15 Years Later: New Scientific Paper in Reputable Physics Journal Argues 9/11 Was An Inside Job - Polidicks

[QUOTE=gk99;51048647]Try a crossbow and tell me that again[/QUOTE] let's not derail the thread with guns and crossbows again like last time.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51048577]Analogies. Im equating one thing to another thing to make it easier for you to understand because they work on the same principle. The planes in essence acted like massive hollowpoint bullets piercing the towers and then being shredded after impact You mean the exterior of the building mostly comprised of glass and, what, ceramics? And the impact force itself would still be enough to severely fuck up whatever it hit. Thats why i used the bullet analogy, compare throwing a rock at a car vs. launching a rock at a car with some kind of high speed launcher. One will dent it, the other might punch a hole through it. Same material. Because you refuse to understand how this shit works.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I get that it was an analogy. But just saying "Bullets." does not explain how a thin aluminum fuselage slices through a steel box column. The exterior of that building was an extremely dense mesh of prefabricated steel box columns, the point of them was to shift the load to the perimeter in order to open up floor space. [IMG]https://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+construction&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKp8D4lo7PAhUk5oMKHbRaAVUQ_AUICCgB&biw=1440&bih=734#imgrc=ZZYwiWgyEa0tgM%3A[/IMG] [IMG]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/4978975127_a685b60e96_o.jpg[/IMG] See the core columns? It's a building within a building. You're telling me that the plane combined with office fires completely destroyed ALL of these columns simultaneously initiating a global and perfectly symmetrical collapse? at FREE FALL? do you know what free fall means? it means a falling object whos only resistance is the air around it. not an object that has an entire skyscraper's worth of vertical support, which by the way has a redundancy factor, probably of 4 resisting its descent. I mean, lets just take the symmetry for starters, how on earth does perfectly symmetrical damage occur from asymmetrical damage? Go build a model of a building, literally any building, be it a wood framed house, a skyscraper, what ever. Cause damage to one side of it, it will fall over to the side if anything. It cannot ever go into a symmetrical free fall into its self without you blowing away all of the supporting structure very precisely with timed explosives or some other means of achieving that effect. Also, remember that massive inferno in Dubai recently? no collapse, not even a partial collapse, it did what every steel framed building has ever done in a fire, it burned like crazy and when it was over the steel skeleton was still standing.

Im not even going to touch that because i know im going to get myself banned for the language i'd be using, lord have mercy.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048672]Yeah, I get that it was an analogy. But just saying "Bullets." does not explain how a thin aluminum fuselage slices through a steel box column. The exterior of that building was an extremely dense mesh of prefabricated steel box columns, the point of them was to shift the load to the perimeter in order to open up floor space. [IMG]https://www.google.com/search?q=wtc+construction&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKp8D4lo7PAhUk5oMKHbRaAVUQ_AUICCgB&biw=1440&bih=734#imgrc=ZZYwiWgyEa0tgM%3A[/IMG] [IMG]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/4978975127_a685b60e96_o.jpg[/IMG] See the core columns? It's a building within a building. You're telling me that the plane combined with office fires completely destroyed ALL of these columns simultaneously initiating a global and perfectly symmetrical collapse? at FREE FALL? do you know what free fall means? it means a falling object whos only resistance is the air around it. not an object that has an entire skyscraper's worth of vertical support, which by the way has a redundancy factor, probably of 4 resisting its descent. I mean, lets just take the symmetry for starters, how on earth does perfectly symmetrical damage occur from asymmetrical damage? Go build a model of a building, literally any building, be it a wood framed house, a skyscraper, what ever. Cause damage to one side of it, it will fall over to the side if anything. It cannot ever go into a symmetrical free fall into its self without you blowing away all of the supporting structure very precisely with timed explosives or some other means of achieving that effect. Also, remember that massive inferno in Dubai recently? no collapse, not even a partial collapse, it did what every steel framed building has ever done in a fire, it burned like crazy and when it was over the steel skeleton was still standing.[/QUOTE] So you just ignored two of my posts, disappeared for a bit and then went right back to step 1 Here they are again, in case you missed them: [QUOTE=Zyler;51048586][QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;51048543]hey man, quick question, what do you think to yourself when you choose to deny several valid points against you in favor of cherry picking responses, before leaving a generic 9/11 documentary here and bouncing? like don't you [I]feel[/I] like you're incorrect when you can't reasonably respond to anyone's points i'm so curious to your thought process right now[/QUOTE] We seem to be going through this never-ending loop: 1.He poses a question in a really condescending tone without any sources or evidence: [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048003]Why would he buy a colossal asbestos liability with dwindling tenancy? Why would he take out a massive insurance policy on the towers for terrorist attacks just before 9/11 and go on to gain billions of dollars. Why did he not show up to his business meeting at windows of the world on the morning of 9/11? A Doctor appointment? ok. Lucky Larry.[/QUOTE] 2.Evidence gets presented and then his questions get disproven: [QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51048033]Thank God we have internet geniuses like you to unravel literally the biggest fucking criminal action in recorded history, unveil the world's currently most succesful mass murderer and lift the veil from our eyes when every intelligence organization on Earth couldn't pin it on him. You did it. Now if only the FBI could use Google and discover the real truth! He'd be behind bars! Oh wait, the Illuminati would stop it, right? Silverstein earned 4.6 billion, he lost 7 billion in reconstruction. At the end of the day between building the new tower and all the other costs, he lost 10+ billion dollars. What a genius move by 'Lucky Larry', which only netted him several billion dollars in losses and the harassment from untold masses of insane truthers who can't be bothered to do the modicum of research or gather the least bit of common sense to dispel their conspiracy theories. I'm sorry if this is flaming but 9/11 brings out the loonies in my family and I've spent the last week doing nothing but debating every other person I see.[/QUOTE] 3.He completely ignores that the prior evidence was disproven and then moves the goalposts with a new set of condescending questions and remarks without acknowledging the previous ones, and we go back to step 1 [QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51048061]I'm the layman, despite the fact I actually just sourced numbers to you and you have done absolutely nothing besides throw out videos and conspiracy theories that have been debunked a thousand times. Sure, it raised questions when I first saw it. "How did that building fall?" I asked, so I looked it up! "It fell because a fucking sky scraper fell on it and then it lit on fire," I read. That's sensible! But wait, there's more? "IT FELL BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ILLUMINATI JEWISH LIZARDMEN PUT DEMOLITION THERMITE CHARGES IN THERE AND BLEW IT UP AT THE SAME TIME THEY FLEW PLANES INTO THE TWIN TOWERS AND DETONATED EXPLSOIVES IN THERE AT THE SAME TIME TO COLLECT INSURANCE MONEY!!!" I read. "That's fucking stupid!" I said, and after doing enough research to confirm my thought, here we are.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048079]a skyscraper did not fall on it, you know that, it was hit by a small amount of debris and a few floors caught fire. Watch the video. The fucking building goes into a perfectly symmetrical freefall. I guess controlled demolition companies went out of business after 9/11 because, apparently, all you have to do is start some random fires in a steel frame highrise and it will go into a freefall straight into its own footprint. I guess that the building code for highrises must have been seriously amended right? ...right? [editline]13th September 2016[/editline] Also I'm not saying I know who did it, that's not my point. Nor is it the point of the OP.[/QUOTE] Step 4.After repeating this loop a few times and running out of things to post, wait a while and then he starts attacking the character of the person who's debating him instead of presenting evidence [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048240]Hey science man, i've got another question, why was there liquid metal and molten concrete in the rubble for months after the "collapse". Just curious. oh and thanks for clearing up that very sparky wire for all of us, we were very alarmed at first there.[/QUOTE] BloodyNine explains it more succintly here:[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51048254]So we managed to debunk your insurance nonsense so now you're just going to try and run circles on Buidling 7 and whenever anyone hits you with a counter point, you're just going to jump to the next conspiracy theory until everyone gets tired of responding to your drivel. At which point you're going to proclaim victory to yourself and continue to spread your craziness to other people.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zyler;51048628]The laws of physics apply the same way no matter what material we're talking about. Look man, OvB knows a lot more about this stuff than you do, maybe you should listen to what he's saying and try to understand it rather than arguing about something you don't have enough knowledge about to debate properly. You don't know enough about this stuff to form an educated opinion on it.[/QUOTE] Before you bring up any more arguments, you need to acknowledge that you were wrong about the Silverstein Insurance conspiracy, you were wrong a penthouse not falling through a building, you were wrong about there being molten metal and concrete around the base of the tower, you were wrong about molten metal not glowing, you were wrong about the debris or 'meteorite' from the falling towers being molten (molten metal IS liquid) and you were wrong about the physics of the plane hitting the tower not causing significant damage when traveling at a high enough speed. You also didn't acknowledge how you cannot prove why it's less likely than the towers were holograms than if they were taken down by a deliberate demolition.

[QUOTE=gk99;51048638]Can you iterate what your actual point in this post is? [editline]a[/editline] I honestly can't tell. You just posted a video of an object designed to crush a car crushing a car [editline]a[/editline] And withstanding a plane crash wasn't what the WTC towers were designed to do[/QUOTE] So the guy who designed them was lying? [video=youtube;9fQlC2AIWrY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY[/video]

Barbarian's posts are making my already strong belief that 9/11 wasn't some wacky conspiracy even stronger He ignores evidence and instead strategically attacks the tone of argument (which is a pretty easy to spot logical fallacy) instead of refuting what's been said. And then he shows a complete lack of knowledge in science when he explains why the twin towers collasping from the official story is impossible and fails to argue agaisnt contradictory claims from actual experts. You're not being persuasive at all Barbarian, especially with the whole mocking "Mr. Science" thing. I don't see how backing up points with science is a bad thing, it's like calling someone "Mr. Facts and Evidence."

[QUOTE=Zyler;51048684]So you just ignored two of my posts, disappeared for a bit and then went right back to step 1 Here they are again, in case you missed them:[/QUOTE] Hey I'm not ignoring your posts, you posted while i was writing up a long post How is him stating things anymore evidence than me stating things?

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048686]So the guy who designed them was lying? [video=youtube;9fQlC2AIWrY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY[/video][/QUOTE] He's comparing a plane crashing into a building to a pencil through a netting. Weren't you just bitching about shit analogies five minutes ago? [editline]a[/editline] Also I mean yeah, he could've easily been lying. He designed it, he wants it to look good on his portfolio. [editline]a[/editline] If you were in his position would you go "nah all that structural stuff we did? doesn't mean shit. a plane could take that out easy as shit"

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048686]So the guy who designed them was lying? [video=youtube;9fQlC2AIWrY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY[/video][/QUOTE] you don't know until you try. a plane going almost 500mph can definitely fuck some shit up, steel or not. the guy even says it himself, it was designed to withstand a lesser plane from the fucking 70s when the towers were completed, the 767 didn't come out until the 80s.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048691]Hey I'm not ignoring your posts, you posted while i was writing up a long post How is him stating things anymore evidence than me stating things?[/QUOTE] Because what im saying has grounds in fact, logic, and science, and is something you can show in experiments. You're throwing videos and nonsensical bullshit at us and expecting us to eat it.

[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;51048690]Barbarian's posts are making my already strong belief that 9/11 wasn't some wacky conspiracy even stronger He ignores evidence and instead strategically attacks the tone of argument (which is a pretty easy to spot logical fallacy) instead of refuting what's been said. And then he shows a complete lack of knowledge in science when he explains why the twin towers collasping from the official story is impossible and fails to argue agaisnt contradictory claims from actual experts. You're not being persuasive at all Barbarian, especially with the whole mocking "Mr. Science" thing. I don't see how backing up points with science is a bad thing, it's like calling someone "Mr. Facts and Evidence."[/QUOTE] Show me his scientific proof please. No, not him calling me dumb and ignorant, and no not him stating something just as i was stating things.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048699]Show me his scientific proof please. No, not him calling me dumb and ignorant, and no not him stating something just as i was stating things.[/QUOTE] Did... Did you go to highschool? How old are you?

[QUOTE=gk99;51048695]He's comparing a plane crashing into a building to a pencil through a netting. Weren't you just bitching about shit analogies five minutes ago?[/QUOTE] I don't think that's a very bad analogy.

you know usually when people engage in these multi-page debates where they're the only one with their contention against multiple people, they at least [I]reference[/I] the fact that there are other posts with valid points in the thread. skatehawk's "i simply do not have time to respond to everything" excuse comes to mind. but this dude just flat out ignores every point he can't address. every post he makes just cements the fact he doesn't know what he's talking about further and further. in his attempts to be persuasive, he is actually persuading me [I]away[/I] from his side. i think he has a very specific set of evidence and points he can make, and he's simply waiting for the conversation to swing around to the relevant subjects so he can show them off. anything outside these subjects, he ignores.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048701]I don't think that's a very bad analogy.[/QUOTE] A bullet being thrown vs. shot is bad but throwing a pencil through a net is good? What?

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51048700]Did... Did you go to highschool? How old are you?[/QUOTE] I'm 22, no I did not attend a High School, I got a GED instead, and by the way scored in the 99 percentile in science. Regardless, If you can't answer any of my inquiries I'm going to give up and go to bed. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;51048707]A bullet being thrown vs. shot is bad but throwing a pencil through a net is good? What?[/QUOTE] a plane isnt a bullet. good god are you fucking with me?

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048708]I'm 22, no I did not attend a High School, I got a GED instead[/QUOTE] that's all i needed to see.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048708]I'm 22, no I did not attend a High School, I got a GED instead, and by the way scored in the 99 percentile in science. Regardless, If you can't answer any of my inquiries I'm going to give up and go to bed.[/QUOTE] You mean that giant block of text answering your inquiries that was posted 2 times?

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048708]I'm 22, no I did not attend a High School, I got a GED instead.[/QUOTE] And nobody is surprised. [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048708] and by the way scored in the 99 percentile in science.[/QUOTE] What science. There is no one science class in highschool. For me anyway there was a class in freshman year going over some basics of multiple topics, then a bio class, chemistry, then optional classes. [QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048708]Regardless, If you can't answer any of my inquiries I'm going to give up and go to bed.[/QUOTE] How the fuck did you receive an education (apparently) yet not understand how matter state changes work, and velocity?

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048691]Hey I'm not ignoring your posts, you posted while i was writing up a long post How is him stating things anymore evidence than me stating things?[/QUOTE] Stating things is not evidence. You have provided no evidence. Assuming by 'him' you mean OvB or Aaron, he provided evidence. Evidence means facts, numbers, statistics, without evidence there is no reason for one statement to be more likely than any other. That's why the towers being holograms is just as likely as your claim that they were taken down by a deliberate demolition. How do you disprove my theory that the towers were holograms? In fact my theory is even more likely because it doesn't require the government to demolish their own property, why don't you believe my theory instead?

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048708] a plane isnt a bullet. good god are you fucking with me?[/QUOTE] And a plane isnt a fucking pencil.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048708] a plane isnt a bullet. good god are you fucking with me?[/QUOTE] No it isn't, but any object traveling at a high enough speed can do the same amount of damage as a bullet of the same size. That's how physics works. You don't understand this, why don't you listen to the people who know more than you do? We have answered your queries multiple times, you don't seem to be listening to us.

[QUOTE=Pops;51048697]you don't know until you try. a plane going almost 500mph can definitely fuck some shit up, steel or not. the guy even says it himself, it was designed to withstand a lesser plane from the fucking 70s when the towers were completed, the 767 didn't come out until the 80s.[/QUOTE] Hold on now, how can a 767 go 500mph at 1000ft? Pretty sure that's impossible.

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048686]So the guy who designed them was lying? [video=youtube;9fQlC2AIWrY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY[/video][/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.titanicuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/titanic-newspaper-article-3.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048728]Hold on now, how can a 767 go 500mph at 1000ft? Pretty sure that's impossible.[/QUOTE] Oh my [i]fucking god.[/i]

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048728]Hold on now, how can a 767 go 500mph at 1000ft? Pretty sure that's impossible.[/QUOTE] Why do you think that's impossible? What leads you to that assumption? Do you have scientific papers to back up your reasoning or do you just think it's impossible because you want to believe there is a conspiracy? Why weren't the towers holograms? Why is your belief that there was a controlled demolition more likely?

[QUOTE=Zyler;51048726]No it isn't, but any object traveling at a high enough speed can do the same amount of damage as a bullet of the same size. That's how physics works. You don't understand this, why don't you listen to the people who know more than you do? We have answered your queries multiple times, you don't seem to be listening to us.[/QUOTE] Answer how aluminum can pierce steel. I need this answered. Without violating neuton's third law, explain how this can happen

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048728]Hold on now, how can a 767 go 500mph at 1000ft? Pretty sure that's impossible.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.reference.com/vehicles/fast-airplanes-fly-c6b9724fcdb4d95d#[/url] [quote="It's not though...?"]The Cessna Skyhawk, a single-engine plane, has a maximum cruising speed of 124 nautical miles per hour, which is just over 140 miles per hour ground speed. [B]A Boeing 747 typically cruises at 567 miles per hour.[/B][/quote]

[QUOTE=Barbarian887;51048733]Answer how aluminum can pierce steel. I need this answered. Without violating neuton's third law, explain how this can happen[/QUOTE] By moving really fast.

[QUOTE=OvB;51048107]Well, I just read all that paper. I'm disappointed. It's nothing new or ground breaking. Just the same stuff about free falls, fire not causing collapse, and thermite that you hear all the time.[/QUOTE] So it's crackpot garbage is what you're saying.