David Hooper 2014 “Anatomy of a Great Deception”

[wildbilln864]

[JohnyCanuck]

1. I like that example of the thought experiment of the cast iron stoves at 11:49 in the video

Where the stoves are all stacked up vertically and welded together and then one of the stoves in one of the upper levels of the stack gives way for some unexplainable reason causing the whole stack of stoves to collapse vertically downwards so that they are all reduced into a pile of pulverized rubble.

[wildbilln864]

2. yes! me also.

shows how the official conspiracy theory is so ridiculous.

[William Seger]

4. David Hooper is conducting "thought experiments" with faulty equipment

If David Hooper really wanted to understand why the towers fell, he should have started by trying to understand what the experts say -- "viscoplastic creep" is not that difficult to understand -- and he clearly hasn't done that. Instead, it appears that he sought out sources who deliberately misled him in the direction he wanted to go, anyway, and now he tries to pretend that it was a rational inquiry, following the "evidence." But like all 9/11 conspiracists, after deciding that all the evidence we have of a terrorist attack was faked and all the "smoking guns" were somehow covered up, he tries to justify his beliefs with things that superficially sound like evidence-based reasoning, until you look at them closely. "Truthers" give away the game, however, when they simply refuse to recognize what's wrong with their arguments, as a truly rational person would. As Jonathan Swift pointed out, you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.

You think his iron pot analogy make the "official conspiracy theory" look ridiculous because you don't understand what's wrong with it. That would be forgivable, except that you don't want to understand why real physics and structural mechanics and the effects of scale make the analogy look ridiculous. Imaginary physics is good enough for you, but that's a trivial step for someone who has convinced himself that magical silent explosives must exist, since "they" must have used them to bring down the towers.

[zappaman]

3. This experiment is better...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836

[hack89]

5. The WTC would not have collapsed if the were build like giant cast iron stoves

Unfortunately they were much weaker with millions of joints that could fail under stress and impacts.

[wildbilln864]

6. "millions of joints"?!

That's a hoot hack! Millions of joints fail under impacts?
So you think those skyscrapers were weaker than cast iron stoves eh?
Thanks.

[hack89]

7. How many individual pieces of steel went into the towers?

Can you answer with a number instead of a smilie?

So tell me - how strong would a stove be if you took a big chunk out of it and then dropped a very heavy weight on it?

[wildbilln864]

8. doesn't matter how many....

only a very few columns very high in the structure were damaged and there was no "big chunk" taken out!

[hack89]

9. So flying 200 tons of airplane at 500 mph into the core of the towers

will not do significant damage to more than a "very few" columns? How would it miss them? Something stopped all that debris moving at high speed from simply going right through the building and flying out the other side.

You do believe there was a plane, don't you?

btw, I noticed you refused to answer my question about how many pieces of steel there were.

[wildbilln864]

10. like slamming a half empty aluminum beer can

into a steel reinforced gate! Only the engines and maybe landing gear could sever the massive columns in the towers providing they didn't miss them and go between but of course no plane hit 7!

[hack89]

11. You forgot the strongest part of the plane - the wing box

That is the structure the engines and landing gear are attached to. We are talking about 100 feet of strong, thick steel. No way it missed the core.

WTC 7 had tons of debris fall on it. The FDNY reported a 20 story gash in the side of the building in addition to monitoring a bulge in the side of the building for a couple of hours before the collapse. but you knew that.

[MajorHassle]

12. You must

work for Boeing. Do you use a bulge monitor at work? What was the reading on the bulge monitor used for WTC7? Was the person certified to use a bulge monitor?

[hack89]

13. Do you believe the FDNY?

Is there any reason to believe they are lying?

[MajorHassle]

14. Do you believe the FDNY?

I've never read or heard a first hand account from a NY firefighter regarding monitoring a bulge in WTC7. Have you got one.
I've read and watched many firefighters (as well as other witnesses) testify to hearing explosives. Do you believe the FDNY?

[hack89]

15. We have discussed this issue here a hundred times

Wildbill has seen the evidence countless times over the past nine years - I know because I show it to him several times a year. He just ignores it.

Go search the archives. You are way late to the party and it is not my job to get you up to speed. 911 Truth is dead.

[MajorHassle]

16. and a hundred more times won't change things

Wildbill doesn't seem to be too impressed with your "evidence", nor am I.

Why are you wasting your time and going out of your way to fight the truth - if it's dead?

The truth is alive, my friend!

[hack89]

17. Which is why 911 Truth plays such a huge role in American culture

The movies, the songs, the TV shows, the works of fiction, the countless magazine articles. And lets not forget how it has dominated our political discourse for several election cycles .... oh wait, none of that happened.

911 Truth is dead.

[nationalize the fed]

19. "911 Truth is dead."

It's only just begun.

8/1/2014

One day the Truth will out. Maybe starting with the 28 pages, which is basically ignored by those who think they know everything. Which is pretty funny if you think about it.

Do you care what has been censored in those 28 pages?

[hack89]

20. The JFK conspiracy theorists have been saying that for 50 years

as for the 28 pages, yes I am interested in the relationship between Bush and the Saudis.

But that has nothing to do with the controlled demolition of the WTC. The knowledge to understand that 767s flying full speed into the WTC was sufficient to cause the damage and fires that resulted in their collapse is not secret. That is your problem - all but a tiny handful of engineers and scientist understand that CD was not required to bring down the WTC.

And that 28 pages certainly is not going to validate holograms, Global Hawks / missiles hitting the Pentagon, mini-nukes and all the other "esoteric" theories advanced by 911 Truthers.

[wildbilln864]

24. not impressed at all...

with your bulshit "evidence"!

[hack89]

26. Oh well

let me know when 911 Truth comes to something.

[wildbilln864]

27. I wont have to as I'm sure you stay on top of it in case it does.

This seems to be your main interest for some reason.

[hack89]

28. Have you noticed how infrequently I post in this forum?

it is not like it was in DU2 - I really enjoyed those discussions but the fire seems to have gone out of the 911 Truth movement. Hardly any posters and endless google dumps repeating the same stuff we have been discussing for years have made this forum a backwater.

When 911 Truth starts naming low level conspirators that actually did the grunt work of wiring up the WTC for demolition is when I will pay more attention. Why can't you name names 13 years after the fact? Surely some one would have talked.

[wildbilln864]

29. I'm sure all the "grunts"are dead!

yes I do notice! sometimes.

[nationalize the fed]

18. Haven't you read the NIST report?

WTC 7 had tons of debris fall on it. The FDNY reported a 20 story gash in the side of the building

18 story not 20, but what's a few added floors when you're trying to make a point

NIST FAQ: 21. Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?

The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours.



The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

If you're going to believe The Official Story™ shouldn't you be faithful to it?

NIST: The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system

[hack89]

21. The debris damaged the structure and set it on fire

Last edited Fri Sep 25, 2015, 10:21 AM - Edit history (1)

which led to its collapse. Sound reasonable to me. Do you agree?

[nationalize the fed]

22. You said:

WTC 7 had tons of debris fall on it. The FDNY reported a 20 story gash in the side of the building in addition to monitoring a bulge in the side of the building for a couple of hours before the collapse. but you knew that

You are trying to make the case that the 18 (not 20) story "gash" caused the collapse.

It did not, at least according to NIST.

[hack89]

23. You need to understand that Wildbill and I go back nine years on this issue

so I didn't feel compelled to restate the complete arguments I have made countless times. Sorry for the confusion.

Just to restate my position (which you can verify many times in the DU archives) it was the combination of structural damage and unfought fires that caused WTC 7 to collapse.

[wildbilln864]

25. where are the flames?

where 's the fire that supposedly caused this collapse?
Obviously it wasn't so intense else there'd be flames shooting out but there are none!

[superbeachnut]

30. A dumbed down movie of nonsense and lies, makes money for David.

David found a market for lies and fake claims about 911, and you can buy it for 15 bucks, or so.
There is a market for lies, and David is going to tap it.

911 truth, in the 14th year of lies.