|
Raise your hand if you think "US two" needs his knuckles rapped.
(nobody typing, guess their hands are up?) That aside, who saus the steel was saved and inspected? That Corley fella sounds like just a government PR man, head of the OKC building team too, eh? If a Cessna crashed into a garden shed there would be more investigation than in the WTC farce. Reassembling the buildings should have been mandatory. Finding out exactly what went wrong so that hundreds of thousands of other existing buildings and all new construction can be deemed safe or not (and torn down?) should have been of the utmost importance. So what now? Don't go in tall buildings anymore? I can't believe there isn't more vocal concern from the affected trades. Architects, construction companies, pilots, etc. There is some, i wish i could find the old pilots forum where they discussed the hijacking method and impossible aerial manouvers several years ago. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And I’ve finally got a chance to look into the Madrid fire, and you’ve got it all wrong, as well as the conspiracy theorist have your facts all wrong. Quote:
http://www.911myths.com/assets/image...id_remains.jpg The one where most of the upper steel floors are CLEARLY COLLAPSED. See all that twisted rubble; that was the steel support on the upper floors, all that is left is the concrete, which did not exist in the WTC as support; it was only layered on top of the steel trusses offering no support. I will eventually have the time to debunk all your wild claims, half truths, and distortions with real facts, it takes some time, but I do time and time again. You may want to fact check your work before I expose it for what it is. |
Here's my stance: I do not put blind faith in any conspiracy theory, and I definitely do not put blind faith in the government. I think everyone here would agree that more facts are needed in order to sort things out. By "facts", I am referring to deductions based on hard evidence. By "hard evidence," I am referring to official *unedited* media (full-length quality video tapes and audio recordings, interviews with various relevant personell, et c.) and official reports (scientific statistics, reports, blue prints, et c.).
That having been said, I ask (cynically): Who has the goods? The citizens don't... or at least not anymore (e.g., the videos that would have been the most compelling were all confiscated immediately). The media doesn't. Alex Jones doesn't. Dylan Avery doesn't. What we have is incomplete information from a variety of sources ranging from poor to decent credibility. I certainly admire the people playing detective and trying to sort things out, and it's amazing to see how far some studies have come like /Loose Change/. But there is still a certain amount of fog... at least for me. Surely the government must know there are a lot of skeptical Americans out there. So, if it's so cut and dry simple -- if the traditional story of the terrorist hijackers is so plainly and obviously true -- then why doesn't the government just take care of its *concerned* citizens and clear up all the bullshit once and for all? Release a better video of the Pentagon attack or something. Explain the melting steel issue. Explain the cell phones. Explain _something_! I mean if it's really as simple as the conservative media makes it out to be, then disproving (with *hard* evidence) *everything* in a study like /Loose Change/ would be a piece of cake. Until then I have to be wary of my government which I already disagree with on a number of out-in-the-open issues. |
Quote:
|
here is one of the galleries that gathered up personal photos taken on 9/11. I have some personal ones that I never submitted (none of the towers directly) and they sit in my trove of digital photos.
this gallery was on prince street and lived off donations for about a year or so. http://hereisnewyork.org |
Quote:
|
First off, welcome to the forum.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ I fully believe that some of the blame rest on the administrations ineptitude, but it will take a lot more than circumstantial evidence to make me think they let it happen willfully. |
Put me down on the list of people who say:
Who cares about 9/11. It happened - we can't change it. Nobody will ever believe that the government did it, unless Bush gets on camera and says oh hey guys - our bad. We meant well. And there's no way to prove it. What's more important is have you seen what's happening today? The house and the senate are in the process of not only just legalized torture, but secret prisons and with an amendement to pardon Bush from any war crimes he "may" have committed. Sure it's terrible that 2,000 people died. But why is what we are doing now helping any of that? How are we expecting to subjugate the Iraqi people into following a regime they don't like. If we hold elections and they vote overwhelmingly for a religious leader, - give it to them. A return to the isolationist policies of yore and GTFO of Iraq and Iran. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
In my world no matter what happens, I still have to go to work. I still have to pay taxes. I still have bills that need to pe attended to and paid. Will? What does it mean to you if suddenly real evidence comes out that solidifies it as such... |
Quote:
Wow cynthetiq, wow. |
Quote:
I live in the city that was attacked. I was witness to what happened that day. My mother in law was in the Deutche Bank building across the street from WTC. NYC lives with the affects more than any other city IMO. I see National Guards, bomb sniffing dogs, streets that have been removed access to public because of fear of car bombs, cops wanting to check backpacks in subways, most places have metal detectors at movie theaters, and other inconveniences and civil liberty encumbrances. Yet, I can tell you that people here those that lost people and those that worked here. Thier lives have returned to some sort of normalcy where they have to do the things that one does in life. Go to work, see family, pay bills, pay taxes. edit: also I'm curious as to those that are so adamant about this, how far they are willing to go, be ready for revolution? take up arms? what? |
Quote:
|
I’m with you on six. My grandmother, die hard republican, has voted republican in every election since the beginning of time, did not vote for bush, she just could not bring her self to vote for him. Although I’m always for a good bush bashing… Will, what else are you still needing explained about the events of 9/11 so we can put this to bed.
|
Quote:
It's like we both have some fire and some water. When you put them together what happens? I say that the fire boils the water into vapor, you say that the water puts out the fire. Whos' to say who's right? There really is no way to prove it unless we repeat the experiment, and we can't do that with the Pentagon or the WTC. Granted, this is an oversimplification, but I think it gets across what I'm trying to say. Stalemate. We've gone over most everything. We have differing opinions about things. There is no way that I can prove conclusively that the WTC wasn't brought down by fire and crash damage. Likewise, there is no way you can prove that they were. There are pages of wonderful material from both of us that probe this problem very deeply, but the science is theoretical, and the solutions unprovable. The thermal expansion, for one. I think that it could have made the floors stronger, you think it made them weaker. Same evidence, good arguments, no provable conclusions, no concensus. Stalemate. I would guess we've reached stalemate already on at least 20 different issues. I'm glad that we can at least agree that the villans in this movie are the current administration, even if we cannot totally agree on all their crimes. So there it is. I will answer questions if anyone has them, but I have to call a truce with Dilbert. If anyone has noticed, my contributions to this thread have waned lately, becuase I don't have the time or energy to give Dilbert (or Cynth, or anyone else for that matter) the discussion he deserves (they deserve). |
The only reason were at a stale mate is I haven't explained why the expansion would make the floors weaker as well as I should. I’ll get on that.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Its refreshing watching your debate dilbert, and willravel. So civil :thumbsup:
/Sorry for the jack, just needed to say something about this; its worthy of note/ |
Quote:
:lol: |
Good luck on explaining building 7 in any way that we will believe.
Like i said before, coincidences do happen, but when a theory being passed off as a true story requires almost every aspect of it to be a coincidence then it just doesn't seem legit to me. Some of what you suggest is maybe possible, but a slight chance. |
Does anyone have a complete list of all the organizations, companies, etc who are in on this?
You can argue science no one here is really qualified to discuss beyond a novice level all you want, but people are different. Just who all was in on this? |
Quote:
-FEMA -Popular Mechanics Bear in mind that this obviously does not include everyone in the organizations. In fact, it includes only a handfull of people. How many people at NIST do you think worked on their report? It's been estimate that no more than 24 people worked for or at the NIST to write their report. FEMA? Well, there are field people, and then the writers, and then the editors....so to be generous, that's maybe 70. Popular Mechanics? 7-12 people maybe. That's a little over a hundred people. That's about 106. Exactly 106. .....Yeah, like I have any idea who would be in on this. Please, give me a break. :crazy: |
How many were just following orders and how many did the planning? It isn't the same thing. If each person knows their part and nothing more the plan would still work. Somewhere afterwards there would be people who figured out they were involved even though they may not have known at first.
Silence can be bought from the main players, the lesser ones... herd them onto the planes. :eek: |
Quote:
How about the people involved on forcing these people onto a plane which disappears? How about the 2-3 guys left at the office wondering where everyone in their departement went? How big of a conspiracy does it have to get to suit your views? |
There are legitimate questions about the events of 9/11. I recommend a visit to this site: http://911review.org/ScholarsforTruthabout911/
It is unclear what struck the Pentagon but it was not a commercial aircraft based on the evidence. One photo shows a part from a JT8D turbojet engine, consistent with an aircraft unlike the one that was claimed. The Editor In Chief of the 125 year old monthly magazine, Fire Engineering, called the investigation into the Twin Towers collapse a farce. ($elling Out the Investigation, January 2002) Ed |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Second, learn to fact check. the quote you refer to is taken out of context The editor in chief, Bill Manning was referring to the FEMA investigation, not the 9/11 commission. I would go into more detail, but I am lazy, and this site does a good job: http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html As for the JT8D, please site a source as how it was identified. lastly, ScholarsforTruthabout911, most if not all of the bogus claims mentioned on this page have been debunked in this thread, its a long read, but please start from the beginning and read through to the end. |
Better yet read what www.911review.com has to say about 911review.org .
http://911review.com/911review/index.html The 9.11 review.COM site does a good job but even there they have some findings i disagree with. The Pentagon plane evidence looks planted to me. for instance on this page here it shows a wheel. http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html OK, problems... ONE wheel, obviously in a fire. Where are the others? It should be magnesium which will burn and should have disappeared. Where are the spindles? How did the wheel come off if it was bolted on with the bearings in place? That area isn't broken away. If there is planted evidence the whole thing has to be viewed as a fraud. |
Quote:
|
Dil, how do you explain the wheel being off the spindle? It sure as heck couldn't break off.
Came across something else, and while is sure doesn't help my side of the argument any it's just too incredible a shot to not point out. http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/image/2281432 :eek: |
Why could it not break off? When a plane crashes things break, it’s a no brainier, throw a car at a wall, it breaks, throw it faster it breaks more. Don’t forget that the kinetic energy increase is = to the mass times the square of the velocity, when the velocity doubles, the energy increases by 4 times. with a fast moving plane, it is hard to understand the magnitude of the forces involved.
and yeah that shots incredible. |
As a researcher with over 25 years of experience, I'm seeing what is commonly referred to as obfuscation here. Primary component: emotional attacks.
Here are the unanswered questions: http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html I do not hate this current administration or anyone involved in the investigation. Asking questions is part of what it means to be a citizen of the United States. Telling people to not ask questions, that is un-American. Good-bye, Ed |
Quote:
Quote:
It is American to ask questions; however, it is important to ask informed questions, do some research before making claims. |
Quote:
Much of teh discssion in this thread has centered around the conspiracy theorists questioning the current story the way we know it. A good discussion involve questions that go the other way as well. What are some of the other questions for the theorists? - Why not just bomb the buildings down instead of crashing a plane into them if you had charges preset on many floors. This would simplify the cover up. Fewer people involved, fewer witnesses, fewer variables, fewer possible problems? - If not a plane, what did hit the pentagon? Was it done by the U.S. on purpose? If so, then why not a plane as planes were used in the destruction of the towers. - Who was involved? Where is the evidence like phone records, emails, other communications, plans, money? Alot has been done to try to prove the generally accepted version of what happened. What can you do to prove what you say happened? |
Please tell me that everyone saw South Park tonight.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Yes you did, south park (season 10 episode 9) was about the 9/11 conspiracy.
|
I've been away a few days, no TV.
I see in today's paper where a plane crashed into a Manhattan hi rise , set it on fire and it didn't collapse. Weird. The story mentions the overreaction to the incident also. You would think with the knowledge that buildings will collapse in fires they wouldn't have sent hundreds of cops and firemen there. Here is more stuff we haven't touched on. Seems there are these odd coincidences at every turn. :| http://killtown.911review.org/wtc6.html http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html We don't want to jump to conclusions on every little bit as some may not be accurate though i think a lot of it is and needs to be considered. Take the event as a whole, regardless of whether it's theoretically possible for steel to expand six inches in a fire :rolleyes: , to make the whole 9/11 deal legit requires believing a whole series of crazy improbable things. I'm not sure if any oddsmakers have even tried to calculate the odds |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
^^^ That whole sequence on the show was pretty funny, especially the reoccuring 1/4 of people are retarded.
I have a question, I'm sure it has been addressed in this thread, but since I have only been lightly following this topic I am forced to ask. Why has no one come forward and exposed the government it this was such a broad and massive conspiracy? I mean this administration can't fart without their being a leak to the press, and yet there have seemingly been no direct and legitimate allegations, no one coming forward exposing foul play within the military, which is also interesting, I've heard that 9/11 was a coup at the pentagon. I digress, where are all the people that are dead? They were killed by the government then? Why does Al Qaeda take credit, or are they apart of the conspiracy too? |
I have South Park on Tivo, I really really hope it recorded it right. Sometimes Comedy centrals timing is off.
|
if you missed it you can watch the whole episode here http://www.southparkx.net/
|
Quote:
Al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations (or most who hate the US), would love taking credit for something like 9/11. |
It's hard to believe a President could get in power who is that stupid... but it happened.
Maybe Bush needed a month-long break beforehand to prepare for a busy period to follow? http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLI...bush.crawford/ |
Quote:
Quote:
Taking the event as a hole, it’s much easier to believe that some pissed off Muslims hijacked planes and crashed them into towers then some big elaborate scheme orchestrated and covered up by a bunch of idiots in the government. Why is it so hard to think people in the world don’t like us? Why must you create bogymen, the world is scary enough as it is with out fictitious enemies. Everyone in power would have to be in on the plot, or someone in an office would raise a stink about it. Don’t you think the democrats that are trying to get back in power would cry foul about the investigation, about a cover-up? Do you actually think everyone is involved? If its so obvious to even you, shouldn’t it be obvious to everyone else? Its not obvious to everyone else because there is nothing else here, there were no explosives, there was no cruise missile, just a bunch of pissed off Muslims in planes. Lastly, it is not a bunch of improbable events: Gaining entry into the country is easy as pie, fake visa, fake what ever, its easy. Second, getting flight training is easy, only takes money. Third sneaking weapons onto planes, piece of cake, I’ve seen poly carbonate knives that are completely non metal, and a razor blade does not contain enough metal to be picked up by lax metal detectors, my steel toe boots never set off an alarm before 9/11, a little blade wont either. Hijacking a plane is easy too, before 9/11, the doctrine for a hijacking was to fly to comply until it was over, no one thought they would use the planes as weapons, the flight crew was probably told they would not be harmed if they cooperated, them, kicked out of the cock pit and then its all over. So what is the probability of the building collapsing, 5%, 50%, 100% we don’t know, there was definitely a chance, and large or small they did collapse, we either were very unlucky, or luck may have had nothing to do with it, bottom line, is there were no explosives found in the building, no residue, no traces, no damage resembling blasts. However, there were plenty of warped girders. There is no evidence to support an explosion, except a few photos that look like blast are going off, but those could be caused by other things too, such as the compacting air. I don’t see why this is so hard for you, it’s pretty damn obvious. Sure there are small things that don’t quite fit, but they are small, just like with the theory of evolution, small parts don’t fit, so the theory is adjusted to match the evidence, just like 9/11. The theory was adjusted to fit the evidence, the hijackers that were allegedly still alive, liars, or crappy intelligence. This still does not change the fact that planes were hijacked and crashed into the towers. |
Quote:
I'm not even sure which side I'm standing on, as the waters still seem too muddy. In the beginning, I was a follower of the conspiracy theory. Now I'm not too as certain as before. Regardless of what I believe, you can not seriously compare the impact of a small personal aircraft with that of a 757. The mere acceleration and mass of the 757 dwarfs whatever effect that other plane could do. Sometimes, a bird hits a chimney. The chimney doesn't collapse. It's the same kind of thing. I dont participate anymore because I'm not sure which side to support. But if you're going to argue your opinion of what happened, please support it well. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
But if one of the birds feet goes through the six chimneys and the other disintergrates in the explosion....
Since Dil is adding up all that fits how about the very strange Shanksville crash? A tiny crater that was ringed in green grass even though a few hundred feet away the forest was burned. They found an engine in the forest yet everything else fit into that neat little hole. So how did that engine get there? Perhaps a trampoline was setup where the plane crashed and the engine bounced off it? What about the fire or lack of? The picture in the paper today showed a raging fire in two windows of the building, that's 1800 degrees ain't it? Does it matter if the plane was 747 or a Pitts biplane if the fire makes steel expand six inches? The bathtub plumbing could push the walls out. Why does this sound ridiculous when your "facts" don't? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Here's another couple sites to check...
http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.flight93crash.com/ check the discussion board at that one. |
Quote:
http://www.celebirds.com/images/PacificParrotlet.jpg The average weight of a Pacific Parrotlet, also known as the Ridgway's Parrotlet, can be noted as an average of 31-34 grams. A recent journal published by Wilson Bulletin via BioOne: EMS Provider Program found that Quote:
Now, for the specific mass of the bird's foot. This article from Harvard shows a correlation in the allometry of bat wings and legs in comparison with bird wings and legs. Quote:
Quote:
KE = 1/2 • m • v^2 where m = mass of object v= speed of object KE = 1/2 • 4.22 g • 36.9 km/h KE = 77.859 g/km/h A 757 weighs, at maximum, 255,000 lb (115,680 kg). Thus the ratio between a 757 and a Pacific Parrotlet is about 7,500 parrotlets : 1 757 (not taking into account the lightened foot mass during flight). The typical masonry chimney has a traditionally wide-framed 36x28 doorset (with doors wide open) which will usually have a clear opening of about 30" by 25" high, and a height of 30'. That's 750 square inches of opening area. The WTC reached 1,450 feet high and had a width of 208 feet (63.4 m) x 208 feet (63.4 m). Thus the comparison between the typical masonry chimney and the WTC is around 5662.5265 chimneys : 1 WTC. The kinetic energy generated by the 757 (assuming it was traveling around 540 mph (868 km/h) 530 knots (982 km/h)): KE = 1/2 • 115,680 g • 982 km/h KE = 567,988 g/km/h After combining the two ratios, and kinetic energies, the final ratio is 564,375 Pacific Parrotlet/chimney : 567,988 757/WTC. Thus we may conclude that the foot of a Pacific Parrotlet, 7,500% its normal size, would create a similar impact to the 757's. And we can also conclude that a 757, 7.5 • 10^-4% smaller than its usual size, would impact a chimney in the same way. http://www.moodsmilies.com/smilies/sleepy/passedout.gif |
Quote:
Why didn't you use the European swallow or African swallow? http://www.armory.com/swallowscenes.html |
wow, loose change vs popular mechanics debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d0XE...elated&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Fm3...elated&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpcki...elated&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEg6X...elated&search= that Jason guy is freaking psycho. |
Weak arguments from both sides. They both need to go home and practice debating.
|
Quote:
|
So why did Max Cleland quit the 9-11 Commission?
Why did Bush and Cheney not want to investigate in the first place? Why wouldn't they testify under oath? There was more suspicious activity (or lack of) after that day than during it. And we still haven't mentioned Dov Zackheim. |
The funny thing with those types of movies or documentaries (like the Loose Change movie) do two things
- Reinforce the beliefs of those in the conspiracy camp - "Wow, that is so true. That is what I was thinking" - Reinforce the beliefs of those in the no-conspiracy camp - "That does not prove anything, the whole thing is junk" |
Quote:
Its more like it reinforces the beliefs that pro-conspiracy people are easy to fool and confuse. Quote:
This should be REQUIRED viewing prior to posting in this thread. Classic. "Bush: ...but one fourth of the population is retarded, if they want to believe we control everything with intricate plans why not let them? ... Kyle:So then who was responsible for 9/11? Stan: What do you mean? A bunch of pissed off Muslims. Hardley boy:Yea what are you retarded?" Oh SouthPark, you rarely let me down. :lol: |
Quote:
That would be like me saying, "Bush supporters have really let themselves drift into denial...the war is based on incorrect information, the war was planned before 9/11, the war has killed hundreds of thousands of the people we were trying to liberate, and yet it's still a just war? Sounds like Bush supporters are easy to fool and confuse..." |
I think it is good to draw a parallel between the war and 9/11, the conspiracy theorist believe the government is out to get everyone that they ignore the facts and go on speculation, and early information. Just like the people who support the war because we found WMD (we did not) and because the world supports the war (they don’t) and all the other common misconceptions that people have about the war. They ignore the facts of the war, and still believe what everyone else thought years ago about it when there was not much information.
The WTC collapses are the most well studied structural failure of all time, and 99.99% of the reports agree that the planes could cause the damage and bring the towers down, the other .01% is shoddy at best and usually full of holes, 99.99% of the people are not in the pocket of the government. |
Well studied????????????????????????????
Maybe you could term that "Most well protected from being studied". A shopping center roof that caves in due to heavy snow is studied more than the WTC collapses. |
Quote:
Numerous studies have been conducted: FEMA, NIST, Purdue university, msc software, the journal JOM, popular mechanics, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl civil engineering professor at the University of California Berkeley... And this is just 5 minutes on Google, try research, its better then making stuff up. |
Quote:
|
Look at all the people popmech and the NIST got there interviews from, that is the research I am pointing too, all that research and experts. Second, they did not get the parameters from anyone, except the facts know about the situation, the structural material of the buildings and planes, and the temperatures researched in the physical, real world simulations.
The initial impacts in all the simulations mirror the real world events, showing that a plane hitting the pentagon will go inside and be shredded by the support beams. And that the planes would break many outside supports and inner supports of the WTC. The simulations and common sence show us that heat applied to a metal truss, stripped of its fire proofing will expand, warp and loose al manner of structural integrity; eventually leading to the collapse. This is backed up by video evidence of the walls being pulled in as the fires died down and the metal trusses cooled. this cooling pulled the outer supports in, as seen in the final video's, since the weight was not directly over the support, they buckled and pancake all the way down, the forces being so massive that the below floors causes no real resistance, giving a near freefall speed. |
What? As the metal cooled down? For cryin' out loud this whole fiasco lasted less than an hour, steel that expands "six inches" in your "1800 degree" fire would take the friggin' day to return back to ambient size unless you quenched it with water. But then it flared up again after crashing to the ground and stayed glowing orange for another month... OK. :rolleyes: :lol:
The more you explain the less sense it makes. In the words of Prof. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl himself... "I have not been provided with the information made available to the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team. This includes, videotapes and photographs taken on 9/11and the following days and copies of the engineering drawings. At this time, having the videotapes, photographs and copies of the drawings not only is useful, but also is essential in enabling us to conduct any analysis of the collapse and to formulate conclusions from our effort." He may be a good investigator but arrived 8 days after the fact and was hindered in his efforts. |
How can you explain the walls pulling in around the crash site just prior to the collapse, did the explosive you think were there create a slow sucking vacuum? Do we now have agents installing winches and pulleys in the building too? There is no explanation that fits the evidence but a fire that expanded and contracted the girders, explosives don’t make things contract, its lunacy. The simulations and the video evidence shows that the walls contracted in just before the collapse, there is no other force that could have done that, except the contracting girders.
As a side note, using emoticons that laugh and roll there eyes is rude, condescending, and shows the weakness of your argument, you need to stoop to that level to try and win. Grow up. |
Quote:
|
Sorry to diss your lunacy, Dil. I'll try and be more polite. :)
This expansion and contraction of the steel sounds quite bizarre. If the fire was still going what would have cooled the steel enough to shrink it that fast... do you think the girders went swimming? But still... this is just one aspect of several dozen inconsistancies in the offical story. |
Quote:
You seem far away from trying to understand or discuss, I give a tip of the hat at least that he's given a tip o the hat to it, even if he doesn't agree 100%. I have yet to see you even come down from your hyperbole high horse. |
I’d love to see an explosive pull; explosives expand, the only way you could get the outer walls to move inward would for the explosives to be outside the walls. Controlled demolitions do not slowly pull the outer supports inwards for the last few minutes, explosions are quick, not slow acting, constant pulling forces. Furthermore, controlled demolitions are designed to sever the main supports and let gravity do the work at pulling the building down. The reason controlled demolitions don’t tip (too much) is because the lateral forces on the building are nothing compared to the force needed to accelerate the building laterally, as apposed to gravity which is much stronger. a controlled demolitions could produce the falling effect we see with the building, so could the collapse of a floor due to fire, however, with explosives, there would be explosive residue, and other tell tail signs of explosives. Also, controlled demos are designed to be used on the lower levels, which we don’t see in the collapse of the WTC. However, it is possible that the people who orchestrated it (putting words in your mouth, I don’t think this is what happened) knew that by removing support to a floor or 2 would bring the entire tower down because of the design flaws. But this is overcomplicating it, it has been shown time and time again in simulations that steel trusses, with there fire proofing reduce or removed, will heat, expand, and distort so that they lose the structural integrity.
|
Dil.... they aren't simply trying to blow stuff up... that's why they call it "Controlled" Demolition.
If you "blew up" the right support you can make the walls fall inward. They don't just lay a wheelbarrow load of dynamite on the floor. It's like sawing a tree where making the right cut in the right spot you can direct which way it falls. Thermite makes sense for that. I don't think much testing was done for explosive residue but didn't eyewitnesses smell that in NYC as they did at the Pentagon? |
Quote:
|
While Dil is saying inward other "experts" on the government's side say outward.
Here's something else i found. There are a lot of little coincidences. " George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family. The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down." KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec. The managing director at KuwAm, Wirt D. Walker III, was also a principal at Stratesec, and Walker, Marvin Bush and al Sabah are listed in SEC filings as significant shareholders in both companies during that period. Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec coincided with his first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He left the HCC board in November 2002. But none of these connections has been looked at during the extensive investigations since 9/11. McDaniel says principals and other personnel at Stratesec have not been questioned or debriefed by the FBI or other investigators. Walker declined to answer the same question regarding KuwAm, referring to the public record. " |
Please document where you get your information, and if it's 911truth.org or whatever I want to know their documentation please.
|
Google.com answers all, Seaver:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html http://www.infowars.com/articles/sep...s_role_911.htm It's all about little Marvin Bush. |
Sorry Wil, the links provided to the origional story don't work. And forgive me if I dont take infowars at face value.
And the American Reporter (the "origional" story) does not seem to have the article. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Do you really think the 9/11 truth movement would be gaining such momentum if people who went to check out the information found total fabrication? Most conspiracy sites do nothing other than document a labyrinth of new stories that were never focused on in the mainstream. |
Quote:
Do you really think that something like this would be ignored if it were full of substance? Quote:
|
I don’t know why people keep bringing up thermite, to say thermite brought down the towers is just plane stupid, seriously stupid, it just shows how un-researched the conspiracy theorist are. If you are going to sever a vertical beam, thermite cannot be used, thermite cannot be controlled by any means, when it starts, and it burns straight down, no exceptions. None, noda zip zilch. It’s the wrong tool for the job; it’s like using a philips screwdriver to take out a flat head screw. If you want to sever a vertical beam, you use a shaped charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge As for the bowing outer supports, here is both video and photographic evidence that shows the outer supports near the impact side were bowing in for the last 20 minutes before the collapse. Please find me explosives that slowly bow metal towards the explosives for 20 minutes. http://www.representativepress.org/B...xplosives.html as for Marvin Bush, again, like I usually say check your facts. He stopped being a director at the end of the 2000 fiscal year, June 2000 more then a year befor 9/11. Quote:
For a more thorough job, please read http://911myths.com/html/stratesec.html |
Dil
Who says they had to cut vertical beams? Besides thermite could be directed if you really needed to. |
No, thermite can't, it’s too hot to be directed, it will melt anything trying to direct it. Second, the vertical beams are the load bearing beams, not the vertical beams.
Sorry, you are flat out wrong on this, feel free to argue shaped charges, they are commonly used for controlled demolitions, but thermite is not used for controlled demolitions, because its not controllable, it burns straight down, its only good for welding railroads and putting holes in cars. Here is the best known attempt to direct thermite http://www.itep.ws/pdf/FOI_Rapport.pdf It failed, and at best, it could direct a small amount to cut a small hole, not an entire beam. Thermite is flat wrong. |
Airline fuel and moderate crash damage bringing down a steel reinforced building at near free fall speeds and in under an hour is impossible. That's where all this stuff stops. We can pretend the building reached unbelievable temperatures, and we can believe that passport survived, and we can belive that even though some of the terrorists survived, the FBI and CIA figured out the whole story...but at the end of the day, something impossible happened. We can pretend that those impossible temperatures reached were able to thermally expand beam after beam after beam, somehow weakening the whole thing, desipte there being no evidence to suggest that, but the damed things came down too fast after being hit, and they fell to the ground too fast. While it doesn't take a physicist to figure it out, I was finally able to get a hold of someone...my physics teacher from HS. He holds his masters from Stanford, and he knows more about physics than most people, myself included. Guess what? After about 2 hours of discussion, I had his full and undivided attention. It took him a few weeks to get back to me, but he said that my case was a lot stronger than any of the official cases, espically the NIST report (I gave him my copy). The collapse was not explained by reaonable science. At the end of the day, something impossible happened.
|
Whatever (really hard to resist the "rolleyes" smiley)
That 911myths link is hilarious... basically it's saying "Bush worked there, so what?" They hardly debunk anything. So Dil.... why did Max Cleland quit the 9-11 Commission? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As for Max Cleland, I could care less, the investigation I have said a few times has some issues, just like the obstruction the bush administration has put forth, to cover the own incompetence. I think that it may not have happened if the bush administration had been paying attention. Still does not mean that planes hit the buildings causing there collapse, it just means that bush shoved his cronies everywhere to cover his ass. Quote:
Quote:
But seriously, I see no point to continue this further, it’s pointless, I show you undeniable evidence that the walls slowly were pulled in a few minutes prior to the collapse, which rules out explosives and thermite is still insisted as being used. |
Quote:
PS: What's your physics lab instructor's name? I'm curious. He must be fairly old by now. |
he's 90 something, i'll ask him if i can use his name, but i doubt he wants to be bugged about this.
|
Quote:
I still am only reading speculation. I'd like to get proof that thermite can't do what it appeared to do on 9/11. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Which school do you attend/at which school does this man teach? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.representativepress.org/B...xplosives.html it makes no sense that the outer walls would slowly bend and buckle, then explosives would be set off, why would it show signs of immanent collapse, then be destroyed by explosives. Quote:
The school is tiny and by giving any one of these, he is easily identifiable, and so am i by my other post on this board. As for his duties, specialties, and category, I’ll ask him next time I see him. |
Your teacher is 90?
Anyways.... your quickly slapped together 110 story shanties were started in 1966 and grand opening was in 1973. Ask your professor how long that is. By the way is it you writing this ? http://www.representativepress.org/B...xplosives.html |
Quote:
|
He is actually older then 90, I think he exact age is 92, but I know he is older then 90. he is only a lab instructor, and he has missed one lab due to 'being unable to stand and drive to class' he's old, but smarter then anyone I’ve ever known, hawking would not have to dumb down for him.
And no I did not write that, I think there views on Israel are wrong, but I don’t care about there views on Israel, I just care about the pictures of the outer supports slowly bowing in over the last few minutes of the towers life. As for the tower, its construction was so fast due to its light weight steel truss construction. |
So fast? Construction started in the mid sixties and they opened in the seventies! Looking at the construction downtown here it seems a building takes a few months to do now.
But then i have to ask myself why are they still constructing tall buildings... don't we know they are apt to crumble into dust in just seconds if you have a miscue with the stove. If buildings are as unsafe as you make them out to be there would be lots of new regulations... are you aware of any? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project