RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax?

RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

Rule -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 11:07:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail OK, this argues against you. Then any instantaneous heat was directed into the structural concrete, as well as any vibrations due the explosion and implosion..... If the energy for the most part went into the floors and billowing smoke, and if the floors float on pocketed lintels, then there is not much left to damage and weaken the load bearing core and outer skeleton, is there? I do pay attention to your intelligent posts, m-tail. As for TGD, he or she is at risk of having his or her posts blocked by me for reason of him or her not being divine.

mnottertail -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 11:38:06 AM)
But this is my point Rule.........this is simple physics.......set a cement patio block on two uprighted boards, take a torch and put the heat anywhere on the brick, center --ends-- no matter, when it crumbles and cracks the boards are gonna fall down in inward fashion. The central cores of the buildings are immense trunks on which the building sways.........I believe I read somewhere that the top floors could sway as much as some 24 feet from the perpendicular...... take a pine branch.......very bendable and pliable and swish it back and forth............GODDAMN!!! I am gonna beat somebody with THIS!!!!! This is some wonderful shit!!! Now; put a drumstick kinda wrist motion...........................a snap--- OH shit, you can't beat anyone with this, it snaps and splinters. I am not saying anyone on any side or of any persuasion is absolutely wrong about anything, I am saying that there are fundamental physics at work that will explain everything quite handily without the need for a rigging of the building............. Occams Razor, OK? But let us suppose that the building was also rigged to blow......... IF I could stick some terrorists with boxcutters on a plane, seems to me that I could teach somebody somewhere demolition technique, get some blueprints, get them on the janitorial staff and rig that son-of-a-bitch many years ago. Now, none of this requires a conspiracy in the sense of a cover-up or staged reason to invade by the government, if that was the case, they woulda hauled out more than a picture of a crop-duster airplane when Colin Powell went before the UN. I will listen, and look, but I may not agree that all conclusions here are facts. Ron

Rule -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 12:17:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail set a cement patio block on two uprighted boards, take a torch and put the heat anywhere on the brick, center --ends-- no matter, when it crumbles and cracks the boards are gonna fall down in inward fashion. As I have comprehended it from television documentaries, it is because concrete crumbles that it is able to neutralize so much energy. In any case, there is no evidence that I am aware off of extensive crumbling of the concrete floors prior to the collapse. The floors in the damaged part of the buildings were stable: there was a woman standing on one of them in the hole in one of the towers. Those floors were not phazed at all by the collisions. I also know that physicists have said that compared to the inertial mass of the towers, the impact of the planes was negligible. That suffices for me. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The central cores of the buildings are immense trunks on which the building sways.........I believe I read somewhere that the top floors could sway as much as some 24 feet from the perpendicular...... take a pine branch.......very bendable and pliable and swish it back and forth............GODDAMN!!! I am gonna beat somebody with THIS!!!!! This is some wonderful shit!!! Now; put a drumstick kinda wrist motion...........................a snap--- OH shit, you can't beat anyone with this, it snaps and splinters. Yeah, well, that is interesting, but a gnat colliding with a pine tree will not snap the pine tree according to the difference in the energy of the gnat compared to the inertial mass of the pine tree. I am not a physicist, but I imagine that I can discern when a physicist makes sense and the comparative gnat energy versus pine tree inertial mass statement makes eminent sense to me. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I am not saying anyone on any side or of any persuasion is absolutely wrong about anything, I am saying that there are fundamental physics at work that will explain everything quite handily without the need for a rigging of the building............. Occams Razor, OK? Quite. As I said, I do pay attention to your arguments. You are not a parrot. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail But let us suppose that the building was also rigged to blow......... IF I could stick some terrorists with boxcutters on a plane, seems to me that I could teach somebody somewhere demolition technique, get some blueprints, get them on the janitorial staff and rig that son-of-a-bitch many years ago. There is no credible evidence that anyone was aboard those four flying objects. There is a lot of credible evidence that suggests that the towers were collapsed by controlled demolition. It takes a lot more than a couple of janitors to bring down those three WTC buildings. Such a feat requires extensive planning and preparation. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Now, none of this requires a conspiracy in the sense of a cover-up or staged reason to invade by the government, if that was the case, they woulda hauled out more than a picture of a crop-duster airplane when Colin Powell went before the UN. Look, the CIA put the Taliban in Afghanistan in power, they put Saddam in Iraq in power, and they put the ayatollahs in Iran in power. The USA has attacked Afghanistan, the USA has attacked Iraq, and the USA will attack... (Do I have to spell it out?) quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I will listen, and look, but I may not agree that all conclusions here are facts. Quite. I respect that.

ShyMistress -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 12:45:20 PM)
I admit that until roughly last summer I have not paid this situation much attention. I have just begun to uncover the different documentations, videos, and theories that surround the mystery of 911. As of yet I have formed no real opinion either way as to what underlying factors and people caused this destructive tragedy, but thought I would share some of the links that I have. http://www.911truth.org http://www.physics911.net/ http://911research.wtc7.net/ It was an article about the author Barry Zwicker that originally peaked My interest, an interview much like the one found here: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/091106_official_conspiracy.shtml Also...I find it extremely interesting that almost all of the older bills (when folded properly) depict one scene or another of the incident. http://www.armageddononline.org/911.php holds some examples of what I mean. I have found pictures that are clearer but can't remember what site that is. As I stated I have formed no hard opinion Myself, though it does seem weird that so much evidence points to the government's involvement. Sad to think that society may have fallen so far that our own leaders and protectors would be the ones to cause us so much tragedy.

Arpig -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 1:36:07 PM)
quote: There is no credible evidence that anyone was aboard those four flying objects. There is a lot of credible evidence that suggests that the towers were collapsed by controlled demolition. Again your ignorance disqualifies you as a participant in 9/11 discussions.

Real0ne -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 1:39:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Insofar as the kitchens being on whatever floor, the gas mains are several stories underground, at least 4 inches around and there would be several, now as far as fuses and breakers blowing, in terms of that type of disruption, you have a great chance that they will not blow before it reaches the switchgear and the ConEds mains in that area are gonna be pretty fucking hefty and not cut out before alot of shit blows, now if you are willimg to take the risk, we will slap your ass on one of those transformers in that basement and give it a go, my bets is we will be picking your ass up with donut napkins as far away as new jersey, No but i would not hesitate to be in the same room wearing kevlar police body armor, ear and eye protection... electrical explosions blow things off the walls and open up transformers but certainly do not do damage beyond that. Now it might slap my ass across the room at worst case but thats about it really.... As for gas there would have been a huge fireball somewhere and there was none. That and only shaped charges can destroy the core of a building like that... quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I have seen a great deal of silvery grey smoke coming off the brush cuttings that I burn every winter, I can assure you that boxelder is lacking in thermite, but the smoke would be consistant with it. Ron yes but i dont think box elders go boom and were growing in the basement of the wtc. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Real, Can you give me the specific links to each of these film clips, since I didn't see them, and the overall site link has a multitude of links and I am not going to waste my time with every small and or large misinformed statement given by some of these threads. I really would like the exact links to the films you talk about, I scrolled around for about 45 minutes on that site last night and didn't see any of these.....certainly not clear by any title.............. Many of the things you talk about are discussed already by university professors and other highly qualified people but its all pretty meaningless if you dont take the time to view it, and frankly its a waste of time till you have about 4 - 5 hours to go over this stuff front to back without skipping thru sections...(i tried that it doesnt work) So here ya go..... ya get this stuff in bits and peices from many different sources and i would say these are the main ones to get you started. ok here are the plane specs: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html How was it built in the first place? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3135892053682639810 Do you suppose any of these had gas lines? Why didnt they fall? http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html How about the nist report? wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 9/11 Mysteries (video) This one is lot of physics and great info http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003 What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8076200333701191665 Melting Metal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk Does This Look Like "Structural Failure" to You? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_cC37d5kOs BYU professor claims WTC collapse was controlled demolition what are his credeentials? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones 9/11: A Conversation with Jim Fetzer (video) this one is the plausability from your hommes Ron http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=590053292130233240 Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley, Dr. Robert Bowman, Prof. Steven Jones, and Prof. Jim Fetzer. several analysises of wtc http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5004704309041471296 Terror Storm with Alex Jones (video) This one has interesting political issues http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5792753647750188322 Loose Change, 2nd Edition (Recut) this one brings up a few good points but goes over the edge sometimes http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501 General States Plane Did not Hit Pentagon http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/240706General.htm Here is a list of the scholars involved: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html#FullMembers

Real0ne -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 1:58:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Yeah, well, that is interesting, but a gnat colliding with a pine tree will not snap the pine tree according to the difference in the energy of the gnat compared to the inertial mass of the pine tree. I am not a physicist, but I imagine that I can discern when a physicist makes sense and the comparative gnat energy versus pine tree inertial mass statement makes eminent sense to me. Great analogy rule! I doubt that plane even scratched paint on the core, especially in wtc 2 where is went in sidways across 3+ floors. What most people i think do not realize about that kind of crash is that most of the fuel is stored in the wings and turns to vapor at such a high speed only to go up instantly in a fireball as was seen in the crash... The fire is so instantaneous it wouldnt generat enough heat to start a camp fire except in isolated spots. Next a fireman made it up there and stated (on tape), there was only 2 small pockets of fires and it would take only 2 hoses to put it out.... There seemes to be a lot of conjecture going on without knowing the facts, as well as name calling... Unfortunately those doing the name calling have yet to offer anything substantial to this thrread, so it was good to hear this analogy, well that and ron offering to strap a 60hz exploding vibrator to my ass!, i had a nice chuckle over that!

ToGiveDivine -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 2:00:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Yeah, well, that is interesting, but a gnat colliding with a pine tree will not snap the pine tree according to the difference in the energy of the gnat compared to the inertial mass of the pine tree. I am not a physicist, but I imagine that I can discern when a physicist makes sense and the comparative gnat energy versus pine tree inertial mass statement makes eminent sense to me. Great analogy rule! I doubt that plane even scratched paint on the core, especially in wtc 2 where is went in sidways across 3+ floors. What most people i think do not realize about that kind of crash is that most of the fuel is stored in the wings and turns to vapor at such a high speed only to go up instantly in a fireball as was seen in the crash... The fire is so instantaneous it wouldnt generat enough heat to start a camp fire except in isolated spots. Next a fireman made it up there and stated (on tape), there was only 2 small pockets of fires and it would take only 2 hoses to put it out.... There seemes to be a lot of conjecture going on without knowing the facts, as well as name calling... Unfortunately those doing the name calling have yet to offer anything substantial to this thrread, so it was good to hear this analogy, well that and ron offering to strap a 60hz exploding vibrator to my ass!, i had a nice chuckle over that! Hmmm, gnats don't explode in a gigantic fireballs either - at least not the ones we have here in the midwest - but hey, if unrealistic analogies work for you ... Edited: how can one add any really substantial to a topic started with any real substance. It looks like twisting facts and making assumptions to prove a theory you already decided you had all the answers in advance. I love it when results can be determined without actually doing any on the job research (and no, watching clips from Internet sites does not constitute research) An exploding airliner wouldn't generate enough heat to start a campfire - thanks, that just makes me laugh to no end.

Arpig -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 2:49:19 PM)
RealOne: quote: yes but i dont think box elders go boom and were growing in the basement of the wtc. I think the point he was making was that there are other substances than thermite that produce a "silvery grey" smoke Rule: quote: The fire is so instantaneous it wouldnt generat enough heat to start a camp fire except in isolated spots. Ah, so that's why a crashed airliner never catchs fire then? Now both of you go stand in front of a mirror and read this quote from one of Rule's posts aloud while looking in the mirror. quote: Again your ignorance disqualifies you as a participant in 9/11 discussions.

swtnsparkling -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 3:02:08 PM)
quote: Now both of you go stand in front of a mirror and read this quote from one of Rule's posts aloud while looking in the mirror. quote: quote: Again your ignorance disqualifies you as a participant in 9/11 discussions. LOL! Thanks Arpig

Rule -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 3:25:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Figuring roughly 40k gallons of fuel (which them planes can carrry quite easily) you are going to need 560k gallons of available air to burn it fairly efficiently.................. I read on the website http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html courteously provided by RealOne that the maximum fuel capacity of the plane allegedly used as Flight 175 was 24 kilo gallon - forty per cent less than your guess. Most of this fuel would have vaporized and turned into a fireball outside the building upon impact, according to RealOne. Which indeed is what the camera's observed. Also: some of that fuel was used up during the flight before the collision. Edited to add: I read a bit further and learned that it is estimated that at the time of the impact Flight 175 carried 10 kilo gallon of fuel - one quarter of your guess.

Real0ne -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 3:28:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Rule: quote: The fire is so instantaneous it wouldnt generat enough heat to start a camp fire except in isolated spots. Ah, so that's why a crashed airliner never catchs fire then? not rule: r1: So have you ever seen a fully loaded kc135 crash into the side of a mountain at 300 knots?

luckydog1 -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 3:29:32 PM)
Here is a list of the scholars involved: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html#FullMembers I encourage everyone who is interested to examine this list( look up the individual members to see what their credentials actually are). Not a single one of them has any expertise in related fields whatsoever. An Optical or nuclear physist has no relevant expertise. And most of the list is just laughable. And anyone who takes them seriously is not too bright. Anyone who pretends they are "experts" is either lying or stupid. And for the record Plastic/rubber burns black smoke, no matter how much/little air it gets( ever seen a tire fire?)....

Real0ne -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 4:02:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Here is a list of the scholars involved: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html#FullMembers I encourage everyone who is interested to examine this list( look up the individual members to see what their credentials actually are). Not a single one of them has any expertise in related fields whatsoever. An Optical or nuclear physist has no relevant expertise. And most of the list is just laughable. And anyone who takes them seriously is not too bright. Anyone who pretends they are "experts" is either lying or stupid. And for the record Plastic/rubber burns black smoke, no matter how much/little air it gets( ever seen a tire fire?).... and what temperature is the fire you are describing. It would be nice to at least tell us the details or support what you say with a link. also i woudl like to know exactly what degree one must be possess to qualify for whatever task you feel they are not qualified for? to the best of my knowledge there arent any schools offering a wtc falling down analysis degree.

Arpig -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 4:15:54 PM)
quote: also i woudl like to know exactly what degree one must be possess to qualify for whatever task you feel they are not qualified for? Structural engineering would be nice, for a start. Edited to add: Again your ignorance disqualifies you as a participant in 9/11 discussions.

Real0ne -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 4:24:42 PM)
Ron, Here are a couple pics and write up on the windsor building in madrid that has the same basic design but no where near as robust as the wtc buildings. The "structural engineers" engineers who designed wtc stated that the building should have withstood several fully loaded 707 crashes and remained standing... Not referring to you but i assume we can all agree these gentlemen are qualified. then again.... lol Look at the enourmous damage on a bld with much less strength and it remained standing. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3422960340283884442&hl=en http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html edited for clarification

luckydog1 -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 4:30:22 PM)
here's a great partial list of relevant experts...people who actually are experts in explosives, ait chrashes, structual collapses ect. Not nut jobs with unrelated degrees who believe Jesus visited America, or outlandish extraterrestial conspiricies. The whole list as well as a great article can be found here http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1 I do realise that sissify and rule have already declared this site to be meaningless, and as proof they point to a few ranting Blog entries. But anyone who actually is interested can take a look .Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd. Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E. CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response Won-Young Kim, Ph.D. seismologist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA John Labriola freelance photographer, WTC survivor Arthur Lerner-Lam, Ph.D. seismologist; director, Earth Institute, Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Columbia University James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee Steve Riskus freelance photographer; eyewitness, Pentagon crash Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

sissifytoserve -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 4:32:45 PM)
According to ArpiG...all of us are "ignorant"and disqualified to talk about 9-11. He is going to IGNORE anything you put up as evidence...because he is convinced..."That them thar A-rabs dun it!!!" ...and the government would NEVER hurt the people. [8\|][8\|][8\|][8\|][8\|]

Zensee -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 4:36:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I encourage everyone who is interested to examine this list( look up the individual members to see what their credentials actually are). Not a single one of them has any expertise in related fields whatsoever. An Optical or nuclear physist has no relevant expertise. And most of the list is just laughable. And anyone who takes them seriously is not too bright. Anyone who pretends they are "experts" is either lying or stupid. And for the record Plastic/rubber burns black smoke, no matter how much/little air it gets( ever seen a tire fire?).... That’s a pretty broad statement. What precisely constitutes relevant expertise; a PhD in Covert Ops from MIT, a Masters in Applied Domestic Terror at Harvard? Pray enlighten us. Actually there are technical experts on the list, so your “not a single one” assertion is misleading at best (that or stupid, if I may hijack your rhetoric). In any case, people trained in the scientific process are quite capable of acquiring new knowledge and of conducting novel research without getting re-qualified. The list is just a roll call of scholars calling bullshit on the government. Operating a bullshit detector does not require a doctorate or even a bachelor degree, to my knowledge, any more than running interference does. “And for the record,” kerosene does not make steel burn yellow hot melt like honey. edited to NOTE: this was drafted while luckydog posted his definitions and the list of WTC conspiracy debunkers (and in which he could not refrain from typifying doubters as nutbars) - oh well... Z. 0

Arpig -> RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? (10/30/2006 4:47:53 PM)
quote: According to ArpiG...all of us are "ignorant"and disqualified to talk about 9-11. He is going to IGNORE anything you put up as evidence...because he is convinced..."That them thar A-rabs dun it!!!" ...and the government would NEVER hurt the people. Actually Sissy, you may notice, should you care to actually pay attention (I know its hard, but you can do it), I have only said that to 3 people, and I was quoting one of you at that. I have not ignored anything. I simply am not convinced. I have yet to see anything that I would consider an actual scientific examination that in anyway backs up your imbecilic assertions of governmental conspiracy. I do not accept this theory simply because I have not been convinced by the flimsy "evidence" put forward to support it. And yes I do believe that the WTC disaster was caused by arab terrorists. Again your ignorance disqualifies you as a participant in 9/11 discussions.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.859375E-02