In case 4 minutes weren't enough
indeed 4 minutes is not indicative that a presentation will adequately respond to all the analysis offered by presentations measuring from 2 to 5 hours in duration. this one you link to is 17 minutes. that is probably insufficient as well, but i have higher hopes for this one. lets see what we have here.
"The following video contains footage of the 9/11 attacks that some viewers
my find distressing." reads the disclaimer at the beginning of the video. this presentation hasnt even begun yet and my hopes for a detail-oriented top-notch production are already suffering.
"a friend of mine said i should take this opportunity to walk down to ground zero and ask some 9/11 truthers about the tragic events of 2001." honestly, this is all you really need to know about this presentation to safely stop watching and not worry about missing out on anything intelligent or relevant. this is a favored tactic of those unwilling or incapable of responding to the person, group, idea, or body of information in question. even more cowardly than attacking the actual messenger, go out on the street corner and find a few individuals who identify themselves as supporters of the person, group, idea, or body of information, and capture them appearing silly, stupid, and ignorant. of course you can do this with anything, and the only thing it proves is your own cowardice. you could go out on the street corner and find people who believe the official 9/11 story who also believe the earth was created a few thousand years ago by a guy on a cloud with a beard. you could go out on the street corner and find people who believe the earth revolves around the sun who also are holocaust deniers. i bet you could even go out and find people who believe in newton's 3 laws of motion who also believe that the official theory of the 3 world trade center skyscrapers pulverizing themselves to dust from the top down through the path of greatest resistance by way of gravitational collapse is an entirely plausible scientific possibility.
here's one i saw recently that was kind of amusing, this guy goes around interviewing people off the street who identify themselves as obama supporters who think that karl marx is obama's foreign policy advisor or something and endorse karl marx to run for president:
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/99JdDgglMuA&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/99JdDgglMuA&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>]]>but i digress.
of course the fact that i could stop watching this presentation before it even begins and remain totally confident that i am not missing out on anything intelligent or relevant does not mean i will. what fun would that be?
lets continue.
first off, we get to interview a cat lady on the street corner about her thoughts on which model airplanes the twin towers were designed to withstand an impact from. according to her recollection it is probably a newer model than the boeing 707. poor cat lady. you are about to get debunked. amidst the ensuing debunking we are even offered up nice formulas like the formula for finding the kinetic energy of an object. this rekindled my hopes for this presentation, but only fleetingly. apparently the math and physics related to the impact of the airplanes is more relevant than the math and physics related to the actual destruction of the 3 world trade center buildings, despite the fact that wtc 1 and 2 survived the actual impact of the planes, and wtc 7 was not even hit by an airplane.
"but i think we're all forgetting something here, which is that the twin towers did survive the impacts [...] and they stood for a long time." as it turns out, apparently we can all actually agree on this one: the cat lady interview and the debunking that ensued was entirely irrelevant. lets continue.
"the reason the towers collapsed was a mixture of damage from the impacts and the resulting fires which weakened the steel." out of nowhere we land dead-center bullseye at the crux of the matter. unfortunately, the presenter's previously apparent affinity for math and physics is absent here, as no formulas or explanations are offered for reconciling the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion. instead, nebulous claims and counterclaims ensue regarding the color of smoke. unfortunately, this does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.
next, the presenter debates the cat lady on the finer points of office-fire-weakened steel. unfortunately, this does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.
next, the cat lady receives a well-deserved respite as we move on to debate some other street-goers on the potential implications of bowing of the outer columns of the twin towers. unfortunately, this does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.
next, we are reminded as we always are by "debunkers" that the fire-proof foam was likely to have been blown out by the impact of the planes. unfortunately, this does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.
next, it is declared that some steel beams were likely to have been weakened, some possibly even collapsing, resulting in outer columns bowing and snapping, all culminating in... "and then the building collapsed." we even get nice history-channel animations of beams sagging, trusses snapping, and outer columns bowing. unfortunately, this does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.
next, we confront more street-goers about bowing outer columns at the impact sites and what this has to do with reconciling the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion. errr, sorry, i got a little ahead of myself there. rather, we next confront more street-goers about bowing outer columns at the impact sites and what implications this might have on theories of controlled demolition. finally, the presenter of this video seems to have struck a fatal blow to cat lady and her street-going compatriots, successfully ensnaring them in a question they arent quite sure how to respond to, causing them to stammer a bit and look rather foolish. we even get a cute little popup text that reads, "They can't explain it or they change the question." this coming from a video that seeks to ensnare a cat lady on the street corner and make her and other street-goers look stupid, instead of actually responding to any of the vast quantity of data and analysis offered by professional architects and engineers! as cute as this is, though, it still unfortunately does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion.
next, the presenter poses the question, "what evidence do truthers have that these buildings came down by controlled demolition?" hmm, this sounds like a potentially promising line of questioning. my hopes for this presentation are once again slightly rekindled, albeit with strong reservations at this point. the presenter then informs us that he has 3 hours of footage on this topic, but he is "only going to talk about a few things," because he is "only one guy." i also look and see that there is less than 10 minutes left in this presentation. of course we'll go ahead and assume he chose to present to us the most salient clips of the least wacky looking, best informed, and most articulate street-goers.
"Truthers say that an object at freefall would take around 10 seconds to fall from the height of the twin towers, and the fact that they fell in 10 seconds proves that demolition charges were blowing floors out beneath the point of collapse, allowing the buildings to fall at freefall. This is already really easy to disprove. Just look at the footage for yourself and time it. It's well above 10 seconds, and in fact most of the footage even shows part of the lower portions of both towers, around 60 stories of wtc 1 and 40 stories of wtc 2, remain standing for up to 25 seconds after the initial collapse." There are a few different things going on here, lets take them one at a time.
"Truthers say that an object at freefall would take around 10 seconds to fall from the height of the twin towers." Sadly, my initial hypothesis that the presenter is a math and physics buff appears to be debunked by this statement. It seems he is unfamiliar with the acceleration of gravity, and presents it as a conspiracy theory proffered by "truthers." oh well, nobody is perfect, and i am more interested in addressing the information offered by the messenger than attacking the messenger. so, lets continue.
"And the fact that they fell in 10 seconds proves that demolition charges were blowing floors out beneath the point of collapse, allowing the buildings to fall at freefall. This is already really easy to disprove. Just look at the footage for yourself and time it. It's well above 10 seconds." Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), simply declaring that black is white does not make it so. We can easily find many official videos of the collapse of world trade center buildings 1, 2, and 7, and count for ourselves the amount of time the "collapse" sequences took. While it is understandably clocked at not quite exactly the acceleration of gravity throughout the entire "collapse" sequence, we can see that the actual rate at which the destruction of all 3 wtc buildings occurs does indeed approach the acceleration of gravity. Yet even if one insisted that black is white and the towers "collapsed" in 30 seconds, or 30 minutes, or 30 hours, this still does nothing to reconcile the gravitational collapse theory with newton's third law of motion!
"And in fact most of the footage even shows part of the lower portions of both towers, around 60 stories of wtc 1 and 40 stories of wtc 2, remain standing for up to 25 seconds after the initial collapse." this is so pathetic i feel kind of bad even responding to it. i mean, just look at what he is referring to:
how embarrassing. clearly when someone refers to the rate of a "collapse" sequence they are referring to...the rate of the actual "collapse" sequence, not how long it took some residual beam to fall over later. i am beginning to wonder if this video is actually meant to be a parody on "debunkers." alas, lets continue.
next, we get to view a rather lengthy exchange between the presenter and another street-goer about this residual beam. the street-goer is unfamiliar with this beam. a sad day for yet another street-goer. bro, you are so debunked. lets continue.
"Also, for some reason, truthers put in the whole height of the twin towers when they do their equations to work out that its going to take 10 seconds to fall at freefall. Why don't they take it from where the point of collapse is? I never really understood that." Clearly there is a lot this guy doesnt understand, not the least of which being newton's third law of motion. But first lets address the most ridiculous implication of this statement. Keeping in mind that these buildings "collapsed" through the path of greatest resistance straight down into themselves, what do you expect to find by instead starting your measurement at the points of impact? are you going to find that the section beneath the point of impact fell slower than the section above it? an interesting day for physics that would be. But lets move on to where this line of questioning really leads us.
newton's third law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. the gravitational collapse theory postulates that due to structural damage at the point of impact, the section of structure above the point of impact initiates a "collapse" sequence in which this upper section piledrives the entirety of the intact structure below it straight down to the ground through the path of most resistance, pulverizing it to dust at nearly the acceleration of gravity. quite a day for physics that would be if that were indeed the case, regardless whether that happened at exactly the acceleration of gravity or a hair less. of course the fact that the destruction of all 3 wtc buildings did indeed approach the acceleration of gravity makes this theory all the more absurd. where could the extra energy come from that would be required for the smaller upper section to pulverize the much larger intact lower section through the path of most resistance straight into the ground? newton is unquestionably rolling in his grave at such an obviously ridiculous theory.
this gravitational collapse theory and its implications is of course the crux of the issue regarding the collapse of the 3 wtc buildings, and is never actually addressed by any "debunking" material i have ever seen. how could it be? instead, of course, they at best try to focus the conversation on other details, or they pick out some ridiculous theories about lizard people or giant ray guns or something to "debunk," or at worst you get the sort of drivel offered by this presentation, in which a handful of street-goers are made to look goofy or foolish. however, there is still a few minutes left in this presentation which may contain further enlightenment. lets continue.
next, we are presented with a replay of the destruction of one of the towers, showing falling debris outside the perimeter of the building, positioned below the main point of "collapse." it is declared that this clearly disproves the rate of "collapse" being close to the acceleration of gravity. ironically however, the actual point of "collapse" never escapes the frame of this zoomed-in shot tracking this piece of debris, staying in nearly perfect sync with this piece of debris all the way down.
and of course next we ask some poor sap on the street corner what he thinks about this. he isnt quite sure what to make of it. bro, do you even truther? yet another street-goer debunked.
next, we get to hear from a street-goer who fancies numerology and is sure that various numbers aligned that fateful day and created some vortex from another dimension which caused 9/11 and, or well, ya know, something along these lines. no comment.
of course this video wouldnt feel properly complete without returning to home base and interviewing the cat lady one last time. we discuss elevators and explosions with her for a bit. according to her, the police and firemen that arrived heard explosions before the planes even hit the towers. oh, cat lady. you are really in for it now. of course there were no responders present before anything actually happened. cat lady debunked again!
well, all things considered, i must admit i am quite disappointed with this presentation. of course, i am not only able and willing, but in fact quite eager to take any information someone links me to, digest it in its entirety, respond to the actual content contained therein, and offer my analysis of every last bit of it. kram1032 and others, can you say the same?
December 31, 2011, 02:50:22 PM
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM