Printable View
Yes, and that's what the majority of those with something to hide, want you to believe, it's all "misinformation" or "propaganda" (queue "Twilight Zone music"), do not adjust the TV, that's it, it's all the fault of the "remote control" manufacturer's...Quote:
Conspiracy makes good tabloid entertainment, but most
people don't believe it.
Elvis has left the building...... :cool:
You feelin OK? Can I get you something?Quote:
We were near a hidden park that has a direct view of the Ambassador (sp?) bridge. It's a strip where undercover and retired cops amd wayne county Sheriffs hide or pretend to monitor the bridge. They don't dare mess around with the people drinking and smoking purple. Everyone watches each other...after a while you get comfortable and get to mingle with the narqs and high profile dope dealers.
Everyone sleeps around....it's creepy but true.
:cool:
Linen0ise
you must be doing some pretty good drugs... to making posts like you do..... :rolleyes:
Back to being cold......I am in Canada ya know....Its cold.. frozen all the time....I have seen cars coming across the border in summer looking for "snow and eskimos"...truly I have seen visitors from your "warm\southern states" wondering where the igloos and ski hills are in June :rolleyes:
You must be very north then mr shark.....bet ya its coldQuote:
and I'm _north_ of Canada right now...
cause it aint quite spring up here on the tundra..in Ontario...which by the way for our international guests....iI am way far from the "frozen north" but may not be quite as balmy as Michigan
Certain parts of the USA and Canada for that matter.......are parallel........
sh!t we all may be cousins after all :D
MLF
Actually Mistress.... Were I to travel due south right now I would reach Canada... So, technically, I'm north of Canada... Ok, It's a technicality... but it's my story and I'm sticking to it... ;)
Everyone knows that these conspiracy theorys are only there to hide the real conspiracys the different goverments are involved in. :D they just throw them out there to keep all the different busy bodies occupied so they do go looking for the real truth. :cool: :D
Well... It's official... This thread should be moved to Tech Humor now I have seen the comedy Linen posts as a documentary.... It took me a couple of days because I spent an awful lot of time having to pick myself up off the floor.
There were a few points they make a big deal of that they don't even bother to explore reasonable explanations for or they make wild frigging assumptions or simply lie to the audience.
1. The turbines from the Pentagon aircraft were never found but one that was not of the type the engines use were.
Oh dear... Let me see... Your average gas turbine engine has it's compressor blades spinning at 10,000 rpm or greater. When something goes catastrophically wrong they "explode". Now, what do you think happens to a gas turbine engine at full throttle when you fly it face first at over 500mph into steel reinforced concrete? Duh... The whole frigging thing shatters into little pieces... That was tough to work out. Airliners have what is called an APU, (Auxilliary Power Unit), for occasions where inappropriate power sources are all that are available on foreign airports etc. This is housed in the tail and is a small jet engine. This engine is only used on the ground to provide power while the main engines are brought online then they are shut down. It is housed in what is the safest place to house anything in a head on crash. No wonder it survived, it was off and protected. Funny how we found the turbine assembly... funnier still how they "proved" it wasn't the right type by comparing it to a _hand drawn_ diagram and saying "Hah.. See!!!" At least have the balls to show the engineering diagrams for the manufacture of the part(s) themselves....
2. The janitor in the basement stated that a co-worker was burned and had the skin hanging off him in the lower basement by the elevators after the aircraft crashed into it. Their theory was that the aircraft could not have done it from so high up. This, coupled with an unassociated statement they made 30 minutes later that the elevator shaft is hermetically sealed - yet the two things _do_ need to be associated.
Well... His "experts" don't know sh1t about explosives, blast effects or building construction do they? Example: Cold, (35f), _still_, (no wind), day in November. 1 gallon of gas, (petrol), in a regular metal gas container. Stick 1/4 of a pound of PE4, (C4 - plastic explosive), on the outside and one electric detonator. Stand two hundred yards away, (yes, 200 yards, 600 feet), and fire the detonator. You know that warm, kind of crackly feeling on your face you get when you stand too close to the bonfire? You'll get it for about 2-3 seconds under the givien conditions. I know I used to demonstrate it. It's called a blast incendiary. Now, take 10,000 pounds of aviation fuel and detonate it... How far away will we get that nice crackly feeling do you think?
The hermetically sealed elevator shafts, according to him, would not have enough oxygen in to allow the fuel to burn all the way down.... Well... That may be pure conjecture. But when you consider that the elevator shafts are the strongest, most reinforced part of any skyscraper, (they are the core of it's construction - that's why the elevators are in the middle of tall structures), whether the fuel would burn on the way down is irrelevant. The elevator shaft would not have withstood the impact of 100 tons of aircraft slamming into it on the 78th floor but it would most certainly have provided the perfect conduit for the blast and it's associated radiant heat, (remember the crackly effect), to move that blast and heat down to the lowest level of the elevator shaft... which is less than 1300 feet, (the height of the buidings)... I wouldn't want to be standing by any elevator door with 10,000 pounds of avgas exploding anywhere up that shaft. But according to the movie the injuries _had_ to be caused by explosives placed in the basement to help bring down the towers.... If you want to bring down the towers you require sufficient explosive to weaken the elevator shaft of a 1300 foot tall building... But this guy was only burned and flayed while his janitor friend was unharmed by these explosives in the basement. If that's the case, someone really f$ked up their calculations for the amount of explosive required to weaken that elevator shaft... Both men would have been deaf if the charges had been properly drilled into and sealed in the shaft walls, as they should be - yet they talked to each other. Had the charges not been drilled and sealed then both would have been mincemeat... cooked mincemeat... Mmmmm... Burgers...
3. All those "secondary explosions" as the towers imploded were explosions according to our "expert".
Ok kids... This one is plain nuts... The film showed some 20 "explosions" as the buildings fell... But only 2 or three were anything more than a floor or two beneath the rubble line as the buildings fell... Folks... Get yourself a cardboard juice carton, close the top and stand on it. It's not easy to crush fully is it? Because as you crush it the air pressure inside gets greater and resists your weight. Same thing occurred in the WTC buildings. As the rubble fell it sealed the top and increased the pressure below it. If you are really heavy, what happens to the juice carton? Yep, it pops... a "pop" is an explosion, (gas under pressure overexpanding it's container)... Well, the WTC wasn't as uniformly constructed as your juice container... It had windows and other weak points... which were "popping" as the debris and rubble fell and increased the pressure... All rather simple really... But not if your intent is to sensationalize a certain point of view.
4. The last silly example of the unadulterated crap that movie is is the way they showed firemen stating that it looked like a controlled implosion.... Folks, can any of you guess what brought the towers down? We call it "gravity". Gravity has a particular quality about it that never changes on this planet. It works vertically... Not sideways or upwards but absolutely downwards. So there were no shearing forces to push the debris out sideways and make the towers tumble they _could_ go only one way... Downwards.... So why do you think it looked so much like a controlled explosion... Pretty simple. Controlled explosions are done with the _minimum_ amount of explosives to damage the structure sufficiently to allow _gravity_ to bring the building down within it's own footprint. Any more explosives than that and you damage surrounding structures... Once the floors of the WTC that were hit had weakened enough the weight of the remaining tower above became too much for the structure and it began to fall... as it fell it gained more weight from the floors it was destroying - all by the force of gravity... Of course it looked like a controlled explosion - but you can do the same thing to a structure without the use of explosives... You'd just die doing it because you'd have to be there weakening the structure yourself.
That film is the most unadulterated POS I have ever seen. In terms of propaganda it rates right up there with the best. All carefully scripted to make a believer out of unthinking fools...
Yes I saw that sort of stuff a while ago.
I cannot believe that people can seriously propose that Americans are going around blowing eachother up and firing missiles at eachother except as terrorist activity.
The whole thing is too complex and would involve too many people for it to be kept quiet.
Also, as patriotic dedicated and courageous as the US Services are, they don't rate very highly on my list of suicide pilot providers.
As for the scientific "evidence" most of it is pure speculation and conjecture. This sort of thing had never happened before, so who was to know what to expect? I mean, they are hardly the sort of things you see in the building specs, apart from the Pentagon?
All I can say to those who persist in these "theories" is "well who voted them into office then?"
I read it as Incompetence, lack of communication and an element of attempted a$$ covering after the event.
:)
Perfect for the majority of the americain sheep so then :D. Isn't that what bu** sh** used to justify going to a never ending war? If it is on the silver screen it has to be true.Quote:
In terms of propaganda it rates right up there with the best. All carefully scripted to make a believer out of unthinking fools...
I havent looked at the link yet so I cant really comment. Going out to get drunk and have so proper french pancakes or crepes as they are called her.
Oh yeah...those illusive non existent WMDs....Quote:
Isn't that what bu** sh** used to justify going to a never ending war?
MLF
Point
CounterpointQuote:
Individual viewpoints on the collapse
As the above theories were generated, individuals questioning the collapse were highlighted. The following individuals have expressed concern or doubts on the common account regarding the fate of the Twin Towers:
* In a research report, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven E. Jones writes, "The 'explosive demolition' hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated." [59]
* In a letter [60] to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), wrote "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the [61] briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250 °C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure." UL is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. Kevin Ryan was subsequently [62] fired from his job.
* Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, a major authority on explosions' effects on buildings, has said, "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." Romero has since [63] retracted his belief, later stating, "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." ("Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says", Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001).
* On June 13, 2005, the Washington Times reported that former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, Morgan Reynolds, said the common account of the WTC collapse is "bogus" and suggests a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Some have doubted this individual's credibility because he also questioned the involvement of commercial jets stating that "North Tower's hole wasn't big enough for a Boeing 767." [64]
* Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, expressed his doubt about the common account in the following statement: "I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility."
* In The New Pearl Harbor, former theology and philosophy Professor David Ray Griffin argues on the fact that since WTC 2 collapsed first, when it appeared most of the jet fuel was ignited on impact outside the tower, makes the collapse questionable. Additionally, he argues the impact of the second aircraft was not as precise as the first, suggesting less fuel would have burned in the central support area.
* Recently, Charlie Sheen has come out publicly stating that he agrees with many of the 9-11 theories, including the controlled demolition. Sheen told talk radio host, Alex Jones, the collapse resembled an implosion. He recalled asking his brother on the day of the attacks, “Did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?” [65]
* Before his death in February, 1986, Minoru Yamasaki, architect and designer of the WTC, stated, "We designed the towers to take multiple 707 jet strikes."
o This statement is seen on many conspiracy websites with the idea simply being: if the building was designed to withstand an aircraft impact, it should have.
o Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer for the World Trade Center, commented on this point in Reflections on the World Trade Center. [66] Robertson notes, “It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. Little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”
o Robertson illustrates how the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated.
Quote:
Structural and Civil Engineers Respond
As the above individuals have supplied fuel for the demolition theory, the mainstream of the academic world has yet to be convinced. Massachusetts Institute of Technology has devoted a number of staff members to the analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. Numerous aspects of the collapse have been documented and reviewed within the scientific community. [67] The country's leading structural and civil engineers have examined the attack from the point of impact up through the collapse, concluding that explosives were not necessary to provide what the world observed. [68]
The following are a few examples of the structural engineering response to the collapse:
* According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)." Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9 cm at 930 °F (500 °C), causing the floors above to buckle.
* Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building "would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base." In other words, the structure had no choice but to fall straight down. [69]
* Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C), high enough to cause structural failure. [70]
Critics of the demolition theory also point out the in-depth planning, preparation, and production involved in a controlled demolition. This labor-intensive task leaves clear signs of the work, such as stripping away building materials to expose the structural supports, and running cables from the explosives to the detonation timers. [71]
Source
I would tend to believe the "engineers" and MIT, before some Chief Economist or Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.... :rolleyes: