First off, I apologize to Mark because many of my "replies" were actually to Rochard, and I was copy-pasting the wrong quote tag (probably because my notepad was stuffed or something and I just didn't notice):
BUT since Mark and Rochard follow the same belief-line, the responses are or would be the same....
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Just because there were no cameras around to capture the event in detail doesn't mean there is any kind of conspiracy. Don't forget that this event happened over 10 years ago now. Today cameras are truly everywhere, but back then people were still screaming about invasion of privacy and "big brother".
btw: Today, "Big Brother" is us.
|
I didn't claim that there is a conspiracy "because there were no cameras around".
The FBI has officially claimed they seized over 80 video recordings of the crash into the Pentagon... why not release them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
You just dismissed.
And of course it would.
|
I dismiss the argument between maximum ground/airspeed because it basically serves to obfuscate the real issue.
[QUOTE=**********;18937027]Of course they would. Anyone would. The fact that anyone would call the maneuvers extraordinary is itself, not extraordinary. This too should be removed from your list of arguments. [/qoute]
Please explain your rationale? The fact that experienced professional pilots say they couldn't nor do they know any others with the ability to fly this way should not be discounted from the discussion at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
No, they testify to the speed and direction of the plane which was my argument. Are you seriously bringing into question whether or not they were flown by remote control now? Not only is that idea a little ridiculous but it also deflects from the point. Don't argue a point by bringing in another argument.
|
I have no intention of bringing a "remote control" conspiracy theory into any argument as it would not be grounded in any factual data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
No, not at all. It needs "Enough" heat for a "Long enough" period of time. "Control" is a misleading statement. Remove "control" from your narrative.
|
There's no reason to remove the idea of controlled temperature management from the argument since that is the only way you can have steel first soften/weaken and then fail - over time and temperature.
If you flash your steel with 2500 farenheit heat for ten minutes then reduce the heat to half or a quarter of this, and then bring it back up, and then back down, you will not get the same result.
The WTC fires weren't controlled thus regulated to furnish constant enough temps to allow steel the time to weaken, let alone succumb completely from any load bearing functions...
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
The fires need not have reached 2500F. All they had to do was burn hot enough and long enough to either weaken the steal beams or the weakest points of the structure would were most probably the points at where the floors were attached to the beams and building.
|
Right. And they weren't hot enough long enough to neither weaken or completely compromise the steel of any of the buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Also don't forget that The FEMA report also determined that thinning of the steel had occurred by the severe high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation, that heating of the steel in a hot corrosive environment at temperatures approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) resulted in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel, and that this sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.[73] The FEMA report concluded that the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of the steel columns examined were "very unusual events" and that there was "no clear explanation" for the source of the sulfur found.
|
I removed that pesky [74] from your copy-paste...
The fact that a eutectic steel reaction was reported by FEMA is probably one of the reasons it was taken off the investigation.
The data you report attests to metal/heat reactions that can only be caused by nanothermite, or thermate, which was denied by NIST.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
No. A strange as it is to believe, the energy in the plane crash and explosions was nothing compared to the energy released during the collapse.
|
Which in scientific reality means that the collapse cannot be the result of normal, gravity imposed influence. You contradict yourself, my friend...
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
I'm not saying anything like that at all. I don't know who was responsible for it all. I'm only saying that WTC was not brought down by demolition. I didn't see anything else on TV about it so I can't comment on it. I can enjoy the stories and different points of view. The only thing I saw was what was shown to us on TV, and the images of the collapse do not look like a demolition.
|
You see, this is where objective and empirical observation diverge. How can one look at WTC7 and say it was NOT demolition, standard and classic?
The two towers were so alike, and symmetrical, and complete in their "collapses" how can anyone say it was "organic" ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
WT7 Looks like a demolition at first, but with a little extra digging its easy to see that it is not a demo.
|
Really? And where did you do this "little extra digging"? Popular Mechanics and their already debunked repetition of the government's own repudiated "explanation"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
No. Faith in common sense and basic science.
|
Hah! again "common sense" - you certainly did not apply any "science" to your evaluation, except those principles which forgive your beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
I know where you are going with this, but it leads to a dead end. It's easy to distrust government, but its not easy to distrust science. I'm no scientist, but you know from when we were kids that science is my hobby (so is astro physics btw). I'm no architect, no engineer, no nothing. But neither are you. I can only base my opinions on common sense, and a little bit of science 101. I have never seen or read anything that contradicts anything I have seen to date.
|
That you've seen nothing that contradicts your belief in the official story of 9/11, God, Buddah, or Allah is regardless.
The fact is that buildings do not come down like the 9/11 buildings did, organically or in non-controlled "accidental" fashion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Lots of people believe in ghosts, religion, astrology, UFO's, etc. I do not. Whenever I ask for proof of any of these things nothing plausible is ever offered. Same goes for the "controlled demolition of wtc".
|
You're kidding me. You don't believe in ghosts etc... but you believe the shit that is provided by the government for the collosal destruction of the WTC without any proof or validation whatsoever?!? Dude, you need a reality check.