Everything you need to know.
posted by breezeway at 8:08 PM on May 2, 2007


« Older Cryptome Shutdown   |   Dream a little dream of me Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post