Who are "the politics"? Are they sure they are at least fourteen years old?Quote:
Originally Posted by born_2_kill
Printable View
Who are "the politics"? Are they sure they are at least fourteen years old?Quote:
Originally Posted by born_2_kill
So you dont care that NIST fabricated an answer without doing a bit of scientific research top support it?Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
Im not sure what bowing you are referring to. Do you have a picture or reference to what you mean specifically? I know the exterior columns were found hundreds of yards away implanted horizontally like harpoons in neighboring buildings.
Also there is the horseshoe shaped columns that have not been explained. How did these large steel columns become bent without buckling? From a jet fuel fire?
The other bowing you might be referring to is the demolition wave seen as the towers begin to collapse.
This video has footage of the collapse that clearly shows the bowing of the outer columns in the context of the NIST report. The bowing is quite clear :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=8
The extreme deformation of the steel you mentioned is very much in favor of the idea that the steel was weakened by high temperatures. I'm not sure why you mentioned it, since it seems to support NIST's explanation. The steel obviously wasn't cut by thermate, since it was still intact, and according to the conspiracy, there was nothing else capable of weakening the steel to such an extreme. The conspiracy is unable to explain it because fire is dismissed as a factor, whereas such extreme deformation is expected given the conditions that NIST concluded were present in the building.
The video you just posted clearly shows at minute 2:24 the demolition wave advancing ahead of the collapsing building.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
The bowing of the exterior columns is not evidence for either theory since in a controlled demolition that is started from a specific point would be cutting columns at or around that area and so would cause some deformation before collapse. This was in fact reported by hundreds of rescue workers who heard, saw, and felt explosions, many before the buildings collapsed.
Im sorry, fires would do next to nothing to a steel structure of that magnitude.
Explosives are obviously needed to bring down a building that big so that it wont topple over. What proves this is the fact that the speed of the collapsing building accelerates into its own mass, only seen in controlled demolition. Also, the buildings go straight down and have even rows of explosive debris ejecting laterally with huge plumes of powdered concrete (seen in controlled demolition).
Also previously molten iron has been found, which could not have been produced by an office or jet fuel fire because it requires far to high temperatures.
Also, the rock solid proof of thermate reactions which every debunker ignores. Why R.D. do you seem to be ignoring this evidence, and the fact that NIST lied when it made up an impossible story for the molten metal pouring out of the south tower?
Further proof is found in an analysis of World Trade Center Building 7, which exhibited all the characteristics of a controlled demolition, showed no signs of collapse, and fell in 5 seconds displaying near-perfect symmetry.
Good old memeticverb. I knew I could count on you while I was away.
After watching "Zeitgeist," I'm inclined to believe the conspiracy theorists. Or at the very least, if the government didn't do it, they sure as hell let it happen on purpose despite knowing about it, so that they could advance war in the Middle East. Just like FDR with Pearl Harbor.
Zeitgeist is pretty good, but contains too much erroneous speculation. A better one, made by one of the largest groups of 9/11 families is Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our RepublicQuote:
Originally Posted by innerspacecadet
Another good one that was actually made by conservatives is : 9/11 MysteriesQuote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
we are kicking ass in the poll. So why does the media try and ignore it all. They are losing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll2bGfoio9M <---- that's why criminals get away with things.
Starting the debate anew is too tempting! Here are a couple of videos that can help make a point: Do we know as much as we think we know?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QftXf2I6pE0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2uOn3u4kXr0
If you watch carefully, you'll see a clear puff of concrete dust ejected when the sword hits it. If the dust was examined under a microscope, you'd find that the dust is made of very fine grains. Where did the energy to pulverize this small amount of concrete come from?
When the sword breaks the concrete, more dust is ejected, but in the opposite direction. Why is this?
Even non-reinforced concrete can withstand hundreds of pounds of force without breaking. Why did the concrete break so easily?
In the concrete stress test, the only force was vertical, and yet concrete was clearly ejected from the sample sideways. How did this happen, and why didn't the concrete simply break into pieces(as in the sword video) instead of being partially pulverized?
The thing about these videos is they receive wrong answers AND lots of right answers. I'm sure they probably received 70% right answers and 30% wrong answers (but I can't verify that) but they will only show you the wrong answers to verify their case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm sure if I walked up to a new yorker and asked them about 9/11 that I won't get a ridiculous answer. Could be wrong though.
Occasion 1:
President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting
[CNN, Aired December 4, 2001]
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)
Thank you, Jordan (ph).
Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."
But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."
RealMedia video download of comment
Occasion 2:
President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California
[whitehouse.gov, January 5, 2002]
"I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on..." [whitehouse.gov]
WMA download of comment
There is a problem with the above statements. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of the first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit World Trade Center 2.
This Washington Times Article states that he didn't see the impact at the school...
If Bush really did see an airplane on TV hitting the World Trade Center then he saw that the aircraft was under control at the time, and he saw it before arriving at Booker Elementary because he was en route to the school when the first plane struck WTC 1 - a closed-circuit live feed to his limo is the only way he could have seen this impact on TV. It must also be remembered that even after Andrew Card informed Bush of the second impact, by his own admission Bush knew America was being attacked, but he continued listening to the reading skills of a classroom full of children.
Just think about that for a while.
Jeff I understand what your saying but even one person who can't remember 911 is something absurd. We can't afford to have those kinds of people walking around the street randomly.
I agree. Let's kill them.
I refuse to contribute to the actual debate over 9/11. However, I would like to suggest for those of you interested in it to consider watching the following satire:
http://allsp.com/loading2.php?url=l.php?id=e148
Enjoy!
~
Thanks for posting that. It is a great episode. It illustrates just how high of an opinion of U.S. government competence 9/11 conspiracy theorists have.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
I am impressed with a lot of things the U.S. government has done, but I think trying to pull off 9/11 themselves the way it happened would be way over their heads. In fact, I think a lot of the things the conspiracy theorists use to suggest an inside job are really just illustrations of government incompetence. Try dealing with the post office when your sister (with your last name) moves out of your house and attempts to have her mail forwarded to her new house and what happens is that you get half of her mail and she gets half of yours. Try getting a police station to give you the story on a parking ticket you got two years ago without talking to twenty different people and ending on the person you started with. Go watch municipal court proceedings in Jackson, Mississippi. Attend a few American public schools. You will see just how non-superhuman government is.
Not kill them. Just educate them.Quote:
I agree. Let's kill them.
I was hoping someone would reply to my post. I'll narrow it to just one request:
I'd like someone of the 9/11-conspiracy side of the debate to explain why concrete is pulverized and ejected sideways in a compressive failure test:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WC6AgX2N1Go
It looks like the concrete explodes, yet explosives were not used. What really happens?
Maybe that is why they don't use concrete columns for buildings? But I think I see what you are getting at if you are trying to say that this behavior explains the conical jets of debris seen shooting out of the side of the twin towers at around 160mph. Or are you directing this counter-example to the argument that the amount of dust produced in the WTC collapses was far too great for gravity-driven energy?Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
It was, indeed, directed at both of those observations, as well as the point that mundane events can be inexplicable without knowing the relevant science behind them. More complex events require a proportionate degree of scientific understanding in order to analyze them. I'm not questioning the credentials of the professionals who are on either side of the debate, of course, just the amateurs(including me) participating in it here.
It occurred to me during the discussion that a simple question could expose some of the gaps in our understanding of physics. I chose the failure mechanism of concrete because it is relatively simple and relevant to the observations of the collapse of the towers.
On a side note, concrete columns are very often used in buildings, but in tall buildings they will nearly always be reinforced with steel rebar. The majority of the strength of the WTC towers came from steel columns, which have a very different, and more counterintuitive, failure mechanism.
That's an interesting point Jeff has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
Can anyone counter this?
Wouldn't he have seen it on TV anyway? The video was repeatedly broadcast that day, so Bush could have seen it after his trip to the school.
Bush's minutes of hesitation were a travesty, for sure, but they don't point to any sort of conspiracy. If he had planned the events in any way, wouldn't he have made every effort to appear as if he was doing his job?