DirtyF, I have not seen this movie yet but I do not give it much credit as there have been several versions of the same movie released byt the filmakers as they have found the need to keep updating their "Facts".

While I may not believe everything reported on the news to us about 9/11, alot of people tend to go way overboard connecting ideas absent of hard facts with other similar ideas until a conspiracy theory is born. People like this settle on these ideas instead of doing any real investigating or taking the time to learn enough real science, physics or engineering, and then scream cover-up when those ideas do not receive attention in the media or are otherwise dismissed.

Oh hahah not bad.... problem is with the documentation and scientific backup of your claim.

You see there's nothing to back up what the 9/11 Comission claimed.

You have scientific back up for your claim about humanity whether or not you know it.

"Unlikeliness" isn't the only base for what I state about those buildings...

But still, as a gambler, what would you say are the odds all three of those buildings could fall the same way on the same day, being also that they were the first in known history to do so?

DirtyF: You are wasting your time arguing with Greg on this point. He and I have spent many after-work evenings discussing these points.

I saw the same video that Greg and everyone else did. Those buildings FELL. No controlled demolition. The planes weakend it. The fuel burned and weakened the steel beams that remained. Hundeds of tons worth of the remaining floors SQUISHED the damaged floor, adding tons more which then SQUISHED The floor below that and so on. The combined weight plus the gaining momentum of all of that weight is what brought down the twin towers. No Dynamite required.

Actually, in the allotted time, the fuel could not have weakened the steel columns and girders.

NIST has admitted that none of the temperatures in the buildings could have risen much above 650 degrees. Which is not even one-third enough to weaken steel, and which would require hours of exposure to cause softening (at much higher temps).

The Planes couldn't have damaged the structural integrity of the buildings because they were largely aluminum. The engines, made of titanium and other hard alloys, could have taken out some of the central columns. However, this is largeley and admittedly speculation on the part of NIST, and would not have engendered global collapse.

And actually you didn't see the same video I did because I know how you would interpret it, scientifically.

Plus, steel and concrete don't "squish" or expulse matter that way.

1 in something, for the sake of argument lets say 1 in 15x10^50, an insanely huge number, and almost 0, but not quite.

but 1 happened, and its fucked up, but 1 happened.

dont listen to the idiots who talk about things like blast points like douche master in that video up above, grab a 2 litre can of pop, poke 50 holes in it, the blow in the top. air comes out at the top holes, but also out the bottom holes. now plug up some of the top holes like closed windows would be and youll see why there was never any blast points

also, the guys flying the plane must have had some deadly accuracy, to be able to hit the building, but just high enough that they don't detonate any of the explosives set up but at the same time to make it look like there was enough weight above them for it to crash down.

Ya tell that to all the trees they wind with soft objects put through the center after a tornado. I bet that piece of straw that went into the tree branch didn't seem so tough when it wasn't going 500 mph.

The commentator of this video is making huge guesses and several obvious mistakes. It's clear that the commentator is also a troofer and is seeing what he wants to see without ever once using a critical eye or considering anything close to a scientific explanation. "Computer timed explosions" - sure...
"Perfectly Horizontal lines?" Even from this distance you can see that these lines are not PERFECTLY horizontal.. they are not even horizontal. The next time someone uses the word PERFECT or EXACT to describe this disaster they need to learn the words SCALE and ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE...

If I think I understand what you're saying here, fine; however, after the plane/s went into the building/s there were no signs of comprising structural instances. This is documented.

You're arguing that velocity made a difference in the structural response of the buildings to the planes (which is contradicted by the government study), and yet that zero velocity in the top section collapse still managed to desintegrate the structure.

Doesn't work for me yet.

Actually Greg you are making a wild assumption here. What would need to do is determine the terminal velocity of the building as it fell. Terminal Velocity is the downward force of gravity minus the upward force of drag. As each piece of the building gets stuck to the downward falling piece it will gain momentum until the amount of drag it hits on the way down stops the acceleration. This momentum is the limiting value of the acceleration process, since the effective forces on the body more and more closely balance each other as the terminal velocity is approached. And since there is more floors above crashing each floor below, terminal velocity is never reached until it hits the ground. Thats why everything including the ground floors are utterly destroyed.

Yep he's using conjecture to interpret what we're seeing.

However the lines of destruction are pretty beautifully arrayed. And because they're destroying up to ten floors at a time and the flow and efflusion of such dramatic conversions (concrete to dust, etc) aren't purely "digital" if you want to call them that, it's still pretty astonishing to watch this destruction. I would have a hard time calling it "natural" or collapse.

:D

Ah you and your terminology.

Fine.

The assumption is not "wild" as you define it. And you're using "terminal velocity" as if the top part of the building was dropped from tens of thousands of feet above the remainder of the reportedly structurally sound four-fifths of the building. It wasn't.

Terminal velocity? OK. So one-fifth of the building (the top) lost support and began to cave. The other four-fifths evaporated under it's weight? Of course not.

If this was the case, then the bottom four-fifths of the structure should have stopped or slowed the top part's downward motion. Simple Newtonian law, here.

Terminal velocity is the action of one mass resisting to the force or velocity of another mass. Seeing as their was no velocity involved, the path of least resistance should have determined that the collapse would have stopped right there, or toppled into Manhattan and killed thousands more.

Actually, he's using conjecture to try to explain to us what HE is WANTING to see and to convince us that what he is seeing is real and absolute, and "true".


They are arrayed because the building itself is square. It is completely plausible to me that a fairly even downward force will create a fairly even outward burst of debris in a building that is made up of 4 sides of exactly the same length and width, with exactly the same windows on all sides, and probably the same amount of furniture.

(And by the way, the "probably same amount of furniture" lends itself nicely to the randomness of the "explosions" of air and other pressure pushing everything out those windows).

Wait! Time for a commercial break.



http://www.livecamnetwork.com/bbs-pi...mnetwork-2.jpg

Now, back to the show!

This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.


How many of you, when lying on your deathbed, will say "I wish I'd convinced more people that 9/11 was (or wasn't) an inside job"

Then again, I'm a little high from a vicodin I took about an hour ago, so what I just typed may not make any sense at all.

Just like many in this thread are...

So if a "fairly even downward" force occurred three times in one day in three buildings with different initiating events, you'd just shut your yap and accept it?!?

From structural analysis and conduction evaluation, these "pressure" events wouldn't have happened. The only area within the buildings' array that was non-pressurized were the elevator shafts.

Even if your squish theory were applicable it wouldn't have resulted in external air/dust extrusions.

Face it . I don't care who or what, but those buildings were literally blown up. Why is that so hard to accept?

So even though there is evidence to support otherwise, countless logical explanations, we're going to just believe your support-less claim because you said face it?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Yeah and the surge is working too :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Thats the problem with simpletons like you. You get your "facts" from clowns just like you.

"All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC, by 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength."

You are a fucking retard. Sorry, i cant say it in a more polite way.

Its that simple.

Also there are sound recordings, which i heard on tv and which are public of a guy who was involved on a high level with the wtc towers, who knew a lot about its structure etc. After the plane hit it he went up to those levels to see if he could rescue people. You hear him saying in that recording (hes on the phone with a ground crew) that hes afraid that the building might collapse because of the huge damage.

And then stupid pricks like Mediaguy come here with their "evidence" saying there wasnt much damage..

Thanks for apologizing for your inability to respond in a more civil way.

"The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

[Therefore not hot enough to melt steel or at the time of exposre recorded to soften it significantly]

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius [1,832.00 Farenheity] , it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. "

What they omit is that, if it were to be "expected" the steel should have been exposed at DOUBLE the temperature for the 3 to 6 hour period required for steel to soften; when, in fact, it was "exposed" for less than an hour, at lower temperatures. So the fire explanation is bullshit.

:D

Despite your belief, there isn't evidence to support that this was an organic, natural or gravity -driven collapse.

People like you think there is.

But with a little effort you'll find there isn't.

Planes hit the tower, the buildings fell down. There were NO rigged explosives, or any of that bullshit. </end thread>

I believe most troofers can broken down into the following two categories:

Paranoid/Delusional - This kind of troofer is so terrified of reality that they must construct some kind of outlandish counter reality that they find more comforting. Perhaps the fact that deep down inside they know their artificially constructed reality is false is comforting, while at the same time allowing them to ignore the uncomfortable reality that they cannot face. It is essentially the equivalent of reading a comic book and pretending it is the news because the real news is too horrible to comprehend.

Marxist/Propagandist – This kind of troofer knows that their theories are all lies but feel that the lies serve the greater good of “waking up” capitalist society to its supposed “evils.” They are using the classic Marxist/Leninist technique of the “big lie” to try and undermine capitalist society. They know that people will never turn against their comfortable lifestyles willingly so they need to manufacture shadowy conspiracies which will make the average citizen believe that they have somehow been “duped” and are being “oppressed” despite all the evidence to the contrary. This is the type of troofer that publishes most of the troofer propaganda that the paranoid/delusional troofers spout hypnotically.

Obviously there are many varieties of both these types and some people are likely a little bit in each camp, but I believe it is a decent summary of the troofer movement. :)

You mean other than this study here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

That disproves everything you say?

Steel starts weakening at 300 degrees, it doesn't just begin to soften at 1000 degrees then melt at 1500. That's not steel. So, I'm not sure why you think you can draw numbers out of thin air and expect others to believe them, when there are actual facts that prove you wrong. Time and time again.

If you want to look at it in your conspiracy theory kind of way then think of it like this:

If the goal was to create as big of an explosion as possible, then why not knock the building over into some other buildings? Why wait until after the fires have been burning for a while to knock the building down? Why even bother sending planes if you can just blow it up and then say it was a terrorist. And most importantly, why bother blowing the whole building up? It made no difference that the whole thing crashed, the point was that two planes just hit two skyscrapers, it was the beginning of that war either way. So why would the government go out of their way and let tons of other demolition experts in on their little game when they could have just crashed planes into the building?

Any way you look at it, you're wrong, you know you're wrong, and it's become clear by you making figures up that you're just making your last attempts at trying to even sound like you could know anything, when in reality, its obvious that you've lost.

Sorry dude!

Yup the beginning of malleability doesn't wait till it hits 1000 degrees to start deterioating the strength of the metal.

I don't trust Loose Change or the government.

The people bashing the conspiracy theorists are just as ignorant as the conspiracy theorists themselves - NEITHER SIDE HAS PROVEN THEIR CASE.

So anyone claiming to believe either side is a gullable idiot. The only honest answer to what really happened on 9/11 is "I don't know".

Its really quite sad how this has been shaped into a black and white issue. You can't even ask questions without people thinking you're siding with the 9/11 truthers. However the governments story has so many gaps, anyone who believes it at face value is a fucking moron.

Pretty screwed up situation :2 cents:

To follow up that last post let me be more specific.

From what ive seen i'm the only fair minded person in this entire thread, believing neither the truthers or the government - I still have unanswered questions.

- Bin Laden worked directly with the CIA decades ago when Russia was invading Afghanistan.... thats all on the record and undisputed history... whats never been explained is how and when that relationship officially ended. The fact is we had a close relationship with the man who is now supposidly our biggest enemy, but the details of that relationship are vastly unexplained.

- Why was Pakistani intelligence chief Ahmad (who wired the 9/11 hijackers $100,000) in Washington DC meeting with US officials on the morning of 9/11? Why did the 9/11 comission not include this in their investigation? Why was he allowed back to Pakistan, then retired and disappeared without any followup???

- Why did members of the 9/11 comission claim "There were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail." citing lack of cooperation from the white house. On this same note why would Bush only speak to them if it was off the record, together with Cheney, and he wasnt under oath?

- WHO THE HELL WARNED OAKLAND MAYOR WILLIE BROWN NOT TO FLY? This is from the goddamn SF Chronicle and has since been burried with no explination. ( SF Chronicle Sept 12th )



Now I am open to the idea that there are innocent explinations for all of the above. But no matter where you think you stand - all of America must admit the 'investigation' was sloppy to say the least.

It's that sloppyness that leads to 'truthers' jumping to dramatic conclusion, and the equally disgusting anti-truthers who pretend their gap-filled story makes sense.

NEITHER "SIDE" HAS A DAMN CLUE WHAT HAPPENED. SO STOP TAKING SIDES!

Stop fooling yourselves, all of you are pathetic in your attempts to avoid admitting the only truth, which is that you don't know jack shit.

Just you saying so don't make it so.

According to facts, buildings shouldn't have fallen.

If there weren't explosives, what made the buildings fall as if there were?

I'm not a tinfoil hat spaceray freak.

I would love to know why all warnings prior to 9/11 were relegated to the garbage can.

I would love to know how those buildings fell so fast.

Planes, fires and total structural failure don't explain the speed of descent.

World Trade Center 7 or the Salomon Brothers Building wasn't even hit by a plane.

Al'Qaeda already claimed responsibility for the attack. Since we're doing the "when in known history", when in known history has Al'Qaeda claimed responsibility for something they DIDN'T do? No conspiracy theorist has EVER been able to answer that question.

If there were explosives, why was there no explosives residue ever found? Building 7 was intentionally brought down for safety concerns. Not even sure why you're bringing B7 up since this has been gone over time and time again.

If someone cut your feet off you'd swear they were still there. if someone slapped you in the face you'd deny it ever happened. if someone told you the sky was blue you'd say it just isn't so.

All that shit has been explained in great detail by many qualified people yet you claim "there is no proof"

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh you're ridiculous.

Gregory sir, what you are assuming is that the heat in these area only got as hot as the fuel might burn at. You are ignoring alot of other factors such as all of the other material that made up the offices and the building itself, the increased amount of airflow thanks to air intake (Heat rises and sucks up air from the hundreds of now blown-out windows), and most importantly, the flash point of all of the gasses generated by the burning items including evaporated but not yet burned jet fuel. These gases rise with heat and collect at the tops of the room. They continue to be heated by the fuel below until the the gases themselves, catch fire. This raises the tempurate way beyon 2000 degrees (Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology).

Thousands of degrees of heat, +
Damage by a 20 ton plane at 400 miles per hour, +
Thousands of tons of pressure..

yeah... those buildings feel down all by themselves... no controlled demolition needed.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's ?happened before?.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

Also, the planes knocked the fireproofing material off of the steel columns.

The facts you got from loose change and shit like that arent facts you retard boy. Just like your steel temp. bullshit. Fucking mentally challenged idiot.

Also retardboy, you are telling us that every level of the building had explosives ready to go off...you have any fucking idea what a massive job with tons of people involved that would be? In the most public tower in NYC...yeah right.
Also when the plane crashed the explosives didnt go off? Then after a while someone pushed the button and the explosives started to go off starting at the first level below the plane crash area? And the levels above the explosives didnt go off? Dude think about it...youre fucking nuts.

Bump...

I want to see with what bs you will come up with regarding my last post.

DirtyF, can you lay off the name calling? This is an interesting discussion with lots of varrying opinions. The only people who I would call completely nuts would be the ones who believe UFO's had anything to do with this... all other opinions though are fair game.

Cheers!

No sorry. If someone is a retard you should call him that.