Saturday, 15 August 2009

Real Truth Online = Real Dodging Online

Larry from Real Truth Online claims:
Another tactic of yours is using certain arguments against ME (like saying youre not an architect) and then making "expert" claims in the very next sentence.
But Larry from Real Truth Online also says:
The ONLY thing that would cause a perfect symmetrical collapse is perfectly leveled weakness all around the building at the very same level and the very same time.
That seems like Larry aka Real Truth Online making an "expert claim". So I tried to find out Larry's relevant expertise.......

The following are all separate examples of 'Larry The Real Truth' avoiding answering the same simple question:
Are you an architect, Larry?
LINK
Still waiting for Larry to answer if he's an architect.
LINK
---Are you an architect?
LINK
Larry - are you an architect?
LINK
Are you an architect Larry?
LINK
Are you an architect Larry?
LINK
So, are you an architect or someone with relevant expertise, Larry?
LINK
Are you an architect Larry?
LINK
What's your expertise? Are you an architect?
LINK
What's your expertise? Are you an architect?
LINK
What's your expertise? Are you an architect?
LINK
how many times have you been asked if you are an architect?
LINK
I readily admit I am no architect and have no relevant expertise. As a non-expert I have no choice but to accept expert-opinion, which I am happy to do, unless given good cause to do otherwise.

Larry doesn't play by the same rules. His reasons for avoiding the question are obvious. If Larry answered he'd be guilty of what he accused me of ie
using certain arguments against ME (like saying youre not an architect) and then making "expert" claims in the very next sentence.
So, are you an architect Larry? Let's have the real truth online, for once, shall we?

And when you've answered that question, Larry, and perhaps get in the habit, maybe you'd like to address the other questions you have repeatedly avoided answering? Such as -

1) Why do you link to Willis Carto's AFP and other far-right jew-hating websites?

2) How do you justify working for publisher Alex Jones (Prisonplanet) when he has close relationships and promotes Willis Carto's publications?

3) Jones and yourself attack Obama for being fascist, but you're both silent about your own links to Willis Carto whom has close ties to genuine Nazis and fascists. Why? How do you justify this?

4) What is your explanation for the building collapses on 911? Demolition? Who What When How?

29 comments:

Real Truth Online said...

Its fun watching you implode. Obsessed with me much? I normally would say "thanks for the exposure", but since only 2 people come to your site, counting YOU--that's not much advancement.

Still dont have a picture of a universal collapse of a building due to fire pre-9/11 huh??

LOL. And you wont--because none exists. Do you realize your STORIES about me bring out your psychotic tendencies? Posting comments is one thing---but stories??? NOBODY reads your blog Turd---no one. Youre an insignificant wart on the ass of life.

the_last_name_left said...

On another thread Larry says: I said I am NOT answering your questions until you give me ONE example of a universal collapse of a building due to fire pre-9/11.

And

thats your psychotic debate tactic: You ignore my question and then ask a question in reply and tell me you wont answer MINE unless I answer YOURS

Errr - right

DODGE DODGE DODGE

LOL

the_last_name_left said...

Are you an architect Larry?

LOL

Larry said...

Nice job quoting me OUT OF CONTEXT----you OMITTED the part where I said I wasnt answering your questions "Because I asked you MY question FIRST".

Larry said...

My ACTUAL quote (notice where you cherry-picked what I said):

"I have actually already answered this question numerous times---ahhh but you wont post THAT will you? I said I am NOT answering your questions until you give me ONE example of a universal collapse of a building due to fire pre-9/11. I asked MY question WAY before you asked yours.

But, thats your psychotic debate tactic: You ignore my question and then ask a question in reply and tell me you wont answer MINE unless I answer YOURS, even though MY question was asked FIRST, then you not only keep IGNORING my quesion, you continue to tack on more questions asked WAYYY after mine were asked to somehow try to trick your one reader into believing I ignored not just ONE question, but multiple questions---when the truth is, you KNOW darn well I originally said I wont answer yours until mine is addressed."

Is THAT the ONLY way you can "win"? OMIT portions of what I say to make your points?

the_last_name_left said...

I have given you that report - and the link - 6 times or more. Here, and at your own blog. You haven't checked it. Oh well. It is a survey of full and partial building collapses - it gives 8 examples of full collapse.

I also wrote an entire post dedicated to WTC7, showing the evidence it suffered severe fires, and how it was clearly possible for it to have been hit by debris, and how the fire chief and crew spoke of their concerns for the buildings impending collapse (due to fires and debris).

You want to discard all that evidence - fine - you're entitled to Larry. But don't pretend you haven't been presented with it.

L: "I have actually already answered this question numerous times---ahhh but you wont post THAT will you? I said I am NOT answering your questions

LOL. You've answered it by saying you won't answer it?

Not until you've had an answer to a question which I've already extensively addressed several times?

LOL

Are you an architect Larry?

Still dont have a picture of a universal collapse of a building due to fire pre-9/11 huh??

Well, there's WTC 1 +2 obviously. But you refuse to count those, for some unexplained reason.

Photos of others - no - but that report (which I've given you 6 times but you refuse to look at) gives 8 examples of total collapse.

Why insist on a picture?

I said I am NOT answering your questions until you give me ONE example of a universal collapse of a building due to fire pre-9/11.

So not a picture? Just an example?

As I said numerous times already, there's WTC1+2, plus there's that report (which you ignore) which gives 8 examples of total collapse.

You ignore the evidence - then insist none exists.

Hmmm.

You can ignore the evidence, but don't pretend it hasn't been presented to you - it has - over and over.

Are you an architect, Larry?

the_last_name_left said...

Interesting to see the conspiracist tactic here - concentration on WTC7 - because they understand they've lost the argument on WTC1+2 so far as demolition goes.

To imagine WTC 1+2 were demolished by controlled demolition is obviously absurd. WTC7 only somewhat less so - because of its size.

But what would proving WTC7 was demolished by controlled demolition achieve? It still says nothing about the planes and WTC1 + 2. It does nothing to prove 911 was "an inside job" - a conspiracy.

The concentration on WTC7, by Larry here as example, shows how conspiracism has been progressively forced to retreat to the only places left to it. It's like religion leaving the realm of science.

the_last_name_left said...

Chief Bonner, of the fire department of New York, says in reference to the destruction of the Manhattan Bank building:

....We shall have in this city, unless the citizens of New York are warned in time, a calamity by fire which will rend their hearts. ... The heat thrown from a large burning building of any height is immense. ... I am prepared to declare, from my experience, that a building of brick and yellow pine in case of fire is easier to manage, and the contents have more chance of being saved than the modern fire-proof building. In the former structure the fire burns more slowly and has no chance to concentrate its heat as in the iron and steel structure.

Chief Swenie, of the Chicago fire department, is quoted in the essay as follows:

"I think very much as Bonner does," said Fire Marshal Swenie to-day, when his attention was directed to a statement of the chief of the New York fire department to the effect that the modern skyscraper is a veritable firetrap. .... Fire in a room so filled with goods might in very short time gain such headway as to imperil seriously the entire structure by the expansion, warping or twisting of the iron or steel framework.

No ... building of any kind in which inflammable goods are stored should ever exceed 125 feet in height, and might with advantage be much less. This is not because we cannot throw water high enough. But suppose such goods are stored in a twelve-story building; a fire breaks out, say on the sixth floor, and gets to burning furiously. The heat ascends and causes the pillars and beams to expand. The expansion first raises all that part of the building above where it takes place. At the same time the whole weight above continues on the expanded metal. before you know where you are something is going to give, and what will be the results? They will be too fearful to contemplate.

... It does not take a great amount of heat to cause steel and iron to expand, and when beams and columns begin moving something has got to break. Suppose a fire breaks out in one of these buildings. We work at it from below, and the steel beams expand, the ceiling breaks and the floor above comes down. ...

Larry said...

I LOVE how you respond to a post of mine where I say you have CHERRY PICKED my posts by CONTINUING to cherry pick them to mean what you want!!

Heres the cherry picked quote of mine you used:

"L: "I have actually already answered this question numerous times---ahhh but you wont post THAT will you? I said I am NOT answering your questions"

My ACTUAL quote:

""I have actually already answered this question numerous times---ahhh but you wont post THAT will you? I said I am NOT answering your questions until you give me ONE example of a universal collapse of a building due to fire pre-9/11. I asked MY question WAY before you asked yours."

Tell me Mr Truth----if the truth is on YOUR side, why the need to OMIT ".....until you give me ONE example of a universal collapse of a building due to fire pre-9/11. I asked MY question WAY before you asked yours"????????

Because youre a mother fucking dishonest PRICK who can ONLY "win" when chopping up someone's quotes to mean what they want them to mean!

I said: "Still dont have a picture of a universal collapse of a building due to fire pre-9/11 huh??"

You said:

"Well, there's WTC 1 +2 obviously. But you refuse to count those, for some unexplained reason."

Unexplained reason? I have already told your stupid fucking ass BECAUSE WTC 1 & 2 WERE HIT BY PLANES-----WTC 7 WAS NOT. THAT IS WHY I DONT COUNT THOSE! MORON!

You said:

"You can ignore the evidence, but don't pretend it hasn't been presented to you - it has - over and over."

NAMES OF THE BUILDINGS AND PICTURES OF THEM HAVE BEEN PRESENTED??? WHEN?? WHATS FUNNY IS, YOU SAID THE ABOVE QUOTE RIGHT AFTER SAYING:

"Why insist on a picture?"----ADMITTING YOU HAVENT SUPPLIED A PICTURE!

GIVE ME BUILDING NAMES---PICTURES, ASSHOLE

You said:

"To imagine WTC 1+2 were demolished by controlled demolition is obviously absurd. WTC7 only somewhat less so - because of its size."

Explain the complete pulverization of all the concrete into dust. Explain why the 47 steel columns in the center were not still standing after the collapse. You cant--thats why you will ignore this.

You said:

"But what would proving WTC7 was demolished by controlled demolition achieve?"

It would achieve that either terrorists were allowed inside of WTC 7 to plant explosives or there were no terrorists at all---either way=INSIDE JOB. I had to TELL you that??

the_last_name_left said...

LOL - read the report Larry - the names of the buildings are in there.

As you admit - you've been given the report loads of times already, but you still haven't even bothered to go look at it.

either terrorists were allowed inside of WTC 7 to plant explosives or there were no terrorists at all---either way=INSIDE JOB. I had to TELL you that??

So, an inside job for WTC7, but terrorists for WTC 1_2? LOL What a coincidence?

Are you an architect Larry?

Larry said...

"So, an inside job for WTC7, but terrorists for WTC 1_2? LOL What a coincidence?"

You are a complete MORON

the_last_name_left said...

Are you an architect?

---------

See - you think that by opening some space for the mere possibility of inside job for building 7, you can prove the entire thing was a conspiracy.

You think that obviates the need for you to have to explain how WTC1+2+7 were brought down by demolition via conspiracy.

In fact, all you will have done is pursued every single avenue to find the circumstance with the least actual physical evidence - and from a lack of physical evidence for one particular circumstance you claim a lack of explanation - and from there insist the entire thing must therefore be a conspiracy. It's ridiculous.

All without having provided a single piece of positive evidence in favour of demolition and conspiracy.

You don't even realise how flawed your method is, do you?

So now, eventually, you admit to believing in demolition? For all 3 buildings? I asked you waaaay back for what you thought happened - and you refused to answer. Because you know that requires you doing some explaining and providing some evidence. Much easier to instead continue your pursuit for a circumstance with little or no explanation - so as to insinuate your idea of conspiracy.

So - you've avoided giving an explanation of what you thought happened. But now you've said demolition, then where is your evidence for it?

WHAT WHEN WHO HOW? What is your evidence? You haven't provided a single piece of positive evidence. So tell us how did anyone rig the towers and 7 with explosives?

When did they do it? When did they have the time necessary to do it and not get found doing it?
Who did it? How many people? What is your evidence for it? How did they achieve it? Why is there not the least bit of physical evidence for it? Where are the explosives? Where is the detonation cord? Where are the shaped charges? Why didn't it make the sounds so obviously apparent at demolitions? Why is there no visual evidence of explosions? Why wasn't there shrapnel from explosions? Why is the debris field not one associated with explosions? How did the demolition start at the place the planes hit? How did they know to start them there, or manage to hit the planes there? How did the demolition charges escape the fire without going off? How did they survive the fire? How did the detonation cord escape and survive the fires and fuel explosions?

Let's compare your answers and how they support your hypothesis and the actual evidence with how well the obvious hypothesis is supported by the actual evidence.

Let's see how your ultra-scepticism for the obvious explanation disappears and transforms into gullibility when considering your demolition hypothesis.

Let's see how your demands for perfect explanation and complete evidence for the official hypothesis dissolve into blind acceptance for your demolition hypothesis and the total lack of evidence in its favour..........

(You won't even attempt it, because you know you don't have the evidence to support your hypothesis - and if you try to present any it will be obvious. So better to just avoid doing so - as you have done all along so far.)

You still haven't even answered if you are an architect. Let alone have you offered the least bit of positive evidence for demolition. But you imagine you've proven your case. Sad.

Larry said...

"Why is there no visual evidence of explosions? Why wasn't there shrapnel from explosions? Why is the debris field not one associated with explosions?"

Because it was an IMPLOSION----you moron---the opposite of EXplosion! God, are you in the 3rd grade?

the_last_name_left said...

Ah - exhaustive answer. As I expected.

So you're suggesting there's something called "implosives", as opposed to explosives.........hmmmm.......that's about as good a suggestion as "space-rays did it".

Are you an architect larry?

socrates said...

What's it matter if he isn't an architect? You aren't, so that point is a wash. You're trying too hard, TLNL. Instead of long winded entries from sources with dogs in the hunt and then JREF debunker style retorts to anything and everything which questions the official story, why not answer the question so any slob like me who hasn't studied this topic can understand? Show some other examples of buildings that fell exactly like #7 did due to fire. Not long-winded tough to read reports, but a few sentences with an example. Some pictures and videos would help. Those buildings fell like they had been planned to. It's not like the planes got that far into the buildings. I think they should have toppled over if anything. So the sprinkler systems didn't work? The thing was an inferno and the the steel melted, then one floor collapsed into the next and on and on even where the steel below had to be intact? The weight of each floor on the next forced strong steel cores to crumple pancake style into nothing, all to the ground? You see, I can play your game and call you a member of the JREF debunker cult. You have already called me a conspiracist. Maybe you can tell me how cirrus aviaticus forms in 10% relative humidity? Oh yeah, you like to call such ideas kooky without getting into the basic third grade science which proves fake clouds aren't a side effect of commercial aircraft emissions interacting with humid, ambient necessary conditions. Larry calls you a moron. You call him a wingnut, or I did. You call him a twat ot twit, can't remember. Yeehaw, congrats on your website.You have proven that 9/11 conspiracy theory has been created by the neonazi Carto movement. You have proven that all who question the official story have been snookered by Rivero and other disinfo slobs. Not. This topic transcends the wingnuts. And Israel is in the wrong in regards to their asymmetrical warfare, and no lefty would dismiss the implications of that. Oh yeah, you are so involved fighting oppression in Africa and elsewhere. You'd like the world to believe that, wouldn't you. And one more thing, while Larry's lack of apostrophes is quite annoying, the same can be said for your overuse of the question mark. My excuse for no paragraph breaks? My return key is busted and I am too lazy to copy and paste some paragraph breaks. And why does someone have to sign up to Trausti's disinfo website to read there. Someone like yourself with over 11,000 posts should be very upset with him, yet you still dig the guy.

the_last_name_left said...

What's it matter if he isn't an architect? You aren't, so that point is a wash.

I'm happy to admit it. I offered the information.....and he won't even answer the question.

S: Show some other examples of buildings that fell exactly like #7 did due to fire.

I linked to a report submitted to NIST giving 8 total collapses. It's only 2 or 3 pages long - hardly any text.

S: Some pictures and videos would help.

Last time it was "less is more" - now it's more pics and vids? eh?

I think they should have toppled over if anything.

I used to think so. Based on mackey's explanation (linked elsewhere) I now think my (uneducated) intuition was wrong. I think I was wrong. I've no problem in accepting that - or admitting it.

The weight of each floor on the next forced strong steel cores to crumple pancake style into nothing, all to the ground?

Not quite - the weight of the entire building above the impact zone did something along those lines. When mass starts moving it has far more energy than when at rest.

How hard will a hammer hit a nail if the hammer isn't moving? Not at all. How hard will a hammer hit the nail if you raise the hammer above your head first?

You have proven that 9/11 conspiracy theory has been created by the neonazi Carto movement.

Err - no - but they play a major part in it. Much of the information that is regarded as the foundation of 911 Truth has actually originated at the fascist organs. They leave their usual distortions all over it - they're incapable of not doing so. The whole point of them doing it is that, anyway. Like they care about accuracy?

why does someone have to sign up to Trausti's disinfo website to read there.

I don't know tbh - best ask him?

Someone like yourself with over 11,000 posts should be very upset with him, yet you still dig the guy.

Loyalty, eh? What a terrible thing.......

Larry said...

Funny how you blasted me for my "foul language" on your site, but you go to PrisonPlanet and type this repeatedly on the threads:

"ALEX JONES IS A CUNT – YEAH SUPPORT LIBERTY – ALEX SUPPORTS NAZIS – ALEX IS A FRIEND OF FASCIST TWATS – ALEX SUPPORTS WILLIS CARTO – ALEX EMPLOYS JIM TUCKER – ALEX EMPLOYS MIKE RIVERO – RIVERO PUBLISHES CURT “kill the niggers” MAYNARD – ALEX SUPPORTS AFP’s JOOOO HATING REV PIKE – ALEX PUBLISHES AFP’S JOOOO HATING BOLLYN – ALEX JONES IS A CLOSET FASCIST SUPPORTING CUNT"

Under the screen name "Giant Haystacks" under this story:

http://www.prisonplanet.com
/two-faced-pelosi-if-you-
protest-republicans-
you%e2%80%99re-
%e2%80%9cvery-american%e2%80%9d
-if-you-protest-democrats-
you%e2%80%99re-a-
%e2%80%9cnazi%e2%80%9d.html

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, it "wasnt you". You'll be a COWARD and deny it!

socrates said...

Ok, I'll post in the format you do, even though it's repeating things.

I'm happy to admit it. I offered the information.....and he won't even answer the question.

By Larry not answering the question, obviously he isn't an architect. Though even if one is or not, that doesn't matter. Science is more important in explaining this. I wrote to a meteorologist asking him how cirrus aviaticus formed in 10% relative humidity. He wrote back saying I witnessed thin cirrus moving in from the West. He totally misunderstood the question. I wrote back again clarifying even more. I got no response. So-called experts are just that. I see yet again you dodged my simple science question in response to chemtrails which you call kooky. Yet, you expect me to dive in deep into a subject I really haven't done so. Of course chemtrails mean a lot to me. Anyone can see that if they check out my blog. They can also go through the astroturfing section and the stuff on the WRH Unofficial forum and then understand how the two of us were linked together by disinfo forces and then there's the crap with Tinoire and Chemtrail Central, etc..

I linked to a report submitted to NIST giving 8 total collapses. It's only 2 or 3 pages long - hardly any text.

One example, your best would do it. I am under the impression that the WTC's were chock full of steel, that they were built with the idea to withstand planes crashing into them. Plus, #7 wasn't some barn adjunct. That was a fairly hefty structure which wasn't hit by any plane.

Last time it was "less is more" - now it's more pics and vids? eh?

That's how the JREF debunkers do things. They start out all nice and conversational, but then they get into semantics on the road to full blown ridiculing.

I used to think so. Based on mackey's explanation (linked elsewhere) I now think my (uneducated) intuition was wrong. I think I was wrong. I've no problem in accepting that - or admitting it.

I didn't realise there are educated and uneducated intuitions. You see how two can play at semantics? Of course no one should be ashamed to admit they were wrong. That's what is so troubling about Larry. He's got nothing to say about the Curt Maynard and Carto-Rivero type connections to Alex Jones. He and myself will never be close, as obviously, we have nothing in common. But a "wingnut fascist" and a "commie pinko" don't necessarily have to show each other animosity. He's actually got a very serious point about your hypocrisy with bad language. Did you write the things he says you did at the Prison Planet forum? Maybe some salty sailor talk is ok once in a while, but it gets lame rather quickly when it becomes a consistent pattern.

socrates said...

Not quite - the weight of the entire building above the impact zone did something along those lines. When mass starts moving it has far more energy than when at rest.

How hard will a hammer hit a nail if the hammer isn't moving? Not at all. How hard will a hammer hit the nail if you raise the hammer above your head first?


Uhm, what if the nail has already been hammered in? We're talking steel. #7 wasn't even hit by a plane. You still haven't shown how the plane crash had more energy than a North Korean atomic test, something you posted before. At some point the intact steel below the impact should have held its ground. Yeah, the floors themselves, I can see them crashing to the bottom. But the steel foundations, I'm not buying it. I guess that's my educated intuition speaking rather than the conspiracist one you say I engender.

Err - no - but they play a major part in it. Much of the information that is regarded as the foundation of 911 Truth has actually originated at the fascist organs. They leave their usual distortions all over it - they're incapable of not doing so. The whole point of them doing it is that, anyway. Like they care about accuracy?

There was also something called the Warren Commission Report and it has been thoroughly disgraced. The same people at DU who mock those who question Sept. 11th, also go out of their way to promote the official explanation of Oswald as a lone sniper. Fancy that. And such debates did not form because of neonazi disinfo networks. As I've said before I think you are conflating two separate topics- Sept. 11th anomalies with a neonazi disinfo racket.

I don't know tbh - best ask him?

You had 11,000 posts with plenty of it concerning your stuff on Rivero and the others. Now it is completely inaccessible. Yet, that doesn't piss you off. And there you go with the question marks again. Last time I asked you this question, you answered something different akin to the way that meteorologist responded to me, yet I forget how you did so. At least this time you are acknowledging the question. But your response is similar to the one you give on Israel's asymmetrical warfare against Palestinians- a non-answer.

Loyalty, eh? What a terrible thing.......

You're showing loyalty to someone who has hidden over 11,000 of your posts. That doesn't add up. He has one section available, the admin one. Here are some quotes from him.

"It is FORBIDDEN to copy, quote, or duplicate in any other way in whole or in part, what is posted in this forum. In final instance, what is posted here should be regarded as my personal and private property.... In order to read, post, reply, vote etc. on all our main forums, you need to register as a member."


Ok, I remember your response to when I asked about him hiding your 11,000 posts. You said it was a counter-measure against spammers. That had nothing to do with my question. You don't seem too upset if at all that 11,000 of your posts are hidden. And according to what he wrote above, you aren't even allowed to copy and paste what you wrote. Pretty bizarre. Trausti comes across as being some form of disinfo honey pot douche product. How does Trausti rationalise hiding his forum? If I recall correctly, didn't you say it was a response to Rivero being upset with your content?

the_last_name_left said...

S: By Larry not answering the question, obviously he isn't an architect. Though even if one is or not, that doesn't matter.

It does and it doesn't.

If it matters that I am not an architect, it matters that Larry and anyone else who comments isn't - or is. The people who write the reports and whom decide building codes and such like are......and that does matter.

We're not talking just opinions - we're talking engineering and physics in regard to the buildings.

S: Science is more important in explaining this.

Exactly.

S: So-called experts are just that.

Just what? You can't say science is important and then dismiss all experts. Why should we? Where is the justification for doing so? Because of some wider political conception that requires we must do so? Sorry - but no. Dispensing with expertise just because one's political conception insists you need to do so (to sustain one's political conception) is deeply flawed and rejects the enlightenment and everything else imo. It takes more than simple conviction. There's objective reality.

S: I see yet again you dodged my simple science question in response to chemtrails which you call kooky.

Dodge? Hmmm - I am just not interested. I don't see anything in it. Am I interested in ghosts? No. Do I dodge issue about ghosts? If my views on ghosts are going to antagonise friends, then I won't pursue the subject.

S: Yet, you expect me to dive in deep into a subject I really haven't done so

I don't expect anything from you - except some civility and some respect, I guess. I certainly don't expect you to dive into 911 or anything you're not interested in. You're under no obligation whatsoever.

S: I am under the impression that the WTC's were chock full of steel

Yes, but as I pointed out before, there's a simple issue with very tall buildings - there's a conflict between strength and height: higher buildings demand increased strength to support the increased height, whilst building higher demands lighter materials and more sophisticated methods. There's an obvious antagonism between those needs there.

You can't hoist battletank buildings up to the skies. At least not so easily or cheaply. And this is 1960s USA we're on about. (Late 80s for WTC7)

I'm not saying that explains everything, but they're factors. And the heavier and more robust the construction, the more likely a collapsing top portion will be to bring down the rest of the construction? That's obvious?

the_last_name_left said...

S: they were built with the idea to withstand planes crashing into them.

they did survive - long enough for most everyone to get out.

S: Plus, #7 wasn't some barn adjunct. That was a fairly hefty structure which wasn't hit by any plane.

Sure - but it was hit by debris, and suffered fires, and the internal sprinkler system seems to have failed. It was also built in a weird way - to accommodate the power station underneath - with cantilever supports - so that the structure was wider than it's base.

Would you happily build a building by that configuration again? I wouldn't.

I didn't realise there are educated and uneducated intuitions.

Maybe intuition is the wrong word. My response to repeated viewing of the collapses was "That's impossible!" But I've changed my mind - having had explanations. I don't see any grounds whereby I can say it is impossible.

S: You still haven't shown how the plane crash had more energy than a North Korean atomic test, something you posted before.

I'll find the calculations.

S: At some point the intact steel below the impact should have held its ground.

Every point in the structure has a load limit - if that is exceeded, even if for an instant, then what? And not every point of the structure was intact, and operating at optimum. Once loads start moving the energy increases enormously.

People don't even understand this about driving their cars - if you double your velocity(speed), you do not double the energy component - it's squared ie 4 times. If you triple your velocity, that component is squared ie 9 times. 4 is 16. 5 is 25. 6 is 36. So - stationary to an acceleration of a little below gravity (because of resistance of the structure) is how much energy gained? It's enormous for the top block of those towers.

The illustration is the hammer. That's why hammers have a big lump on the end - and why they need to be moved a few feet to get their real benefit. Rather than a hammer we're talking 10s of stories of WTC.....

"I'm not going there" with Kennedy assassination. What's the point? Likewise with 911 really - it's irrelevant to sorting issues of the world. Who did 911 has nothing to do with creating "a better world". It doesn't impact on anything much at all. I enjoy discussing it - because it's an enigma - but beyond that - it has nothing to say about the world, really. I have the fortune of not having been personally involved, so........

You had 11,000 posts with plenty of it concerning your stuff on Rivero and the others. Now it is completely inaccessible. Yet, that doesn't piss you off.

Well, I'd rather it was public, but so what? I'm here instead.

the_last_name_left said...

S: You said it was a counter-measure against spammers. That had nothing to do with my question. You don't seem too upset if at all that 11,000 of your posts are hidden. And according to what he wrote above, you aren't even allowed to copy and paste what you wrote.

But I do take what i want from there. I can't believe Trausti would stop me. He never has, so......

If I recall correctly, didn't you say it was a response to Rivero being upset with your content?

Well, i think the place has bounced between being public and not - apparently because of spammers. I noticed after the episode of Rivero's and the BankIndex dude's complaining that the forum was not public - and I wasn't especially happy about it.......I'd rather I had been supported to the hilt.....but so what? What does Trausti owe me? Nothing. He still publicly hosts my pages on Rivero which are pretty scathing imo. I'd rather the forum was publicly accessible without registration too, but so what? It isn't my decision.....and so I post here instead. It is public here......and I'm happy about it. :)

I don't mind people disagreeing with me - but on what terms? How they go about it is important. Sure - not everyone into 911 truth is a fascist - but I bet a lot of what they take as accepted fact has had passage through the fascist blogosphere, and has been distorted because of it. If not entirely invented out of thin air - on the back of their "cause".

People are entitled to disagree with me over 911 - but how they do it is important. I take insinuations of my having a dog in the hunt the way they're intended - and I'll respond in suitable fashion. People can think what they like. I'm not obliged to ANYONE.

socrates said...

Maybe I was wrong to ever bring the phrase dog in the hunt into the dialogue. I never said you do. I only said it seems like you might. I can't change what I wrote. It happened. Now yourself equating chemtrails with ghosts, maybe one could say you are ridiculing a topic you are not interested in. That would be an easy way out on your part.

I don't think a collapsing top portion is more likely to bring the whole thing down. Maybe all the floors, but not all that steel. And there you go again with the awkward use of question marks. Either you believe what you said is obvious or not. Maybe it would work if you said, "That's obvious, isn't it?" No you wrote, "That's obvious?"

Those buildings did not survive, and you knew exactly what I meant. It's all about the steel.

There may have been some kind of load limit, but the building fell straight down in a pretty much symmetrical manner. Sides of the buildings were hit, not the buildings as a whole. Picture a tree being hacked at. It's gonna come down one side or the other, not straight down.

The point about the JFK assassination and debunkers is that it shows a consistent methodology of proving one side no matter what the facts. It's like when master debaters can win contests even when they are given the tougher side to argue for. The same way you refer to "conspiracists" as having cult-like traits can be said of the JREF debunker ilk.

So what in regards to Trausti hiding your 11,000 posts? What about him saying what you wrote is his property? Maybe you can ask him if he really means nothing can be copied and pasted from his WRH forum. Talk about fascism. To say as an admin that everything posted becomes his property is a sad joke. Maybe Trausti doesn't know you have copied and pasted from his forum. Perhaps you should confront him and see if he really meant it. Or maybe you don't want to ask a question where you won't like the answer. That Trausti closed his place after some Bank Index dude made a post also doesn't pass the stink test.

On a side note, I have put the final nail into Tinoire's credibility here. Your episode with her was duly noted.

Larry said...

Love how The Turd IGNORED my post about him being "haystacks" on PP and cussing like a sailor on the thread--and he condemned ME for it on here.

Frank DeMartini said in a PBS special in February 2001 that the twin towers were MADE to withstand planes--the biggest plane at the time was only a tiny fraction smaller than they were in 2001, so if the Turd attempts to use the "yeah but planes were much bigger in 2001" bullshit, its all spin, because even though planes were bigger in 2001, it was only by few feet----not even close to significantly more. If the buildings were made to WITHSTAND planes, that means that they were made to not completely destrot the building!!!

So, I guess The Turd will now say the twin towers weren't destroyed!!!! LOL

the_last_name_left said...

Look, you're entitled to NOT believe it. Big deal that you don't.

What does it matter? Where does it leave you? Where does it take you?

On and on and on with reasons you don't believe it. Fine. Now take the next step, for chrissakes?

As for the towers being made to withstand planes - well, that must mean they were destroyed by controlled demolition, right? If someone says they were designed to withstand a plane impact then they simply have to. And if they don't then there must have been a conspiracy - of course.

Nevermind that they survived long enough for most everyone to evacuate.......

the_last_name_left said...

S: Maybe I was wrong to ever bring the phrase dog in the hunt into the dialogue. I never said you do. I only said it seems like you might.

Well, you're entitled to think so.....but....I'm entitled to make of the suggestion what I like, too. It's hardly a suggestion I'm supposed to appreciate, I suspect.

Now yourself equating chemtrails with ghosts, maybe one could say you are ridiculing a topic you are not interested in. That would be an easy way out on your part.

Well, I don't see anything in it. I try not to react to people antagonising me, but sometimes I respond. There's no reason I have to maintain respect above what people grant me.

S: The same way you refer to "conspiracists" as having cult-like traits can be said of the JREF debunker ilk.

I have limited experience of JREF, but I disagree. Gnerally they seem committed to hard science.....there's some clever, well educated, experienced scientists there. What can be wrong with that?

S: So what in regards to Trausti hiding your 11,000 posts? What about him saying what you wrote is his property? Maybe you can ask him if he really means nothing can be copied and pasted from his WRH forum.

nah - just copy and paste it. I can't see he would care. Pretty sure it's just standard forum claptrap. I have a link here as my sig over there. I use it as a reference rather than copy-paste - but - I can't believe he'd care either way.

On a side note, I have put the final nail into Tinoire's credibility here. Your episode with her was duly noted.

Cool. LOL @ their "left-wing" self-definition. We survive from donations.......from WHOM? lol

Larry said...

"As for the towers being made to withstand planes - well, that must mean they were destroyed by controlled demolition, right? If someone says they were designed to withstand a plane impact then they simply have to. And if they don't then there must have been a conspiracy - of course.

Nevermind that they survived long enough for most everyone to evacuate......."

Frank DeMartini designed the towers, that makes him an EXPERT. He said not only were the towers designed to withstand a plane----but MULTIPLE planes.

I see. YOUR experts are "REAL" experts, but mine are crackpots. By the way, DeMartini was KILLED on 9-11. When will EVER answer how all the WTC concrete pulverized into dust and why there was molten steel in the rubble of the towers---and why were firefighters' boots still melting from the heat of the rubble MONTHS after the attacks??

You will ignore this-----AS USUAL.

the_last_name_left said...

L: Frank DeMartini designed the towers, that makes him an EXPERT. He said not only were the towers designed to withstand a plane----but MULTIPLE planes.

They did "withstand" being hit by planes.

They did not "withstand" being hit by airplanes full of fuel, suffering explosions of jet fuel, and subsequent severe fires.

I notice that not once have you attempted to answer the questions that were asked of you, Larry.

Coward. But I never expected you to - I'd have bet money you wouldn't.

Are you an architect? etc........

the_last_name_left said...

For you it's important that I'm not an architect - but you refuse to even admit you are not an architect yourself.

For you it's important that a tiny few number of architects or engineers support your baloney - but you disregard such expertise when considering the enormous number of experts involved at NIST, and everywhere else who believe different.

Yours is a fraudulent method, Larry.

Are you an architect? LOL - not even an answer - oh brave truthwarrior. Sheesh.