I have tried to be more than lenient here, but at this point I've seen enough to become convinced that this is not merely a bad turn of phrasing or someone with a limited grasp of English idioms... the only question remaining in my mind is whether Agent is just trolling or actually wants to convince people to this... er... "cause".

After re-reading this from Kyro, it occurred to me that I might have misinterpreted it.  It seems that, in response to some other guy asking "where's the moderator," Kyro was trying to state "unless I've missed something, the OP hasn't done anything to warrant moderator attention."

If this is the case, let me state it loud and clear:  KYRO, I APOLOGIZE (for my response to the above).

While I still emphatically disagree with his choice of words "making himself look silly," I guess that's beside the point.

I've seen enough of these kinds of attacks.  I haven't responded to any until now, but I'll bite.

1. What did I say to make you initially think it could have been "bad turn of phrasing" or "limited grasp of English idioms?"  Can you quote me, and explain?

2. Why do you think this is "trolling," whatever that's supposed to mean? (I think it just means "I don't like this person or what he says, so I'm just gonna attack him with some stupid web phrase.")  Can you explain, and possibly quote me, if applicable?

3. Why should this "cause" as you put it (I guess I'll call it a "subject") be considered strange, off-limits, or somehow not worthy of consideration, discussion, or debate?  Explain.

I will say in advance that I will not be responding to anyone else except Scoutdog.

K lets see when seven to Eight floors of a building fall all at once thats like 7 mill tons of square footage  force going down on the other floors.

Yeh that would pulverize concrete to dust knowing its dust before u mold it it just went back to its original form its called physics.

the same reason there were no corpses it obliterated evrything and evryone inside when it went down

1. I believe it was Daiwa who noted that your original post had a tone and style similar to many conspiracy theories and urban-legend-type circulatives, but as I said before that could be an accident of translation or just general writing style.
2. Trolling, in a nutshell, involves posting strange, irrelevant, and often politically/ideologically provocative things for the express purpose of getting people to react and harass each other. People have a tendency to take things like the WTC incident very seriously/personally, and there are a lot of easily-offendable ideologues left, right and center when it comes to massive foreign-originating guerilla operations that kill thousands of people. Hence, the posts create exactly the sort of fighting and bickering that trolls try to create. It's sort of like wearing a fur coat to a PETA rally: confrontation is inevitable.
3. This is partly explained above. Stardock has a fairly strict policy of not allowing political/ideological threads on this board, precisely to keep trolling and fighting to a minimum. They do, however, run another site called JoeUser where this sort of thing IS permitted... I am reasonably sure Kryo would be happy to move the thread to a relevant spot there for you if you asked him (I think you might even be able to do it on your won through the Thread Edit window.... gonna have to check on that at some point in the future...).

please tell me why testimony from firefighters at the scene, describing a massive hole and a 20-storey fire is somehow "odd".

please tell me why you ignore 200+ witnesses, some who were within a few dozen yards of a large commercial jet as it flew into the pentagon, the matching of DNA to all but a few people on flight 77, the plane parts recovered from the crash etc aren't enough for you to work out what flew into the pentagon. i'd also like to know what you think happened to flight 77, where the plane and passengers were if not at the pentagon crash site.

*sighs* i don't know why i keep seeing this superb documentary used as some kind of evidence regarding 911. the power of nightmares depicts a very real islamic terrorits threat, and goes into great detail how islamic fundamentalism used hawkish american policies for their own ends (and vice versa). at no stage does it make claims that islamic terrorism isn't a real threat, but focuses on the way that threat is manipulated and/or exaggerated. it makes a case that there was no proper, organised structure known as al qaida, but it doesn't claim that no loose collection of islamic terrorists exist, who carry out terrorist attacks. it has absolutely no bearing on the 911 attacks, and its completely wrong of you to post it here as some kind of evidence.

"Conspiracy theory" is a meaningless term, so I can't respond to it.

As to writing in an urban-legend style or narrative, I don't know a damn thing about such prose or rhetoric, so I guess we can chalk it up to "accident of translation" or "general writing style" ...whatever "it" is.  I mean, I guess you suspected I was trying to write up, or create, an "urban legend?"

First, your "trolling" term is a meaningless pejorative.  I see it used all the time.  It's thrown around like candy on Halloween.  Whatever you say it means, the way it's used is simply to personally attack people.  If "trolling" really exists, then it seems the best course of action is for the "trollophobic" person to simply avoid the "troll" and the post.  Do we agree?

Second, I don't consider my post strange, irrelevant, political, or ideological, however I do consider it provocative.  Why wouldn't "provocative" be a good thing?

So what does this have to do with what happened to those buildings?  Are you saying that, since people take this seriously/personally (they don't have a monopoly on seriousness - I take it seriously too), inquiry into what exactly happened is for some reason off limits?  Can you explain?

1. This post is not political or ideological.

2. Let the forum police handle forum police matters.  Apparently they are aware of this post (Kyro commented), but they have done nothing.  What does that tell you?

I believe that Agent is just doing some healthy questioning of the evidence presented. Being attacked for doing so to me shows "small minded" or "sheeple". Government and politicians lie over and over so when can you believe them. When a politician walks on his hands and puts his ass to the mic is the day I might believe one because it is all crap coming out there mouths.

I do not believe the towers did fall due to pancaking.

I believe building 7 was pulled (demolished) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucGCs0hl9S8&feature=related the big slip up

http://www.youtube.com/user/foghaze WHY?

Agent, the concrete wasn't all reduced to powder.  Some of it was.  The particulate in that plume was not all concrete powder, very little of it was.  There was a massive fire over several floors.  A lot of it was all that ash being blown out the windows as the top floors all collapsed on themselves and blew out the contained atmosphere.  Below the point of impact, there was little in the way of fires, so no ash plume was ejected as it fell. The tower fell at about half the rate it would have purely in relation to gravity, the other half of the time was spent compressing those floors, most of it near the top.  At each successive floor, there would have been another shock, successively more powerful.  Hence the massive cloud of concrete dust that rose up at the end of the collapse.  You got the powdered concrete at the end of the process.

Contrary to 9/11 truther reporting, concrete chunks a few inches in diameter were in large supply as they cleaned up.

Can i ask a simple question? what is the point to any of these questions? this happened 9 years ago.. 9! does this have ANY relevance to todays problems? yes the war and all that garbage but i mean really. what is the purpose in digging out old conspiracies?

Just let it be. The past is past. If yesterday is done then certainly 9 years ago is buried and forgotten. We neednt worry about this today either. because its DONE. lets stop wasting forum space shall we?

I already brought up that point. Had you given serious thought into those words, you would have actually read the thread and known that. Be informed before criticizing

This is the government's "pile driver" or "hammer" theory, where the top 7 to 8 floors (which had always been held up by the remainder of the building) for some reason decide to act as a "hammer" which then crushes through and pulverizes the entire remaining structure.

Let's ignore for a minute what it would take to pulverize all that concrete to dust and focus on the basic physics part of this.

One of the first physics 101 formulas taught is F=mA (force = mass X acceleration).  Other formulas deal with the fact that energy is always conserved.  Your theory violates both of these principles, and more.

Basically, it goes like this.  As the "hammer" falls, potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.  As the "hammer" then collides with the floors below, it pulverizes concrete to dust (according to you).  Now, where does the energy come from to pulverize the concrete?  It isn't "free" - it comes from the kinetic energy of the falling "hammer."

Your first problem is that this would necessarily result in the slowing down and deceleration of the "hammer" (the "A" in "F=mA).  But this never happens - the towers "fall" at free fall acceleration.

Your second problem is that there isn't enough kinetic energy in the falling hammer to disintegrate even 1 concrete slab, much less an entire building of concrete slabs.

Your third problem is that, according to the photos you see at the top, and all other photos as well as videos, THERE IS NO HAMMER!  Science always starts with an observation.  Where are you observing a hammer in the photos above, or in any photo?

Watch this video.  I selected it strictly for the fact that it loops over and over again, so it is easy to watch without having to rewind again and again.  My question to you is, WHERE DO YOU SEE A HAMMER?

http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidChandler911

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

you're completely wrong and there is no evidence whatsoever for demolition. if you have any reason(s) why the investigation by hundreds of NIST experts as well as their private contractors, was so horribly in error when they found fire was the principle cause of collapse for WTC7, then feel free to post what you have. FYI, youtube videos don't quite cut it in the real world. Are all the relevant experts "in on it" or just woefully incompetent?

here is the initial report for WTC7 if you're interested: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

The vast majority of the concrete in the buildings was reduced to powder, along with everything else in the buildings.  This is admitted by the government.  Hell, it's admitted by New York Governor George Pataki, because I have him on video.  The only stuff that wasn't reduced to powder was the steel.

I'm sorry, you are wrong.

Watch some decent videos of the "collapse."  "Ash plume" is ejected all the way down.  The buildings essentially just burst into powder from the top down.

http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidChandler911

Incorrect.  The government now admits the towers fell at essentially free fall (along with building 7), but it took several years for them to do so.

The rate at which the towers fell is easily verifiable with video, and with a stopwatch.  It shouldn't be controversial.

Interesting video. 3/4s into that clip I posted are many people including firefighters who say they heard many explosions. I assumed most people can't really tell the difference between a concussion from a collapse or explosives.

Main Entry: skep·tic

Etymology: Latin or Greek; Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos, 

from skeptikos thoughtful,

from skeptesthai to look, consider

where is attack or flame in websters definition

kharma is once again completely wrong. his own photos show debris falling well below the line of collapse. had the buildings fallen at freefall speed, the debris would not have been falling below that line.

You should watch the video you just linked, no stopwatch needed.  Look at the rate at which the surrounding debris falls in correlation to the collapsing floors.  Look at the progressive change in the color of debris as the collapse progresses, progressively lightning as it's less smoke and more dust.  Look at the huge wall of shit that falls to the right, still largely intact as it peels off the inner structure.

You don't need an engineering degree to figure this out, you just need a rational mind.  It wasn't a demolition.  They don't blow buildings up when they demolish them anyway.  Large quantities of powdered concrete is normal even in significantly smaller structures.  One that has a thousand feet to drop makes a whole hell of a lot of it by the time it gets all the way down.

nothing to see here but the same lies and distortions from griffin & gage et al. im sure griffin's doctorate in philosophy gives him a particular insight into the structural collapses on that day. gage is an architect who has been unable to produce any significant work. ignorance and a desire to believe is all these guys have.

This is a fine point, I guess.  We've heard different things from the government.  First that nothing was free fall.  Then, close to free fall.  In the latest video I saw of one of the head government scientists for NIST, he admitted the buildings fell at "free fall" but said this isn't unusual because since they were mostly empty air, that's to be expected, LOL.

I've always heard that one of the towers took a little longer to "collapse" than the other, by a couple of seconds.  This must be the video for that particular tower.  Either way, it's far too close to free fall acceleration to be able to explain it with any physics or engineering.

With that video, I don't know what vantage point they are measuring from to time the fall, and I don't know when they decide to start the clock.  If I have time I'll check into it, and post more if you are interested.

What kind of "logic" is this?  It's such a strange statement that I don't know whether to laugh out loud or scratch my head.  Are you implying that if criminals, terrorists, pick your word, destroyed this building, they would have done it according to some standard demolition practice or procedure?

Either way, if you can watch that video and others, and conclude that a building being converted to dust from the top down is in fact a gravitational "collapse," I guess I'm just stupefied.

myfist0, even the government abandoned this theory, and now uses the "piledriver" or "hammer" theory (see above somewhere).  You really find the pancaking theory convincing?

Entire February 2010 Issue of the American Behavioral Scientist Devoted to State Crimes Against Democracy: 

Elizabeth Woodworth offers this:

"It's now confirmed that the February edition is available in print, and can be ordered for $24 for the whole issue.

Contact SAGE Journals Customer Service department via e-mail at [email protected] or phone 1-800-818-7243 then hit #2, then #0 for operator, then ask for "Journals", and they will mail a copy.

Otherwise individual papers cost $25 to be viewed for one day, on the journal's website, and cannot be downloaded from it. (Because the pdf could be freely circulated if it were downloadable)." 

For 50 years the American Behavioral Scientist has been a leading source of behavioral research for the academic world. Its influence is shown by the fact that it is indexed by an extraordinary 67 major database services, causing its papers to be widely exposed on the international scene.

The publisher, Sage, is headquartered in Los Angeles, with offices in London, New Delhi, Singapore, and Washington DC.

Each issue offers comprehensive analysis of a single topic.

The six papers in the February 2010 issue are devoted to the recent concept of "State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD's)," with emphasis on 9/11 and on how human behavior has failed to recognize its reality. [Ref.abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6]

What are SCAD's?

SCADs differ from earlier forms of political corruption in that they frequently involve political, military, and/or economic elites at the very highest levels of the social and political order," explains one essay.

"Negative information actions" are defined by another as "willful and deliberate acts designed to keep government information from those in government and the public entitled to it. Negative information actions subvert the rule of law and the constitutional checks and balances."

One paper shows that "preexisting beliefs can interfere with people's examination of evidence for state crimes against democracy (SCADs), specifically in relation to the events of September 11, 2001, and the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Another refers to TV's "popular culture passion plays" as "displacing interrogation of real-event anomalies, as with the porous account given by the 9/11 Commission for what happened that fateful day."

And another deals with "the actual destruction of sovereignty and democratic values under the onslaught of antiterrorism hubris, propaganda, and fear," in response to 9/11, asking whether the Patriot Acts of 2001 and 2006 are themselves state crimes against democracy.

The papers extensively quote the independent academic researchers who have been studying the 9/11 problem for years, including Dr. David Ray Griffin; Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Steven Jones, Chemist Kevin Ryan, and the rest of the team that studied nanothermite in the World Trade Center dust; and Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, Barrie Zwicker, Dr. Nafeez Ahmed, andThe Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

____________________

Papers Listed in the February 2010 Issue, Amer. Behav. Sci.

Matthew T. Witt and Alexander Kouzmin, "Sense Making Under 'Holographic' Conditions: Framing SCAD Research." American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 783-794.

Lance deHaven-Smith, "Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government.," American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 795-825.

Christopher L. Hinson. "Negative Information Action: Danger for Democracy."American Behavioral Scientist, 2010 53: 826-847.

Laurie A. Manwell, "In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11," American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 848-884.

Kym Thorne and Alexander Kouzmin, "The USA PATRIOT Acts (et al.): Convergent Legislation and Oligarchic Isomorphism in the 'Politics of Fear' and State Crime(s) Against Democracy (SCADs)," American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 885-920

Matthew T. Witt, "Pretending Not to See or Hear, Refusing to Signify: The Farce and Tragedy of Geocentric Public Affairs Scholarship," American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 921-939.

No, ammended. I have not kept up on the subject until now and was always on the fence.

The above articles can be accessed by most collage or university databases.

Well that movie explains to you perfectly why certain things that could prove without a doubt that things occurred the way they say it did are not being made available tot he public. And that documentary quite blatantly says it, because whats on the tapes from the security footage of the hotel does not match up with what the real story is. And from you phrasing as limiting it to this documentary only showing that Islamis are using a neo-conservative idea and not realizing what that means on our side of out leaders also following that doctrine. Basically is say to hell with the real truth, the truth is what we decide it to be. Meaning the government under that influence follows a policy where they simply lie to people in order to advance their own personal agenda. Oh and you should watch the 2nd documentary " The Trap: What happen to our freedom" it complete the "power of nightmares" although it works on a complete difference facet.

Boy your the perfect boyscout politicians want.

sorry champ, as a "no-planer" you already illustrate you are immune to facts, logic & common sense. so, good day to you. keep fighting for that second investigation. 9 years and we're still waiting. good luck with that, rofl.