spitboy2000
Board Supporter
- Awards
- 0
who let all the moonbats in here?
GRosk1234
Pi Alpha Omega Epsilon Alpha
- Awards
- 0
Oh brother, here goes for ya...
Way back when Camile hit, the city had damage and the political leaders found out how the city would flood. You can also look on a map from where the city was originally founded to see this as well. As we now know Katrina was a large slow moving category three hurricane. The city has survived numerous fours, including some more direct hits and those which have come up the river. That's the "background." Well the story goes the area where the canal/levees was breached, those who were staying in their homes heard numerous "explosions." These individuals also saw "military" type vehicles in the area before the storm. A day or two notice is plenty of time to set the charges. These explosions were positioned in a way that would flood out the 9th ward and destroy all of the "not so nice" areas. This area is located just to the east and north of the French Quarter and if properly destroyed from prior knowledge, the Quarter/central business district itself would not flood to the extent of other places including Lakeview, Chalmette, and all of the areas named in the song Nolia Clap. The end result is a significant amount of land flooded, with a significant amount of poor individuals having to leave, and many unfilled homes would be destroyed leaving the, white, rich, uptown areas in tact. Yes this would also protect some of the oil companies. They empty out the projects, now they empty out the city. There were also millitary helicopters landing and taking off from numerous "research" sites including the hospitals as well.
That's the quick version, I haven't heard it in a while but plenty of that talk was going around October/November. I've learned quite a bit how FEMA, the state, and the local government's lack of communication/organization, really messed this place up. :frustrate
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
- Awards
- 2
first here's a link of my own. The website is decidedly anti-war but the author of the article is as credible as the one in the link you provided.Written by Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, he was also director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, not a whacko.http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
The cole and 93 bombing are different stories. You keep calling b.s. but you're not dispelling any of the questions that have been raised and it seems that you're ignoring some of the things that CAN be verified. If you've read the 9/11 comission report, or even part of it, how can you say they did an adequate job of investigating what happened or came up with a viable explaination of how they pulled it off? Even people in the government regard it as a farce, with no mention of conspiracy. I did look at the link you provided(and for every one like it there is one arguing it and vice versa) and while informative, it also overlooked some major points, and was no more definitive than some of the "conspiracies". It was also written by someone who has no more eprtise than some of the opposing sites, just observations. It does not discount the numerous eye witness accounts that said it was not a commercial airliner, or the numerous remarks from firefighters smelling cordite,the fact that titanium does not vaporize or the fact that regardless of the size of the hole, a carbon, aluminum and steel fuselage is not going to punch a clean hole thru 9 feet of steel enforced concrete. Even the planes that hit the towers left smaller holes than the planes and did not hit with the force of the impact to leave such a clean punch thru 2 rings of the pentagon. AND they say it skidded into it. The actual size of the hole isn't even the issue- the governments OFFICIAL story is that an inept pilot flew a 757 2 feet off the ground at nearly 500 mph down a highway and skidded off the ground into the only part of the pentagon that was reinforced for such an impact. Forgetting everything but the fact that they can say it hit off the ground when it clearly did not is enough for me to call bull****. Sure the link tried to say that the debris the found was from a 757, but where is the rest of it? They showed pictures of the same stuff, some of it not even being able to be identified 100%. But even if it is, it has to be the cleanest crash site in history. For me there are just too many coincidences and inconsistencies to buy the governments story. And still what we've discussed is just the tip of things. That's why I have a hard time ignoring this stuff- it's not just 1 or 2 sketchy things, it's a crap load. It's not that I'm into some oliver stone epic deception or something. I understand this is a hot issue to people and I know you're an intelligent guy, and you've come to your conclusions based on your own logic, and I can respect that. For me,I guess I feel the government has quite a bit more explaining to do. In the words of Ron Burgandy -" Agree to disagree." ( But maybe I'm on the whale's vagina side of things.)
.
Oboviously you didn't look at the link that well because most of your questions are answered.
Debris? Its all over place. Then take a look at the experiemtnal crash videos conducted and see just how much of the plane is left after an impact. Not much. Its basically shatters into pieces except for the very large solid objects such as engines, which are found at the crash site.
You keep asking the quesitons without going to look for the answers. There are plenty of videos showing what happens to a plan at impact. It compeltely shatters with very little debris BEHIND the crash site. Most is carried forward or blown the side with 90% being very small pieces.
Its obvious you are going to beleive what you WANT to believe. I don't care eithe way as many of th reports raise questions but it doens't mean its a grand conspiracy in which the gov planned the murder of thousands of its people to start a war. Thats completley ludicrous.
YOu can see impact sites at ground level. You can see the generator impact and how it moved compeltely forward by something VERY heavy. You can see the light posts split in half as the plane clipped them flying by. The evidence is there, people just ignore it because it doens't fit their theory or more importantly, their agenda.
"Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, George W. Bush's first term."
His position means nothing. Just because you serve in the governement doens't mean your brainwashed to think as the white house does. And generally, Prof. these days aren't the most "accurate" sources of information.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
- Awards
- 2
Why is it different?
Ignoring what? I'm not the one refuting the video as I am not qualified. I don't pretend to know the answers or even begin to think I know enough to blame my government for killing thousands of people for what...power and money? THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT.
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
also the building itself is much more impact resistant.. and.. it was build in 13 months! little side note
Ronin13
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
Where did you hear that the Twin Towers were very cheap, light, buildings????
They have had countless architects comment about the structures built to withstand category 5 storms, etc. and that there is no way a fire even of that type could have collasped the buildings. No way
They have had countless architects comment about the structures built to withstand category 5 storms, etc. and that there is no way a fire even of that type could have collasped the buildings. No way
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
read everything posted before hand.. you will find your answers to the questions. Check out the nova site if you want the scientific understanding of the towers..
now.. the buildings were a horrible addition to NYC. They were a drag on the economy due to the amount of room wasted inorder to support the buildings. Clips that held the steal structures were found to be faulty and cheap.. it were those clips which caused the building to pancake on itself.. yes.. the building can withstand cat 5 winds.. thats the reason why it didn't fall over.. along with its total weight and its spring board like center.. it swayed for a good chunk of time... then stopped. Just read some science behind it.. i dont want to try to act like i understand the whole cosmic aspect of build building
now.. the buildings were a horrible addition to NYC. They were a drag on the economy due to the amount of room wasted inorder to support the buildings. Clips that held the steal structures were found to be faulty and cheap.. it were those clips which caused the building to pancake on itself.. yes.. the building can withstand cat 5 winds.. thats the reason why it didn't fall over.. along with its total weight and its spring board like center.. it swayed for a good chunk of time... then stopped. Just read some science behind it.. i dont want to try to act like i understand the whole cosmic aspect of build building
Ronin13
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
when did they find these faulty clips???
must have been right after they immediately moved the "evidence" off the site...
:think:
anyway, I have done my research and read the science behind it. All of the evidence that I have come across make no suggestions of cheap, light buildings. It all revolved around the architecture and probabilites of fires (even of that magnitude) remotely having the ability to implode two buildings as they did.
must have been right after they immediately moved the "evidence" off the site...
:think:
anyway, I have done my research and read the science behind it. All of the evidence that I have come across make no suggestions of cheap, light buildings. It all revolved around the architecture and probabilites of fires (even of that magnitude) remotely having the ability to implode two buildings as they did.
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
You didn't read..... so i will post again..
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Sans-Serif]NOVA: Many other engineers also feel the weak link was these angle clips, which held the floor trusses between the inner core of columns and the exterior columns. Is that simply because they were much smaller pieces of steel?
Eagar: Exactly. That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold.
Those angle clips probably had two or three or four times the strength that they originally needed. They didn't have the same factor-of-five safety as the columns did, but they still had plenty of safety factor to have people and equipment on those floors. It was not that the angle clips were inadequately designed; it was just that there were so many of them that the engineers were able to design them with less safety factor. In a very unusual loading situation like this, they became the weak link.
NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.
Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip.
alo.. those buildings were not set for a fire of that size....
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Sans-Serif]NOVA: You've said that the fire is the most misunderstood part of the World Trade Center collapse. Why?
Eagar: The problem is that most people, even some engineers, talk about temperature and heat as if they're identical. In fact, scientifically, they're only related to each other. Temperature tells me the intensity of the heat -- is it 100 degrees, 200 degrees, 300 degrees? The heat tells me how big the thing is that gets hot. I mean, I could boil a cup of water to make a cup of tea, or I could boil ten gallons of water to cook a bunch of lobsters. So it takes a lot more energy to cook the lobsters -- heat is related to energy. That's the difference: We call the intensity of heat the temperature, and the amount of heat the energy.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Sans-Serif]NOVA: So with the World Trade Center fire, the heat was much greater than might have been expected in a typical fire?
Eagar: Right. We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.
That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for—a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.
On September 11[SIZE=-2]th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Sans-Serif]NOVA: Many other engineers also feel the weak link was these angle clips, which held the floor trusses between the inner core of columns and the exterior columns. Is that simply because they were much smaller pieces of steel?
Eagar: Exactly. That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold.
Those angle clips probably had two or three or four times the strength that they originally needed. They didn't have the same factor-of-five safety as the columns did, but they still had plenty of safety factor to have people and equipment on those floors. It was not that the angle clips were inadequately designed; it was just that there were so many of them that the engineers were able to design them with less safety factor. In a very unusual loading situation like this, they became the weak link.
NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.
Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip.
alo.. those buildings were not set for a fire of that size....
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Sans-Serif]NOVA: You've said that the fire is the most misunderstood part of the World Trade Center collapse. Why?
Eagar: The problem is that most people, even some engineers, talk about temperature and heat as if they're identical. In fact, scientifically, they're only related to each other. Temperature tells me the intensity of the heat -- is it 100 degrees, 200 degrees, 300 degrees? The heat tells me how big the thing is that gets hot. I mean, I could boil a cup of water to make a cup of tea, or I could boil ten gallons of water to cook a bunch of lobsters. So it takes a lot more energy to cook the lobsters -- heat is related to energy. That's the difference: We call the intensity of heat the temperature, and the amount of heat the energy.
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Sans-Serif]NOVA: So with the World Trade Center fire, the heat was much greater than might have been expected in a typical fire?
Eagar: Right. We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.
That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for—a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.
On September 11[SIZE=-2]th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Ronin13
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
:head: Had to be a government backed (manipulated) interview
Ronin13
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
:icon_lol:
rocketscientist
Registered User
- Awards
- 0
Ha, thanks. I haven't heards this presented in the context of a conspiracy yet, but rather than a simple a lack of organisation combined with government priorities. But certainly the time available during the flooding and the actions taken could be good grounds for conspiracy speculations. And FEMA...
I don't want to hijack this thread though.
Ronin13
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
it is all good. just a bit of friendly debating
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
i will say that it was the government.. but.. they talked about it when they were building the towers... they said.. hey.. lets do make it so it would do this X amount of years in the future so then GW can go to war with Iraq... so his buddies in saudi arabia .. and Iran said.. allah be praised and so it began...
but.. i think using Occam's Razor is best for this situation.. and that is.. sane but dangerously connected radicals, got on a few plans.. flew them into buildings.
it always confuses me that they say it took millions to plan.. how would it.. fine.. flight training is about a thousand bucks... plane ticket.. 200ish... fly it on in.. done...
this is going to be a terroist master card tv spot soon...
4 Airliners.....200 ticket on internet
Flight School.... 9,000 dollars
Only learning to fly not land or take off....-6,000 dollars credit to you
Crazy nut bag murderers.....700 virgins
Twin Towers, Pentagon, And Open Field..... 0 Dollars
Knowing you just pissed off American's and GW.....Priceless
boooo they took down my comic lol...
but.. i think using Occam's Razor is best for this situation.. and that is.. sane but dangerously connected radicals, got on a few plans.. flew them into buildings.
it always confuses me that they say it took millions to plan.. how would it.. fine.. flight training is about a thousand bucks... plane ticket.. 200ish... fly it on in.. done...
this is going to be a terroist master card tv spot soon...
4 Airliners.....200 ticket on internet
Flight School.... 9,000 dollars
Only learning to fly not land or take off....-6,000 dollars credit to you
Crazy nut bag murderers.....700 virgins
Twin Towers, Pentagon, And Open Field..... 0 Dollars
Knowing you just pissed off American's and GW.....Priceless
boooo they took down my comic lol...
The Experiment
Board Supporter
- Awards
- 1
*Gasp*, How did you know?
LakeMountD
Doctor Science
- Awards
- 1
Can someone please comment on the video haha. I mean C'MON there is no wayyyyyy that is a 757. Absolutely no way, and the simple fact that the other videos aren't being released, the ones that show the entire thing happening, makes it even more shady.
I am not saying there is a grand conspiracy, but could things be getting covered up? HELL YEA.
I was in the military and even the short time I was there I see all the BS that went on and it just seems logical.
I mean could the twin towers have fallen exactly how they did from the fires? Yes, I have studied quantum mechanics and with that you come to realize there is a possibility for everything, however, is it probable? Definitely not. If anything, the top would have fallen off, or fallen to the side or something, just doesn't seem right that an architectual marvel built after the Empire State Building could have fallen so easily.
I am not saying there is a grand conspiracy, but could things be getting covered up? HELL YEA.
I was in the military and even the short time I was there I see all the BS that went on and it just seems logical.
I mean could the twin towers have fallen exactly how they did from the fires? Yes, I have studied quantum mechanics and with that you come to realize there is a possibility for everything, however, is it probable? Definitely not. If anything, the top would have fallen off, or fallen to the side or something, just doesn't seem right that an architectual marvel built after the Empire State Building could have fallen so easily.
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
Bobo commented on the videos very well i think... the second page i think
SHHEEESH! You didn't even read anything anyone posted lol.. we talked about the plane.. we talked about how the building fell.. why it fell. etc etc..
SHHEEESH! You didn't even read anything anyone posted lol.. we talked about the plane.. we talked about how the building fell.. why it fell. etc etc..
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
- Awards
- 2
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/11/exclusive.crash.cnn.med.html
Looks like the plan cut the building in half to me.
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
i'll start it cause i would rather be the one to say it than fight with someone who really thinks it...
Oh come on bobo.. that video was obviously taken by government plants that knew the correct position to stand to make the crash look that bad!
Oh come on bobo.. that video was obviously taken by government plants that knew the correct position to stand to make the crash look that bad!
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
- Awards
- 2
And they also rigged it to where the first major exploision was out the back and side of the building, not the FRONT where everyone KNOWS it should be. I mean the FRONT should show the majority of the damage! Where the plane HITS is where the explosion should happen!!!
Hot knife though butter.
Hot knife though butter.
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
Now if we can only understand how i gained almost 30 pounds on the weight loss diet .. what government is causing that lol
LakeMountD
Doctor Science
- Awards
- 1
LoL, I tried to skim through everything that I missed. **** I don't look for half a day and 3 pages fill up haha. Yeah I don't mean to make it sound like I am arguing by any means. I am just keeping an open mind, thats all. :wave:
:wave:
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
- Awards
- 2
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah....
Hey D get me that article.
Hey D get me that article.
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
it was the CEE man.. not the CIA or any other arm of the 'MAN' ... i am dropping water and thusly weight now that I have been off of it for a few days...
The Experiment
Board Supporter
- Awards
- 1
I think its good to have an open mind and not allow to be spoonfed information. While the Bush Administration is the master at deception, eventually all their lies and the liars who say them get caught. Take the CIA European prisons, the various Iraq mishaps, Plame, etc.
Eventually with the Bush Administration, secret information gets leaked out. Since there's no real information getting leaked from the Government about this, its easy to assume that the government didn't plan it.
However there was a lot of proof that Al Qaeda had wanted to this for a long time. Sandy Berger of the Clinton Administration during the Bush transition of 2000-2001 repeatedly warned Bush of a 9/11-like attack. Its been talked about for years. Neither Clinton or Bush administrations cared to do anything about it until it was too late.
Eventually with the Bush Administration, secret information gets leaked out. Since there's no real information getting leaked from the Government about this, its easy to assume that the government didn't plan it.
However there was a lot of proof that Al Qaeda had wanted to this for a long time. Sandy Berger of the Clinton Administration during the Bush transition of 2000-2001 repeatedly warned Bush of a 9/11-like attack. Its been talked about for years. Neither Clinton or Bush administrations cared to do anything about it until it was too late.
BioHazzard
Banned
- Awards
- 1
Sandy Burger is a real piece of human waste, a know-nothing political hack who couldn't find earth even if he went skydiving when it comes to national security and intelligence. The creep got video-taped stealing classified documents, pretended that it was a mistake, eventhough he was busted for destroying those documents. Finally he got prosecuted and fined $50,000. This is the guy we should be listening to?
Zero Tolerance
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
It's not about power and money. It's about convincing the American public that to destory every Israeli enemy in the middle east is the right thing to do.
It worked. Every American citizen became ultra patriotic and went along with whatever it took to destroy the evil ones who attacked our country.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
- Awards
- 2
It's not about power and money. It's about convincing the American public that to destory every Israeli enemy in the middle east is the right thing to do.
Ah ok, kill our citizens to support Isreal.
WOW....and to think you've heard it all!
We get the point ZT, you don't like Israel but really, not everything in the world revolves around their agenda.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
- Awards
- 2
Sounds like Hillary Clinton.Sandy Burger is a real piece of human waste, a know-nothing political hack who couldn't find earth even if he went skydiving when it comes to national security and intelligence. The creep got video-taped stealing classified documents, pretended that it was a mistake, eventhough he was busted for destroying those documents. Finally he got prosecuted and fined $50,000. This is the guy we should be listening to?
Zero Tolerance
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
When you've lost family fighting other countries' battles, it gets to you. So sorry. I'll go bury my head in the sand now..
snakebyte05
Board Supporter
- Awards
- 1
I dont mind hearing others opinin if it makes me want to :aargh: :frustrate lol. Its always good to hear someone elses views, which is the point of this entire thread.
jarhead
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
This is becoming extremely redundant. No I did not CHOOSE to believe anything. I am a Marine and served my government and country. My first instinct is not to believe in something like this I can assure you. Anything on either side of the argument can be proved or disproved depending on the "expert" looking at it. The link you provided is no different than the one I provided in that regard. The reason I mentioned the guys position was to point out that it is not all whackos as you said, raising questions. You choose to believe the governments story, I choose not to. That's all it is. Well, that and some pretty funny jokes floating around here and there.
By the way Bobo, did I tell you the truth behind the "moon landing"?:lol:
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
- Awards
- 2
Yes it is redundant and I will say it again, I don't have a problem with people QUESTIONING anything, just people who question, don't have the answers or worse make up answers while selctively filtering out evidence them BLAME THE GOVERNMENT OF MASS MURDER. THat video is a perfect example. Thats not questioning, thats blaming. Big difference.
I never said I believed the governemtns story but I sure do believe its more credible than the whackjob who made that video basing his facts on half-truths, context and pure spin.
Actually the link provided was to counter a video based on half truths, not to refute your professor. That was a whole different issue.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
- Awards
- 2
Your not the only one but I tend to base my accusations of why tihngs occur based on my head, not my heart.
BioHazzard
Banned
- Awards
- 1
People who believe in the insane notion that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government or the Mossad or the little moonmen, betray a basic ignorance on their part. In this country, it is simply impossible to carry out such a massive conspiracy and keep all the participants quite. That is simply not the way this society works. Someone would talk. You can bet your life on that.
To me, this kind of silliness just shows that some people will believe in anything eventhough there is no basis for it. :whiner:
I suppose that is why the supplement business is such a big business and Hollywood makes so much money.
To me, this kind of silliness just shows that some people will believe in anything eventhough there is no basis for it. :whiner:
I suppose that is why the supplement business is such a big business and Hollywood makes so much money.
jarhead
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
How can you write everything off as being made up? And the link I posted assigns no blame, but takes an analytical approach to the theory of why the towers fell the way they did, and raises legitimate questions. It is not ALL paranoia or whacko theories. The insider trading is hard evidence that something doesn't add up, as is the lease holder of wtc-7 ON VIDEO admitting that they pulled the building. This could go on and on but these are just a couple of examples that in my opinion warrant some answering to. Are there some crazies out there with some crazy theories? Sure. But there are also sane people out there raising some legitimate concerns. Sure the first video posted is a compilation of alot of things that suit the idea he's trying to convey. Some factual and can be found on paper, and some that are conjecture. But there is just too much there to ignore or write off as coincidence. What piques my personal interest are the things that can be questioned with some logic or science behind it to back it up. The other stuff i just write off. And again, I'm not in a position to assign blame, but mass murder is nothing new to our government.
here is a link with a newsclip of the leaseholder admitting to pull the building.http://www.angelfire.com/hero2/therepublic/
it was the first link I found-I didn't read the rest of the page. Is this also a complete fabrication made up by guys living in their basement hating the government?
Zero Tolerance
Registered User
- Awards
- 1
It would really be a shame if we're sending our brothers and sisters over there - and having them all gung-ho about going because they honestly believe they're doing the right thing for America - and it turns out they're not and are dying in vain.. Hopefully everything turns out okay over the next 20 years or so...
BioHazzard
Banned
- Awards
- 1
For god sake, stop kowtowing to Professor Emeritus Morgan Reynold's pontification on 9/11. He is a freaking ECONOMIST!! He is not an engineer!! If you want to analyze an engineering problem, go to an engineer, not an economist!!
Don't automatically go into knee-jerking when you hear big title. What does an economist know about structural engineering?
Every engineering school in the world has studied the Twin Tower disaster. NOT ONE has come out and concurred with that ECONOMIST's pontification. What does that say about that economist's pontification on this engineering issue? My money is on the Professor Emeritus playing armchair detective. He is light-year out of his league. He has been taking a bus load of suckers for a ride.
Yeah I am sure there is a global conspirary that has silenced all the engineering schools in the world! Holy smoke! This is big!!
P.S. If you wonder why a supposedly 'reputable' professional would make such a wacky pontification of something totally outside of his field of expertise, then feel free to check out the Professor's very own Morgan Reynold Archive.
Don't automatically go into knee-jerking when you hear big title. What does an economist know about structural engineering?
Every engineering school in the world has studied the Twin Tower disaster. NOT ONE has come out and concurred with that ECONOMIST's pontification. What does that say about that economist's pontification on this engineering issue? My money is on the Professor Emeritus playing armchair detective. He is light-year out of his league. He has been taking a bus load of suckers for a ride.
Yeah I am sure there is a global conspirary that has silenced all the engineering schools in the world! Holy smoke!
This is big!!P.S. If you wonder why a supposedly 'reputable' professional would make such a wacky pontification of something totally outside of his field of expertise, then feel free to check out the Professor's very own Morgan Reynold Archive.
jarhead
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
Wow. Well thought out. You've convinced me.For god sake, stop kowtowing to Professor Emeritus Morgan Reynold's pontification on 9/11. He is a freaking ECONOMIST!! He is not an engineer!! If you want to analyze an engineering problem, go to an engineer, not an economist!!
Don't automatically go into knee-jerking when you hear big title. What does an economist know about structural engineering?
Every engineering school in the world has studied the Twin Tower disaster. NOT ONE has come out and concurred with that ECONOMIST's pontification. What does that say about that economist's pontification on this engineering issue? My money is on the Professor Emeritus playing armchair detective. He is light-year out of his league. He has been taking a bus load of suckers for a ride.
Yeah I am sure there is a global conspirary that has silenced all the engineering schools in the world! Holy smoke!
P.S. If you wonder why a supposedly 'reputable' professional would make such a wacky pontification of something totally outside of his field of expertise, then feel free to check out the Professor's very own Morgan Reynold Archive.
The point was he's an educated guy looking at a specific subject. In no place in that article does he point blame or take people for a ride. Feel free to actually read the article and give another well thought out rebuttal. Or better yet, find another article to rip sentences out of for your post like you did this one. That shouldn't be to hard, because there are plenty more on both sides of the argument dude.
LakeMountD
Doctor Science
- Awards
- 1
I was a Chemical Engineering major and although it isn't my specialty (or wasn't at the time), I had a class that went over this disaster as well. The problem is, they provide you with the facts and say that yes the steel has been weakened by this percentage and it is a given fact. Fact is, how the hell do we know this premium grade steel couldn't have handled the heat? Anyone who has worked around building construction knows how strong and hardcore that steel is.
I mean I am a VERY patriotic person but there is nothing wrong with questioning the government, it is what makes America great and hell I joined special ops. after 9/11 to help the cause.
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
Its not about the steel! lol Yes the steel beams could have held up but the smaller clips could not.. they failed under the heat and that brought down the awesome steel...
BioHazzard
Banned
- Awards
- 1
The strength of steel is not the sole determining factor. The structure of the building and the effect of burning jet fuel on the structure, are also factors to be considered. The Twin Tower is not classified project. There is no hush-hush involved.
I am not an engineer and I have no idea about the specifics. And this issue has nothing to do with patriotism. There is nothing wrong with asking questions neither. But in order to be productive, they have to be intelligent questions. What I would like to see is qualified people raising questions.
However, some retired wacko pontificating from his den on issues that he has no expertise in, means sh1t to me.
BioHazzard
Banned
- Awards
- 1
You can pick up a Tom Clancy fiction and highlight all the little nitty-gritty facts that are factually correct. But does not change his fiction into fact.
I am quite certain that Morgan Reynold is a wacko, by something he put in writing.
"...Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right, "though heaven should fall." Unfortunately, getting it right in today’s "security state" demands daring because explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11..."
Any sane person in the academic world knows there is absolutely no way in hell, that the US Government is even remotely capable of intimidating the whole academic community. Academic Freedom are not empy words. This wholesale conspiracy of intimidation, simply cannot be done in this country. To believe otherwise, would mean you are the kind of person who would believe in anything.
OK, may be in Communist Soviet, ''People's " Repulbic of China, North Korea and any other barbaric regimes, you have to toe the official line OR ELSE. But I have yet to hear the FBI or CIA shooting people's brain out in the basement of their secret HQ or any one being sent to psychiatric hospital for criticizing the US government.
This retired Professor from Texas A&M, went on record and wrote that people 'have been intimidated' that are afraid to get to the truth or speak the truth? Well, he has definitely gone over the deep end.
I have not checked yet. But my bet is, he is the laughing stock in the academic world. Texas A&M must be rather embarrassed by this fiasco of his.
BioHazzard
Banned
- Awards
- 1
I have one more point to make.
All these hocus pocus stuff about 9/11 totally depends on 2 key assumptions.
1. There is a conspiracy of epic proportion, orchestrated by 'the power that be', that pulled off 9/11
Fact: In this country, there is simply no way such conspiracy can ever be pulled off without someone spilling the beans.
2. There is another conspiracy that intimidates all the experts in the academic community as well as in commercial engineering commuity, that prevents them from finding out and speaking out about the truth.
Fact: There is no chance of that happening. That is like trying to stop everyone from having sex. It just can't be done. Duh!!
When you pull out these 2 insane assumptions, the whole decks of cards collapse.
There is a reason why no one in the mainstream believes this rubbish. Because it is rubbish!
All these hocus pocus stuff about 9/11 totally depends on 2 key assumptions.
1. There is a conspiracy of epic proportion, orchestrated by 'the power that be', that pulled off 9/11
Fact: In this country, there is simply no way such conspiracy can ever be pulled off without someone spilling the beans.
2. There is another conspiracy that intimidates all the experts in the academic community as well as in commercial engineering commuity, that prevents them from finding out and speaking out about the truth.
Fact: There is no chance of that happening. That is like trying to stop everyone from having sex.
It just can't be done. Duh!! When you pull out these 2 insane assumptions, the whole decks of cards collapse.
There is a reason why no one in the mainstream believes this rubbish. Because it is rubbish!
newt
New member
- Awards
- 0
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ anothor conspiracy theory supporter cute LMAO come on dude ok it was the the jews who did it the mossad hahaha I am so sick of these conspiracy theories that I am gonna have to start takin roids so I can kick Herc's butt ! hehe!
Grunt76
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
Wake up and smell the ashes.
Grunt76
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
Even if the steel had been molten, that doesn't turn the building into isntant ashes. The debris were like 25% dust! There's just NO WAY it would have fallen in on itself like that by just weakening the steel. Think about it: There was lots of reinforced concrete in there. Concrete is still kinda hard. You would have gotten 10-story-high walls falling off from the sides. There was none of that.
These buildings were just turned into an instant pile of rubble. And they were DESIGNED purposefully to withsand MULTIPLE jumbo jet impacts. You can look that up. Now, if the top floors had slid of the top, or crumpling a few floors, fine. But BOTH towers? C'mon. It was fixed and anyone saying otherwise is thinking with their emotions, not their reason.
PastorofMuppets
Member
- Awards
- 0
So are you claiming that there was charges planted to "assist" the process?
Because if so, have you considered:
1. The lack of explosions from the charges being ignited by the fire?
2. The absolute super precision flying that must have been accomplished to MISS all of the charges, if they were planted "outside" of the target area?
You are casually disregarding the simple logic here. You claim that concrete would be sufficient to hold things together....but yet, if so, then why put steel in there in the first place?
Dust? It's called concrete and plasterboard dust. Anyone who has done demo work on any building can tell you that dust is common, even with a controlled mechanical demo.
I personally think that the conspiracy theories are quite cute really.
Completely off base, but cute.
Your
MaynardMeek
Well-known member
- Awards
- 1
there is no more point in talking about this lol.. i cant say it enough.. the buildings were built to hold off a number of things.. but what they didn't expect is a fire of this sheer size.. the fire, the temperature, the heat, was too much for the small clips that were many, and were the life line of these beams... the clips go.. the beams go...
yes.. there was ash.. think about how much paper, office furnature, people, flooring, lights, styrofoam drops, etc etc went up in flames... that just .... ugh lol
yes.. there was ash.. think about how much paper, office furnature, people, flooring, lights, styrofoam drops, etc etc went up in flames... that just .... ugh lol
BioHazzard
Banned
- Awards
- 1
Exactly! The jet fuel burning for hours is what caused structural failure and the floors just pancaked on top of successive layers, cascading into total collapse. Today, we know how to prevent such failure and to stop such chain of event from demolishing the entire building.
But I digress. Plain fact is boring. Conspiracy crap is far more entertaining. Pontificating on a conspiracy is an orgy of mental masturbation that anyone can participate in.
But I digress. Plain fact is boring. Conspiracy crap is far more entertaining.
Pontificating on a conspiracy is an orgy of mental masturbation that anyone can participate in. Similar threads
-
-
Random question for those who have taken anabolic effect and also consume nicotine
- Started by john10960
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
