Miller
IT'S MILLER TIME!
+271|6725|United States of America

Sneaky.Russian wrote:

Can some one answer my question please:
Why do people vote Bush?

He's the dumbest human being I have ever seen.
Seriously, he cannot live a media stand / speech without making a fool out of himself.
Now I know every US citizen will flame me for this statement, but I don't give a flying f**k. That man should be on a restraining order... not allowed to be 5km's within the white house.

If it was some one else on the President's spot, I am very sure we would know the real truth about big events of America. Bush doesn't give a sh*t about 9/11, he just wants the war in middle-east for the oil, thinking that it will make US rich, and yet look how many enemies they made.
/Fail
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6676
OMFG I cwill not even to begin to argue this.  There are so many reasons why this is idea is riddiculous that I do not want to spend my day listing them.  Everyone else out there jut remember: You cannot argue with an insane person.  They cannot see logic.
smtt686
this is the best we can do?
+95|6601|USA
If the U.S. govt is as pathetic as a lot of people think they are, there is no way on gods green earth, they could ever, and I mean ever, pull off a script as big as this one is.   Some think we can't wage war, or manage an economy.  So if thats true, how can they pull this off?

I mean really.  2 planes hit dead on, 2 building knocked over from that impact.  Another few buildings as collateral damage (of which no one was killed or injured). 

Then you have to wonder about the plane that landed in Pennsylvania.  Was that the real plot?  Did the government just happen to know someone was going to hijack some planes and let that one go, while the real thing unfolded?  Or maybe, just maybe, the govt was able to convince some arabs to hijack one, you know just for the good ol days? 

I call bullshit, i smell bullshit and your full of bullshit.

Topic over, goodnight.

Last edited by smtt686 (2007-04-30 20:35:21)

JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6555|Montreal
basically everyone here likes to avoid the hard evidence like molten metal in the basements of the three towers that collapsed or the fact that the concrete was all pulverized into dust. no one mentions the squibs comiing out of the buildings as they collapsed, or that both towers magically collapsed in exactly the same way even though the planes hit them very differently, or that all towers fell at freefall speed. Instead you cling to the now thoroughly debunked "there would have been too many witnesses" or "the government is too incompetent to pull this off." Great debating tactics everyone your tenth grade debating teacher would fail you all for arguments as weak as these.
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6635|NT, like Mick Dundee

Wait, wait, wait....


This topic is still open for debate?????????????

Shit, I used to be a bit of a sceptic (seriously, how the fuck do 21 camel jokeys from Saudi Arabia launch the most effective attack on the American economy in the last fifty years?) but fucking hell...

READ THE DOCUMENTATION; yes there is some cause for doubting the official story, but the attacks sure as hell were NOT carried out by the US fucking government for fucks sake.

Excuse the less than civil post... My apologies...

Last edited by Flecco (2007-04-30 21:02:51)

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6736|Cambridge (UK)

Villain{NY} wrote:

Is it easier to believe that Muslim extremists carried out the act, or our own government carried out this elaborate, perfectly timed and coordinated plot without anyone leaking it or finding out about it?  Occam's Razor my friend.
You mean like the elaborate, perfectly timed and coordinated plot that the Muslim extremists carried out without anyone leaking it or finding out about?

To think that it just couldn't be done is just wrong. People come up with argument of "well, what about the Fire Department, the Mayor, the Police, etc etc etc, that would have had to keep the secret too" - THEY DON'T HAVE TO KNOW - YOU DON'T TELL THEM.

I do believe planes were hijacked by terrorists (almost certainly Muslim Extremists, probably Al-Queda), but I'm also open-minded enough to see that there are things that happened on that day that just do not add up.

For example - the first plane - it is said that there is no footage of the first plane. That is incorrect. I can not prove this, but I do know this to be fact. How do I know this? I watched it on TV - I was up watching BBC News24 when it happened. There was one short piece of footage shown of the first plane. It was only shown once and I have never seen that footage again. And now it is stated that no footage of the first plane exists. That does not add up.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-05-01 08:00:52)

Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6736|Cambridge (UK)

ghettoperson wrote:

Can we just close this topic? It's almost as old as Jesus on a dinosaur, and I'm sure in 31 pages every conceivable argument about 9/11 will have been thought of and repeated, many times over.
Possibly so, but still the debate continues. Therefor it should not be closed. If you don't like the topic, don't read it, don't post to it, go somewhere else.
topal63
. . .
+533|6688

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Can we just close this topic? It's almost as old as Jesus on a dinosaur, and I'm sure in 31 pages every conceivable argument about 9/11 will have been thought of and repeated, many times over.
Possibly so, but still the debate continues. Therefor it should not be closed. If you don't like the topic, don't read it, don't post to it, go somewhere else.
None of it adds up... and did you read Kmarions post?

He is dredging up the cycle of myth vs myth and debunking that gets debunked (as in the so-called Popular Mechanics debunking of a 9/11 conspiracy).

David Griffin has recently published a book (Debunking 9/11 Debunking), that exposes the errors that went into debunking the 9/11 myths. Effectively he has debunked the debunking.
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mech … 156656686X

Here is a blog that has excerpts from the Book:
http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/04/ … nking.html

The radical change at Popular Mechanics just prior to the Debunking 9/11 article/mission.
"In the months just prior to the publication of the article on which this book is based, a radical change in PM’s personnel was orchestrated by the president of Hearst Magazines, Cathleen P. Black. As reporter Christopher Bollyn pointed out, Black is married to Thomas E. Harvey, who has worked for the CIA, the Department of Defense, and the US Information Agency."

"Bollyn also unearthed another fact relevant to the credibility of PM’s writing about 9/11: that 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, who described himself as the "senior researcher" for the article, is a cousin of the new head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff."
And all of that is just a backdrop for the logical, scientific & journalistic errors committed by Popular Mechanics.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-01 08:36:59)

Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6736|Cambridge (UK)

topal63 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Can we just close this topic? It's almost as old as Jesus on a dinosaur, and I'm sure in 31 pages every conceivable argument about 9/11 will have been thought of and repeated, many times over.
Possibly so, but still the debate continues. Therefor it should not be closed. If you don't like the topic, don't read it, don't post to it, go somewhere else.
None of it adds up... and did you read Kmarions post?

He is dredging up the cycle of myth vs myth and debunking that gets debunked (as in the so-called Popular Mechanics debunking of a 9/11 conspiracy).

David Griffin has recently published a book (Debunking 9/11 Debunking), that exposes the errors that went into debunking the 9/11 myths. Effectively he has debunked the debunking.
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mech … 156656686X
Yes.

And this is exactly why the debate must continue. As you know Topal, this is the way we get at the truth.

Continuing to ask questions - questioning the story - questioning the questioners - even questioning the questions themsleves - until no questions are left.

There are still questions to be answered, so the debate must continue.
topal63
. . .
+533|6688

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Possibly so, but still the debate continues. Therefor it should not be closed. If you don't like the topic, don't read it, don't post to it, go somewhere else.
None of it adds up... and did you read Kmarions post?

He is dredging up the cycle of myth vs myth and debunking that gets debunked (as in the so-called Popular Mechanics debunking of a 9/11 conspiracy).

David Griffin has recently published a book (Debunking 9/11 Debunking), that exposes the errors that went into debunking the 9/11 myths. Effectively he has debunked the debunking.
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mech … 156656686X
Yes.

And this is exactly why the debate must continue. As you know Topal, this is the way we get at the truth.

Continuing to ask questions - questioning the story - questioning the questioners - even questioning the questions themsleves - until no questions are left.

There are still questions to be answered, so the debate must continue.
No doubt and people fail to recognize the simple, right before their very eyes, that there is not one conspiracy theory. There are many. And one of them is the "official" conspiracy theory. And that last one just does not add up.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-01 08:35:44)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

topal63 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Can we just close this topic? It's almost as old as Jesus on a dinosaur, and I'm sure in 31 pages every conceivable argument about 9/11 will have been thought of and repeated, many times over.
Possibly so, but still the debate continues. Therefor it should not be closed. If you don't like the topic, don't read it, don't post to it, go somewhere else.
None of it adds up... and did you read Kmarions post?

He is dredging up the cycle of myth vs myth and debunking that gets debunked (as in the so-called Popular Mechanics debunking of a 9/11 conspiracy).

David Griffin has recently published a book (Debunking 9/11 Debunking), that exposes the errors that went into debunking the 9/11 myths. Effectively he has debunked the debunking.
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mech … 156656686X

Here is Blog that has excerpts from the Book:
http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/04/ … nking.html

The radical change at Popular Mechanics just prior to the Debunking 9/11 article/mission.
"In the months just prior to the publication of the article on which this book is based, a radical change in PM’s personnel was orchestrated by the president of Hearst Magazines, Cathleen P. Black. As reporter Christopher Bollyn pointed out, Black is married to Thomas E. Harvey, who has worked for the CIA, the Department of Defense, and the US Information Agency."

"Bollyn also unearthed another fact relevant to the credibility of PM’s writing about 9/11: that 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, who described himself as the "senior researcher" for the article, is a cousin of the new head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff."
And all of that is just a backdrop for the logical, scientific & journalistic errors committed by Popular Mechanics.
You picked one source in which I used Popular Mechanics as an example of people who must be in on it. (assuming you were reffering to this post.) Yes there has been different explanations for why things happened. This occurs with even the most controlled scientific experiments. I'd imagine in the chaos of planes slamming into buildings and the subsequent collapse of each the explanations would be vast. So being logical I choose to side with the thousands of experts (most with absolutely no motive to cover up) and eye witnesses who were there. I'm a silly bitch.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6736|Cambridge (UK)

Kmarion wrote:

eye witnesses
are notoriously unreliable.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

eye witnesses
are notoriously unreliable.
Just part of the equation.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6736|Cambridge (UK)

Kmarion wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

eye witnesses
are notoriously unreliable.
Just part of the equation.
indeed.
KanBear
Member
+0|6360
1. Check out Anna Politskaya supposed "robbery"/murder and what she wrote in her book
2. Check the reason for Alexander Litveninko's death and the connections he said existed between KGB/al-Qaeda.
3. Why did OBL issue his fatwa AFTER Unocal and Taliban had agreed to build a pipeline?
4. Look up what country stood to lose control of Turkmenistan's oil.
5. Why did OBL declare war on the US, when Russia/Soviet Union has been killing muslims(Chechnya,Afghanistan) for decades?


This is where to start asking questions..............
Villain{NY}
Banned
+44|6314|New York

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Villain{NY} wrote:

Is it easier to believe that Muslim extremists carried out the act, or our own government carried out this elaborate, perfectly timed and coordinated plot without anyone leaking it or finding out about it?  Occam's Razor my friend.
You mean like the elaborate, perfectly timed and coordinated plot that the Muslim extremists carried out without anyone leaking it or finding out about?
No, that's not what i mean.  The terrorists trained for an attack on another country not their own.  Yes it was a huge intelligence failure on our part but a secret operation against a sworn enemy can remain secret.  On the other hand I highly doubt that our government could secretly plant explosives in the twin towers, hijack planes, coordinate this massive conspiracy, etc. etc. without any outside party finding out about it or the people working on the conpiracy protesting it.  The manpower, engineering, and planning of such a huge plot would be impossible to conceal.
topal63
. . .
+533|6688

Kmarion wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Possibly so, but still the debate continues. Therefor it should not be closed. If you don't like the topic, don't read it, don't post to it, go somewhere else.
None of it adds up... and did you read Kmarions post?

He is dredging up the cycle of myth vs myth and debunking that gets debunked (as in the so-called Popular Mechanics debunking of a 9/11 conspiracy).

David Griffin has recently published a book (Debunking 9/11 Debunking), that exposes the errors that went into debunking the 9/11 myths. Effectively he has debunked the debunking.
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mech … 156656686X

Here is Blog that has excerpts from the Book:
http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/04/ … nking.html

The radical change at Popular Mechanics just prior to the Debunking 9/11 article/mission.
"In the months just prior to the publication of the article on which this book is based, a radical change in PM’s personnel was orchestrated by the president of Hearst Magazines, Cathleen P. Black. As reporter Christopher Bollyn pointed out, Black is married to Thomas E. Harvey, who has worked for the CIA, the Department of Defense, and the US Information Agency."

"Bollyn also unearthed another fact relevant to the credibility of PM’s writing about 9/11: that 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, who described himself as the "senior researcher" for the article, is a cousin of the new head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff."
And all of that is just a backdrop for the logical, scientific & journalistic errors committed by Popular Mechanics.
You picked one source in which I used Popular Mechanics as an example of people who must be in on it. (assuming you were referring to this post.) Yes there has been different explanations for why things happened. This occurs with even the most controlled scientific experiments. I'd imagine in the chaos of planes slamming into buildings and the subsequent collapse of each the explanations would be vast. So being logical I choose to side with the thousands of experts (most with absolutely no motive to cover up) and eye witnesses who were there. I'm a silly bitch.
Yep that's the post...

One idea down... well not actually (there really is lot more wrong with the "P.M" source). And, anyway, people will continue to assume it is a trustworthy source.

I am not really done with your post (your other so-called points) - Mr. Logic... There are huge errors introduced by the so-called engineering conclusion that it "could have happened that way." A lot more errors are actually introduced rather than questions answered in the NIST collapse report/structural analysis ( http://wtc.nist.gov/ ). I am fairly certain you don't see why or what is wrong with the official collapse version. And yet being that people on here are not as logical as you...   ... I am not sure my proved illogical mindless dribble would serve any purpose in a debate; that often (and actually) boils down to rhetoric and emotional reaction. I am not chickening out, not by a long shot, but seriously you have made a post that would require a potential "book" to be written as to what is wrong with it.

NIST's Theory of Global Collapse
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20I … 0Final.pdf
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05119.pdf
Remaining strictly within the confines of the officially prescribed theory, NIST crafts an explanation for the "initiation of the collapse of each Tower" that avoids faulting the Towers' construction: The aircraft impacts dislodged insulation from the steel, and the exposed steel succumbed to the fires. Sagging trusses pulled in portions of the perimeter walls, causing a rapid spread of "column instability" in perimeter columns, which in turned strained the fire-weakened core columns. The "tremendous energy" of the floors above the collapse zone led to "global collapse."
Jim Hoffman quotes on the NIST Report:
"On June 23, 2005 the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) published the draft of its
'Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers',
and in September it released its Final Report). This Report and a separate one on the case of WTC 7 represent
the culmination of NIST's three-year investigation of the collapses of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers,
funded with an initial budget of $16 million and subsequent appropriations from taxpayers' money."
"NIST's investigation is often cited as proving the official theory that the plane crashes and fires caused the collapses.
Yet the Report does not explain why or how the buildings totally collapsed, despite the lack of a single historical
precedent for a steel-framed skyscraper totally collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition."
"The Report mentions "progressive collapse" 16 times, mostly in sections describing recommendations.
It defines progressive collapse as when "a building or portion of a building collapses due to disproportionate
spread of an initial local failure" but does not mention how rare the phenomenon is or that there are no examples
of total progressive collapse of steel-framed buildings outside of 9/11/01."
On the rooftop rescue issue:
"Apparently, any structural component estimated to have been damaged to any degree was removed from the model -- as if it contributed nothing to the structure. In other words, if NIST's crash simulation predicted that a column had lost 10% of its load-bearing capacity, it was treated as if it had lost 100% of its capacity."
Hoffman on the NIST Report lack of sourcing:
"The Report does not contain footnotes. It is filled with claims, the basis for which the reader can only guess.
It leaves the public with no way to compare its conclusions with the evidence on which it was purportedly based."
Conclusion:
"Assuming the premise of the official explanation, the total collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7
were the largest, most unexpected, and least understood failures of engineered steel structures in the history
of the world. NIST's Report, like FEMA's 2002 report, presents the appearance of explaining the collapses
of the Twin Towers, but in reality it doesn't explain them at all. Flatly asserting that "global collapse"
inevitably follows "collapse initiation," the Report implies that the only issue worthy of study is how the
jet impacts and fires led to collapse initiation -- an issue to which it devotes well over one hundred pages.
Thus, the Report makes two fundamental claims, the first explicit and the second implicit:
* The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation).
* Once initiated, the collapses proceeded to total collapses.
Morons and Magic: A Reply to BBC’s George Monbiot
by David Ray Griffin
Thursday, March 8, 2007
In “Bayoneting a Scarecrow - The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a coward’s cult.” (Guardian, February 20), George Monbiot accuses members of the 9/11 truth movement of being “morons” and “idiots” who believe in “magic.” Having in his previous attack---“A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world,” Guardian, February 6---called me this movement’s “high priest,” he now describes my 9/11 writing as a “concatenation of ill-attested nonsense.”

03/07/07 "ICH" -- - If my books are moronic nonsense, then people who have endorsed them must be morons. Would Monbiot really wish to apply this label to Michel Chossudovsky, Richard Falk, Ray McGovern, Michael Meacher, John McMurtry, Marcus Raskin, Rosemary Ruether, Howard Zinn, and the late Rev. William Sloane Coffin, who, after a stint in the CIA, became one of America’s leading civil rights, anti-war, and anti-nuclear activists?

If anyone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job is by definition an idiot, then Moncbiot would have to sling that label at Colonel Robert Bowman, former head of the U.S. “Star Wars” program; Andreas von Bülow, former State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defense; former CIA analysts Bill Christison and Robert David Steele; former Scientific American columnist A. K. Dewdney; General Leonid Ivashov, former chief of staff of the Russian armed forces; Colonel Ronald D. Ray, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; all the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth; and most of the individuals listed under “Professors Question 9/11” on the “Patriots Question 9/11” website.

One of the reasons these people reject the government’s conspiracy theory is that, if they were to accept the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Centre, they would need to affirm magical beliefs. A few examples:

The Twin Towers came straight down, which means that each building’s 287 steel columns all had to fail simultaneously; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic.

Virtually all of the concrete in the towers was pulverized into extremely fine dust particles; to believe that fire plus gravity could have done this is to believe in magic.

WTC 7 and the towers came down at virtually free-fall speed, meaning that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, provided no resistance to the upper floors; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

Pools of molten metal were found under each building. Because steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,540°C and yet the fires could not have gotten over 1000°C, to accept the fire theory is to believe in magic.

Monbiot, regarding the 9/11 truth movement’s conspiracy theory as a wrong-headed distraction, fails to see that the obviously false and truly distracting conspiracy theory is the official 9/11 myth, which has been used to justify imperial wars and increased militarism, thereby distracting attention from global apartheid and the ecological crisis. We focus on the 9/11 myth because, until it is exposed, getting our governments to focus wholeheartedly on the truly urgent issues of our time will be impossible.
(A boring) Video from Session 2: Analysis of the World Trade Center Destruction (2006):
http://www.archive.org/details/liftingt … 1_session2

Video concerning Conspiracy theories - as a phenomenon:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … &hl=en

From:
http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html
NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) was given a budget of tens of millions of dollars to study the collapses of the World Trade Center skyscrapers. Yet it avoided that charge in any meaningful sense. Its final report admits that it didn't even attempt to model the collapses.
The first critique to thoroughly expose NIST's evasion of its task of investigating the collapses was provided by Sami Yli-Karjanmaa on July 14, 2005. The following excerpt includes more that half of the brief critique.
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
By David Ray Griffin
Authorized Version (with references & notes)
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Why indeed did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
By Stephen E. Jones, PHD
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf

Website regarding the ( http://wtc.nist.gov/ ) NIST collapse report.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Web Journal of scientific peer-review 9/11 material/research:
http://journalof911studies.com/
Mission statement: To provide evidence-based, peer-reviewed research that furthers the cause of truth and justice. More about our efforts toward this goal can be found at the website for Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice ( http://stj911.com/ ).
Another excellent Website (IMO):
http://cooperativeresearch.org/

Text of an e-mail letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle, Nov. 11 (2004):
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto … 2144051451

From the official version (as parroted on WiKi):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_o … ade_Center
Like all modern skyscrapers, WTC towers were designed to survive major fires. Fireproofing was also added after a fire in 1975 that spread to six floors before being extinguished[2]. Early tests conducted on steel beams from the WTC show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements.
Including this that it was also designed to withstand a direct impact from a Jet-airliner.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, however, was unable to document the study reported by Robertson and FEMA. Instead it found a reference to a study of the effects of a Boeing 707 hitting the buildings at 600 mph, which would be faster than either of the two planes that hit on 9/11. In line with Skilling's remarks, this study apparently found that the buildings would not collapse in that event. But NIST was unable to find any further details about the study and ultimately suggested that any attempt to compare the performance of the buildings to design expectations would be "speculation."
So instead of investigating all avenues, they merely prepared a report to support the official version.

The impacts also dislodged some of the fireproofing from the steel, increasing its exposure to the heat of the fires. In the 102 minutes before the collapse of 1 WTC, the fires reached temperatures that, although well below the melting point, were high enough to weaken the core columns so that they underwent plastic deformation and creep from the weight of higher floors. The NIST report provides a useful model of the situation.
& the FEMA pancake theory.
This led Thomas Eagar, FEMA and others to focus on what appeared to be the weakest point of the structures, namely, the points at which the floors were attached to the building frame. Once these connections failed, the pancake collapse could initiate.[28][29] The NIST report, however, would ultimately vindicate the floor connections; indeed, the collapse mechanism depends on the strength of these connections as the floors pulled the outer walls in.
And this is one of the reasons why the report is faulty at best. 100% failure was assumed in every circumstance. Not partial failure, which would occur in many areas. Also, certain areas, below or above any supposed “hot-zone” has the probability of both: exceeding the load capacity or being under required load-bearing capacity. Joints (rivets) are not going to fail in the exact same way and many areas will not undergo “plastic deformation” at all; or in a uniform manner.

Once the collapse was initiated, the enormous weight of the portion of the towers above the impact areas overwhelmed the load bearing capacity of the structures beneath them. This was argued in a paper in the days immediately after the attacks by Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou.[16] Their analysis of global collapse allowed NIST to concentrate their efforts on the events that brought the structure to the point of global collapse, and NIST did not study the progress of the global collapse at all.[17] NIST did propose an explanation for the ejections of dust from the windows, however. As the floors above the impact point were relatively undamaged (save for fire), the upper portion fell and smashed through the lower floors as a unit. The air that was compressed ahead of the falling section was responsible for the ejections of dust and debris through the windows.
This is a satisfactory explanation of dust, but not of complete pulverization. Also this cannot explain the (forces necessary for the) forced ejection of metal columns.

The challenge for engineers was to explain how local damage could result in the complete progressive collapse of three of the biggest buildings in the world.[17] Interviewed by the BBC in October 2001, the British architect Bob Halvorson correctly predicted that there would be "a debate about whether or not the World Trade Center Towers should have collapsed in the way that they did." The autopsy would involve careful analysis of the plans of the WTC, its construction, eye witness testimony, video of the collapses, and examination of the wreckage. Emphasizing the difficulty of the task, Halvorson said that the collapses were "well beyond realistic experience."
A challenge not even remotely or satisfactorily met.

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/281 … tical.html
By the definition of science the NIST report is not scientific. Analysis proves it uses the political method—not the scientific method. NIST deliberately ignores evidence that contradicts its stated thesis.
Apparently, a 16 million dollar study does not buy much these days—NIST does not attempt to explain a fundamental question (i.e. ignoring evidence) about the full behavior of the structural collapse:
[The report] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.”[19]
It seems like a good idea that the NIST report did not try to explain this (at least, from their point of view)—as doing so would have to account for a fundamental law of physics known as conservation of momentum, which would completely disprove their hypothesis that fire and jet damage were the main reasons the buildings completely collapsed.
Indeed, the NIST collapse hypothesis that fire and damage caused the towers to completely collapse is easily disproved. According to seismic data[20], the buildings fell in approximately 10 seconds, which is about the rate of free fall speed.[21] In order to fall at free fall speed there would have to be no resistance from material below the collapsing area. Fire and damage alone are inadequate to explain this fact. This is related in a paper entitled “Why Indeed did the WTC towers completely collapse” by physicist Steven E. Jones:
“The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi … peed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 … falls to earth in (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds, while an object dropped from the roof (in a vacuum) would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi … peed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.”[22]
When an object hits another object, it must slow down. Everyone intuitively understands that you can not walk through walls as if they were not there for the reason that a physical resistance will impede you. The towers and WTC7 fell at free fall speed. This fact alone proves the official report is inadequate to explain what truly happened. When evidence is ignored, it is not science. It is “creating our own reality”—the political method.
It can not be emphasized enough: science by definition considers all of the evidence, it does not ignore evidence. Another stunning example of ignoring evidence is seen in the molten metal[23] found in the towers which is not discussed in the NIST report.[24] NIST claims:
“In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."[25]
If this is the case, then why is there molten steel in the basements of the twin towers and WTC7 for three weeks after the disaster?[26] Where do the molten pools of steel come from and what process created this reaction? Why does NIST ignore this question? Ignoring this question is not scientific. Analyzing the steel is a central issue and is fundamental to understanding why the towers collapsed. Indeed, it is very likely related to what actually caused the collapse. If fires did not cause this—NIST has stated on the record that fire did not cause steel to melt;[27] something else must have. It is a fact that normal fires are incapable of melting steel.[28]
If fire can not melt steel, what can? Jones argues that:
“these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. [See Grimmer, 2004] Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron.”[29]
Placing explosives in buildings—is this far-fetched? The answer is no; if it is scientifically provable[30], then it is not impossible. On an issue this serious, science must determine our conclusions—not gut feelings or emotions. We must accept this as fact if the evidence supports this claim. Interestingly, in 1995 the government was implicated for placing bombs in the Oklahoma City Building—this example suggests that planting bombs has been done in the past.[31]
Here is yet another example of NIST “science” in action: computer models are used to “prove” that fire caused collapse:
“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.”[32]
Is proof scientific if no one can see it? To believe that we can trust NIST on this “evidence” is absurd. Science is not a state secret!
9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan, formerly a manager at UL who was peripherally involved in some of the NIST tests, has a laundry list of points that continue to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the NIST study is not scientific and therefore should not be considered credible:
* Steel framed buildings have never completely collapsed due to fire in history.[33]The scientific method looks for real-life examples to provide a hypothesis.
* Ryan argues that they started with this pre-determined conclusion [despite the fact that this hypothesis has never been documented before in history as mentioned above].[34]
* Destroying evidence is a crime and is not scientific. It is a way to ignore evidence. NIST investigator Richard Tomasetti approved the decision to recycle the steel.[35]
* The buildings were designed to survive plane crashes thus contradicting the pre-determined hypothesis: "[Building designer John Skilling states that] our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there."[36]
As well, NIST’s scientific data contradicted their own theory: This is not science:
* Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"
* Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)[37]
* Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging.
* No floor collapse
* "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."[38]
All of this NIST data directly contradicts the stated collapse hypothesis. The scientific method demands rejecting a thesis if the evidence contradicts it.
Ryan summarizes the NIST investigation methods:
* Documents needed just happened to be missing
* Eyewitnesses to demolition characteristics were ignored[39]
* Physical tests that disproved pre-determined conclusions were downplayed or ignored
* Entire theory is built on fudged, inaccessible computer simulations. [40]
In summary: NIST data contradicts theory, contradictory evidence is ignored, eyewitness testimony is ignored, and the entire theory is based on a computer simulation that no one can see. Ignoring evidence is the very basis of the political method, not the scientific method. Can any sane person call the NIST report science?
Unbelievably, there are even more examples that prove the NIST study is not scientific.[41] I believe the above evidence has sufficiently proven this argument. Because the NIST report is not scientific it lacks any credibility. I agree with Kevin Ryan that the NIST report is not science. [42] Indeed, the NIST study is an extremely blatant and scandalous example of the political method at its worst.
I for one am not satisfied in any way. Believe the NIST theory/report if you want - regardless of: how speculative it really is, no matter how error ridden it really is, no matter how it is just a "it could have happened this way" if you turn your critical thinking ability to:off, no  matter how many other scientist say it just doesn't stand the credibility test of what is the "scientific-method," and regardless of the fact that it avoided the obvious by not also modeling the collapse as a "controlled collapse."

P.S. And of course this crazy thread deserves to be in the Hall of Fame! Or should that be renamed to the Hall of Infamy?

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-04 05:53:10)

Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|6600|Washington, DC

Holy shit, can you condense that post into pill form please?
fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|6460|Menlo Park, CA
wow thats a lot of text for people on these forums. . . .lol

If it says that 9/11 wasnt an inside job, then I agree with you!
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6602|949

fadedsteve wrote:

wow thats a lot of text for people on these forums. . . .lol

If it says that 9/11 wasnt an inside job, then I agree with you!
I don't know of a better way to sum up collective American thought.

"It's too much information to process.  Can you turn it into a 30 minute TV show with a laugh track?"

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-05-01 14:17:40)

Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|6600|Washington, DC

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

wow thats a lot of text for people on these forums. . . .lol

If it says that 9/11 wasnt an inside job, then I agree with you!
I don't know of a better way to sum up collective American thought.

"It's too much information to process.  Can you turn it into a 30 minute TV show with a laugh track?"
We want to debate, not read a novel.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6602|949

Hurricane wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

wow thats a lot of text for people on these forums. . . .lol

If it says that 9/11 wasnt an inside job, then I agree with you!
I don't know of a better way to sum up collective American thought.

"It's too much information to process.  Can you turn it into a 30 minute TV show with a laugh track?"
We want to debate, not read a novel.
I understand.  Is it conducive to a debate to say, "you are presenting too much information, but as long as it goes with what I agree with, then I agree with you"?

We are debating a topic with an extreme amount of technical information.  But to sum it up (which topal did)

The NIST report was inconclusive, not realistic, and tailored to fit the 'official version' of events.  Therefore it cannot be used as indisputable proof (even though it is used in this way and people tout it as 'scientific evidence' because it has the NIST stamp on the letterhead).

As a result, we need to reopen the debate and provide analytical, scientific evidence as to why/how the towers fell.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-05-01 14:25:45)

Roger Lesboules
Ah ben tabarnak!
+316|6547|Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Québec!
Got a vid on my comp about that...I DO believe that this attack was from people in the inside..Maybe the government...maybe not. But sure things is that there is many fact that show that there is something wrong behind all that...dunno if understand well what im trying to explain but...oh well.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

topal63 wrote:

Control C/Control V

and.. I for one am not satisfied in any way. Believe the NIST theory/report if you want - regardless of: how speculative it really is, no matter how error ridden it really is, no matter how it is just a "it could have happened this way" if you turn your critical thinking ability to:off, no  matter how many other scientist say it just doesn't stand the credibility test of what is the "scientific-method," and regardless of the fact that it avoided the obvious by not also modeling the collapse as a "controlled collapse."
I have never turned off my "critical thinking". Maybe it was my bad wording that led you to think this. Although when you say things like "Effectively he has debunked the debunking" it certainly sounds as if you have. When I say I have chosen to lean towards theories that conclude this was not a government planned event it simply means that I see them as having a stronger case (although not impervious). At no point have I taken the stance that there are no errors in their versions (I actually eluded to the opposite many times). You still felt compelled to publish your novel on what is wrong with their explanations (NIST and PM specifically). My opinion is a combination of not only how or why the towers fell but rather the sheer absurdity that something of this magnitude could be successful, especially given the fact it was supposedly accomplished as a result of precision government planning Pass the Pepto I think I just shit myself with laughter!. It is unlikely that Professor Jones and his nonexistent building collapse forensics experience will be able to deter me from the likes of qualified individuals, those who are experienced in structural engineering. Perhaps I am not being open minded because I do not put enough weight behind David Ray Griffin, a retired professor of philosophy. Someone who clearly has something to sell. My foolishness and personal lack of education has led me to take a stance behind Leslie Robertson, someone who has nothing to gain but criticism by admission of his creations failure.

Yes topal63 welcome to my crazy illogical world. Enjoy the ride.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6623

Kmarion wrote:

My opinion is a combination of not only how or why the towers fell but rather the sheer absurdity that something of this magnitude could be successful, especially given the fact it was supposedly accomplished as a result of precision government planning Pass the Pepto I think I just shit myself with laughter!.
No, it was supposedly the result of highly effective CIA training in black ops... and that's just the official story

The official conspiracy theory and jus ad bellum for war doesn't say the it was the result of precision government planning by the Taleban; it was the fact that they didn't do enough to stop these rogue elements from planning and carrying out the attack...

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard