1) the pilot skills to find one of the largest cities in the world at altitiude? With the sun low so you can easily find east and an advanced cockpit? You're already assuming they didn't have the airline pilots point the plane that direction to begin with.
2)At what speed would any structure fall other than freefall? You know of a lot of buildings that have force generators installed on them?
1) the pilot skills to find one of the largest cities in the world at altitiude? With the sun low so you can easily find east and an advanced cockpit? You're already assuming they didn't have the airline pilots point the plane that direction to begin with.
2)At what speed would any structure fall other than freefall? You know of a lot of buildings that have force generators installed on them?
OK then, read it all again, i always give one chance, call it a charitable nature.
1) the pilot skills to find one of the largest cities in the world at altitiude? With the sun low so you can easily find east and an advanced cockpit? You're already assuming they didn't have the airline pilots point the plane that direction to begin with.
2)At what speed would any structure fall other than freefall? You know of a lot of buildings that have force generators installed on them?
Ever seen the East Coast from 30000 ft? It's ONE huge city.
I'm pretty sure you can tell the autopilot program where to go and it will take you there with very little human contact with the stick. Even if they could not do that, there are other ways to find your way. I mean people found their way to America in ships by using the stars and such 200 years ago.
The buildings that collapsed were enourmous. The force from these buildings falling would obviously have ripped down the inner skeleton with them. WTC 7 had damage done at the base of the building and a fire raged out of control for hours that they were unable to fight because the water lines had been damaged.
The planes that hit the WTC towers were bigger then the one that hit the empire state building and were moving much faster and had more fuel. I don't know why people act like jet fuel isn't hot. It burns between 600F and 900F. That is pretty fucking hot and you don't have to melt the steel just heat it up to weaken it. Also take into cosideration the steel beams that were destroyed when the planes hit. Those destroyed and weakened beams had to support the floors above them and couldn't. Simple structural engineering. Also the jet fuel set other things in the building on fire. It is obvious there was a raging fire for hours (which means it was very very hot). I have burned debris in my yard and after the fire was out walked across it and melted the soles of my shoes some. I am willing to bet this fire was hotter and of course it would melt your shoe soles. Rubber melts around 200-300F. I think it is safe to assume that the smoldering fire from the debris was still that hot one day later.
The DC flight zone was not enforced then like it is today.
All I am saying look at which side has more facts and which one has more assumptions. The conspiracy theory side has almost all assumptions and very little fact that have to be made for the theories to be true.
building 7 was pretty small, comparitatively to the others, it was only 52 floors, and didn't the firefighters say they had the fires pretty much controlled and out? i wonder why they would seal the recordings and transcripts of what the firefighters said thru their radios that day?
uh, isn't your side a little stacked w/ assumptions as well?
do a quick google search, you can find papers where bin laden said he had nothing to do w/ it, even hinting towards pakistan (odd coincidence money wired to atta shortly before 9/11 originated from the isi, pakistan's cia)
what do you have as your holy proof? a video found miracuously hidden in a house of a grainy video w/ a fat bin laden w/ a bigger nose who writes w/ the wrong hand?
you will buy anything they give you, it's like the thought of even questioning their word, the word of proven liars, makes you guys so mad...why is that?
so the fire in building 7, a 52 floor building the furthest away from buildings 1 and 2, fell b/c of fire and damage? not only that but it completely disintegrated the middle support beams....? if it was damaged at the base...the base facing the other towers...why it did it buckle in the middle then fall straight down on itself?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
People don't want to believe it, but a demolition was undeniably executed on building 7.
Did they demolish it as part of 9/11 intentionally? or did they just figure what the hell it's as good a time as any as it had caught fire and suffered damage.
Building 7 could have raged like a blowtorch from every window, top to bottom, for several hours before slowly burning itself out.
I mean really, gmab....the building shot straight down all shiny and new ...and what?....from a little contained fire?
Absolutely preposterous!!!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I'm pretty sure you can tell the autopilot program where to go and it will take you there with very little human contact with the stick. Even if they could not do that, there are other ways to find your way. I mean people found their way to America in ships by using the stars and such 200 years ago.
no, autopilot won't shortrange. Plus autopilot wouldn't work below 2500 ft ceiling. Auto can't land a plane or crash it into the buildings.
Dad says it's unlikely these inexperienced pilots could maneuver these planes with the little amount of training they were supposed to have. Not impossible, just unlikely.
For 2 pilots to do this with the same amount of flight time would just be highly unlikely.
Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WW2 were more likely to miss the ships and carriers than hit them. Just watch the History channel and this is explained often during the south pacific wars.
Seasoned pilots with much smaller maneuverable planes couldn't hit the ships more often than not. Only difference is...they WERE being shot at.
Yeah it's kinda hard to believe the government on this when they have established a reputation of lying to us about everything. This regime doesn't exactly have a sparkling track record of being "up front" with the people.
I must say though...just an observation..seems as though alot of people from the south really buy everything this administration has to sell.
no, autopilot won't shortrange. Plus autopilot wouldn't work below 2500 ft ceiling. Auto can't land a plane or crash it into the buildings.
Dad says it's unlikely these inexperienced pilots could maneuver these planes with the little amount of training they were supposed to have. Not impossible, just unlikely.
For 2 pilots to do this with the same amount of flight time would just be highly unlikely.
Even the Japanese HariKari pilots of WW2 were more likely to miss the ships and carriers than hit them. Just watch the History channel and this is explained often during the south pacific wars.
Seasoned pilots with much smaller maneuverable planes couldn't hit the ships more often than not. Only difference is...they WERE being shot at.
Yeah it's kinda hard to believe the government on this when they have established a reputation of lying to us about everything. This regime doesn't exactly have a sparkling track record of being "up front" with the people.
I must say though...just an observation..seems as though alot of people from the south really buy everything this administration has to sell.
I was thinking about that myself. I tend to agree with you on this. Very little, if any, of 9/11 adds up actually.
And yeah the south has had it's head filled with glue from what they get on their TV's.
Right before our eyes... they pull this kind of crazy shit and hope it gets swallowed by the public.
Unreal!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I swear there's a wave building in an age of all this information access that is leading to something, hopefully, less bullshit.
I feel this too, whatever the truth about 9/11, i think it may well have exactly the opposite effect to what may have been intended. ie people who usually wouldnt give a shit cos they're living they're lives saying "hang on! what the fuck are you doing?" u know. We let them all get away with a lot in the past, but that was in a time of B'stards so being a b'stard was ok. Not good enough anymore
Interesting how Leslie Robertson mentions the fact that a 707 carries over 23,000 gallons of fuel, and a 767 carries 23,980 gallons. Also interesting to note the WTC planes had less than full tanks of fuel when they hit the towers. hmm...
"A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets.
"I designed it for a 707 to hit it," Leslie Robertson, the project's structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767's 23,980-gallon fuel capacity."
Another architect of the WTC, Aaron Swirski, lives in Israel and spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio after the attack: "It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of attack," he said
"Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, watched in confusion as the towers came down. "It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it," he said
.
I ask you. Just because you are a designer/architect, an expert in your field if you will, could your assumptions, plans, and calculations still be wrong? I'm pretty sure the inventor of the bullet-proof vest planned to stop most if not all bullets. But did not account for hollow tip ammo. Just like the designers planned on the buildings withstanding the blow. People make mistakes. People can do all the planning and designing that they wish, but sometimes it's not enough.
Also, I ask you again, since you didn't reply before. Where are these experts you speak of. If I designed and/or built the trade center to withstand the force of planes at full throttle, and I believe in my work, then why would they not make a case about it? Why would they only mention it in passing in hard to find interviews? I would be making a claim everyday of the rest of my life!
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
I ask you. Just because you are a designer/architect, an expert in your field if you will, could your assumptions, plans, and calculations still be wrong? I'm pretty sure the inventor of the bullet-proof vest planned to stop most if not all bullets. But did not account for hollow tip ammo. Just like the designers planned on the buildings withstanding the blow. People make mistakes. People can do all the planning and designing that they wish, but sometimes it's not enough.
Hollow-tip ammo is a bad choice of comparison for the bullet-proof vest.
I understand your point, though. Maybe these buildings weren't what they were meant to be.
this building was 1/4 of a mile high, it fell down and did little damage to any surrounding buildings, apart from wtc7 which collapsed,
90 West St., a historical building which overlooks the site was severely damaged and had to be gut renovated. It has since been converted to apartment rentals. The marriot hotel, further down West St, was damaged and needed extensive repairs. The Deutsche Bank Building on Greenwich St, next to the site was torn into down the middle and is still waiting it's destruction. I walk by these buildings on a daily basis. I live a couple of blocks away. Please do not continue on with your misunderstanding of the area. Buildings were destroyed in the vicinity. Unless by your definition the only way that a building is "severely damaged" is if it collapses.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
one of the main points of this thread was that the video showed to picture with the firemen and the beams of steel with precision cuts. no one has tried to debate this. to me, nothing could seem more obvious. what else could have caused such a clear cut? why does it look like there is previously melted steel dripping down the cuts?
for those that would argue this was during clean up,... are firemen the ones who were cutting the beams? why didn't they cut the beams to the ground?
to me, this is the best evidence i've seen of a 'demolition'.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
90 West St., a historical building which overlooks the site was severely damaged and had to be gut renovated. It has since been converted to apartment rentals. The marriot hotel, further down West St, was damaged and needed extensive repairs. The Deutsche Bank Building on Greenwich St, next to the site was torn into down the middle and is still waiting it's destruction. I walk by these buildings on a daily basis. I live a couple of blocks away. Please do not continue on with your misunderstanding of the area. Buildings were destroyed in the vicinity. Unless by your definition the only way that a building is "severely damaged" is if it collapses.
I'll post my whole reply that you edited to see if it makes any difference:
Ok i ignored it the first time but you passed up the opportunity to not look foolish. You take a look at "Grayound Zearo" and without thinking so literally tell me how big the ruined area is, this building was 1/4 of a mile high, it fell down and did little damage to any surrounding buildings, apart from wtc7 which collapsed, which is logical as it was so much closer than any other building. Truth be told if you were to have drawn a chalk line around the base of the towers before it collapsed it would not have all laid to rest in this outline, is this where you're confusion lies?
I think that covers it, because the damage you described i would call "very little" for a building 1/4 of a mile high. However im happy about this if you can address the points i bought up in another post after addressing the other answer i got to this, which in terms of good debate was much more helpful than learning that you walk past it everyday.
Your daily walking route doesnt really help me to understand the whole situation, however i hope it satisfies any needs you have for a walking route, fresh air, bit of nature, efficiency in getting where you need to be etc. These are the things i like to weigh up when deciding my walking routes, but this is probably for another thread, we can discuss it there if you like.
Buildings were destroyed in the vicinity. Unless by your definition the only way that a building is "severely damaged" is if it collapses.
And you gave no examples of buildings being destroyed, only a couple that needed repairs and one awaiting demolition. But to be honest im not really interested in this aspect its a done deal.
a plane hit the pentagon at, what, almost 600mph,... i want to see some pics of the cars that got blown away b/c i know it was low enough to knock down the light poles,... but maybe when it made a pass over the highway it was still too high and the thrust was above the cars,...
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
why the fuck hasn't anyone said anything about the fucking precision cut beams?
if that isn't proof, then what the fuck is?
Sorry dude personally i havent got that far yet, i havent found any answers for my current big three.
The problem with the debate even at this level is that one side wants to find out what happened and the other wants to talk down to people as if they are being stupid for asking questions and not just believing what big brother says. Go figure huh!
Actually the problem is not that its like that here, its that its exactly like that to the very top.
You want to know the truth of what it all comes down to?
People know its bollocks, some in their heads some just in they're hearts, but some are too scared to admit it, while others are just happy to be under the wing and so will argue half-assed lies to defend the pack.
some are just stupid.
What can you do? keep tryin i guess, we only want answers dont we?
Dude seriously im looking around and i cant see any fuel that would not be consumed in a second by the sort of fire that would be produced by this thing. I seriously cant imagine there was enough fuel involved in this incident to maintain a fire of the magnitude it would take to melt steel. As far as i understand it there were very strict safety rules specific to flammable materials in this building, i mean of course there would be, you cant have the risk of fire in a place that is innaccessible at any speed where there are such a number of people. I just want to get to the truth on this and i would love nothing more than some one to say something that is reasonable to suggest it fell down at freefall speed into its own footprint because of this plane strike. But seriously look at it mate, its all pretty lame so far. But you know what, im not a US citizen and its not my country, sad for you that i dont think pretty much any other government in the World would dare to try and get away with what looks obvious to have happened, i certainly would have trouble believing it of anywhere else. But dude show me a real Fact that supports the official story.
Show me one solid fact that supports the official story.
I assume this was the argument you were referring to? Since you are not going to believe the explanation that the Government gave (understandable), you probably won't believe the statements from engineering experts in a investigation both by the History Channel as well as PBS, I highly doubt you would ever consider anything that does not back your conspiracy belief, which is fine. May I ask for your facts from someone a little more reputable than Art Bell? Also I'm glad that you enjoyed my walking comment, you should consider taking a look at the actual site yourself instead of conducting your fact finding mission online.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
Sorry dude personally i havent got that far yet, i havent found any answers for my current big three.
The problem with the debate even at this level is that one side wants to find out what happened and the other wants to talk down to people as if they are being stupid for asking questions and not just believing what big brother says. Go figure huh!
Actually the problem is not that its like that here, its that its exactly like that to the very top.
You want to know the truth of what it all comes down to?
People know its bollocks, some in their heads some just in they're hearts, but some are too scared to admit it, while others are just happy to be under the wing and so will argue half-assed lies to defend the pack.
some are just stupid.
What can you do? keep tryin i guess, we only want answers dont we?
fuck it, i give nothing for this bullshit
Well now we have this never ending war with an invisible, unbeatable enemy, and an underhanded government that is happy to play perpetual war games on our tax dollars.
Bush took us down the garden path into an unwinnable war. Does the US not have any military strategists available? Must we be lied to daily for three , four....five terms of office to figure out these guys are all habitual liars that have zero morals dating back generations?
What a joke...
It is imperative, more so now than ever, that we get to the bottom of 9/11.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I assume this was the argument you were referring to? Since you are not going to believe the explanation that the Government gave (understandable), you probably won't believe the statements from engineering experts in a investigation both by the History Channel as well as PBS, I highly doubt you would ever consider anything that does not back your conspiracy belief, which is fine. May I ask for your facts from someone a little more reputable than Art Bell? Also I'm glad that you enjoyed my walking comment, you should consider taking a look at the actual site yourself instead of conducting your fact finding mission online.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
why the fuck hasn't anyone said anything about the fucking precision cut beams?
if that isn't proof, then what the fuck is?
b/c they know they can't answer it, just like they can't answer why building 7 collapsed
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
My opinion on the beams is that they may have been cut afterwards or not. The downward 45 deg shear angle is essentially how a charge would be placed (v.s. a horizontal cut). I'm not a demolition expert. You would think a welder would make a horizontal cut v.s. a free falling 45 deg simply out of safety reasons when cutting it. Some of the other beams have horizontal cuts.
We'd have to see the reports on how the cleanup was performed. I'd like to know if they were actually clearing debris at that level, or just pulling it all apart with large machinery.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I assume this was the argument you were referring to? Since you are not going to believe the explanation that the Government gave (understandable), you probably won't believe the statements from engineering experts in a investigation both by the History Channel as well as PBS, I highly doubt you would ever consider anything that does not back your conspiracy belief, which is fine. May I ask for your facts from someone a little more reputable than Art Bell? Also I'm glad that you enjoyed my walking comment, you should consider taking a look at the actual site yourself instead of conducting your fact finding mission online.
Thats the trouble with making assumptions without reading thru the debate, i'd personally moved on to this bit:
Ok this could work, however this bit strikes me as interesting:
"Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure"
If these angle clips put a limit on the design allowables to the extent that it wasnt in fact designed the way it was supposed to be, then why the claims that it was? These were surely factored in to any claims about the capabilities of the buildings safety features?
Also the clearly melted steel seen in the video posted by the Roland TDK model.
The report you posted clearly defines the heats that could have been achieved by any fire that day, addressing all issues concerning flammables of all descriptions.
It also states that:
"However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best."
1. "Limiting factors on design allowables" which meant that the design was in fact flawed when it goes on to claim it wasnt.
2. Clear evidence of melted steel that it clearly states could not possibly have happened.
3. Lets also discuss the pilot skills necessary that were mentioned by Strangest Tribe's ex Navy flyer father.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.
Now you're up to speed on this debate without having to walk anywhere.
My motivation for debating this issue is to find out the truth whatever that may be, i've moved on in my life from tryin to make a point.
Whats your motivation?
If you have nothing to add to the debate why bother?
And i walk past the Tower of London everyday but i dont get flashbacks and see it being built, or falling down, and being renovated, i know only what i investigate about it.
Proof of what? A picture without context is not proof.
What if I showed you a picture of a Unicorn? What would that prove?
tell me how exactly this picture is out of context. there are two firemen standing next to rubble with beams poking up that look just like cutter charges sliced and diced 'em,... how is that out of context? i asked earlier in the thread if anyone could find a date on the picture or who took it. i seriously doubt it is fake.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
My opinion on the beams is that they may have been cut afterwards or not. The downward 45 deg shear angle is essentially how a charge would be placed (v.s. a horizontal cut). I'm not a demolition expert. You would think a welder would make a horizontal cut v.s. a free falling 45 deg simply out of safety reasons when cutting it. Some of the other beams have horizontal cuts.
We'd have to see the reports on how the cleanup was performed. I'd like to know if they were actually clearing debris at that level, or just pulling it all apart with large machinery.
were the firemen in charge of clean up (honest question) and if not could they have been there for the photo? and why would they only cut it down to where it was versus cutting it to the base?
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Not really. Although it is an impressive list of ex-government and military officials, the majority of their complaints stem from the 9/11 Commission report dropping the ball, and aeronaurtics experts speaking of the unlikely nature that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon. On the flip side of the coin you can find the same types of individuals (Government employees past and present as well as military professionals) that will say the exact opposite. Opposing viewpoints of experts in their own field that have no business making claims as to what happened due nothing for me. That goes for both sides. To me the explanation that has been provided on the collapse on the WTC towers from physicists holds more water than a government or military official ever will. Where are the scientists and physicists on the conspiracy theory side? I'm sure they are out there, but I get endlessly frustrated by looking over conspriacy theory sites that talk about planes not crashing, missles hitting the towers, Flight 93 landing instead of crashing, etc. etc. If you have a link to experts in demolition as well as a link to scientific experts discussing the improbable nature of the towers collapsing on their own without explosives, I will be quite thankful! Here's a link that I found that was a good read:
Comments
2)At what speed would any structure fall other than freefall? You know of a lot of buildings that have force generators installed on them?
OK then, read it all again, i always give one chance, call it a charitable nature.
Ever seen the East Coast from 30000 ft? It's ONE huge city.
building 7 was pretty small, comparitatively to the others, it was only 52 floors, and didn't the firefighters say they had the fires pretty much controlled and out? i wonder why they would seal the recordings and transcripts of what the firefighters said thru their radios that day?
uh, isn't your side a little stacked w/ assumptions as well?
do a quick google search, you can find papers where bin laden said he had nothing to do w/ it, even hinting towards pakistan (odd coincidence money wired to atta shortly before 9/11 originated from the isi, pakistan's cia)
what do you have as your holy proof? a video found miracuously hidden in a house of a grainy video w/ a fat bin laden w/ a bigger nose who writes w/ the wrong hand?
you will buy anything they give you, it's like the thought of even questioning their word, the word of proven liars, makes you guys so mad...why is that?
http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport
so the fire in building 7, a 52 floor building the furthest away from buildings 1 and 2, fell b/c of fire and damage? not only that but it completely disintegrated the middle support beams....? if it was damaged at the base...the base facing the other towers...why it did it buckle in the middle then fall straight down on itself?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Did they demolish it as part of 9/11 intentionally? or did they just figure what the hell it's as good a time as any as it had caught fire and suffered damage.
Building 7 could have raged like a blowtorch from every window, top to bottom, for several hours before slowly burning itself out.
I mean really, gmab....the building shot straight down all shiny and new ...and what?....from a little contained fire?
Absolutely preposterous!!!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
no, autopilot won't shortrange. Plus autopilot wouldn't work below 2500 ft ceiling. Auto can't land a plane or crash it into the buildings.
Dad says it's unlikely these inexperienced pilots could maneuver these planes with the little amount of training they were supposed to have. Not impossible, just unlikely.
For 2 pilots to do this with the same amount of flight time would just be highly unlikely.
Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WW2 were more likely to miss the ships and carriers than hit them. Just watch the History channel and this is explained often during the south pacific wars.
Seasoned pilots with much smaller maneuverable planes couldn't hit the ships more often than not. Only difference is...they WERE being shot at.
Yeah it's kinda hard to believe the government on this when they have established a reputation of lying to us about everything. This regime doesn't exactly have a sparkling track record of being "up front" with the people.
I must say though...just an observation..seems as though alot of people from the south really buy everything this administration has to sell.
I was thinking about that myself. I tend to agree with you on this. Very little, if any, of 9/11 adds up actually.
And yeah the south has had it's head filled with glue from what they get on their TV's.
Right before our eyes... they pull this kind of crazy shit and hope it gets swallowed by the public.
Unreal!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I swear there's a wave building in an age of all this information access that is leading to something, hopefully, less bullshit.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I feel this too, whatever the truth about 9/11, i think it may well have exactly the opposite effect to what may have been intended. ie people who usually wouldnt give a shit cos they're living they're lives saying "hang on! what the fuck are you doing?" u know. We let them all get away with a lot in the past, but that was in a time of B'stards so being a b'stard was ok. Not good enough anymore
I ask you. Just because you are a designer/architect, an expert in your field if you will, could your assumptions, plans, and calculations still be wrong? I'm pretty sure the inventor of the bullet-proof vest planned to stop most if not all bullets. But did not account for hollow tip ammo. Just like the designers planned on the buildings withstanding the blow. People make mistakes. People can do all the planning and designing that they wish, but sometimes it's not enough.
Also, I ask you again, since you didn't reply before. Where are these experts you speak of. If I designed and/or built the trade center to withstand the force of planes at full throttle, and I believe in my work, then why would they not make a case about it? Why would they only mention it in passing in hard to find interviews? I would be making a claim everyday of the rest of my life!
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
Hollow-tip ammo is a bad choice of comparison for the bullet-proof vest.
I understand your point, though. Maybe these buildings weren't what they were meant to be.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
90 West St., a historical building which overlooks the site was severely damaged and had to be gut renovated. It has since been converted to apartment rentals. The marriot hotel, further down West St, was damaged and needed extensive repairs. The Deutsche Bank Building on Greenwich St, next to the site was torn into down the middle and is still waiting it's destruction. I walk by these buildings on a daily basis. I live a couple of blocks away. Please do not continue on with your misunderstanding of the area. Buildings were destroyed in the vicinity. Unless by your definition the only way that a building is "severely damaged" is if it collapses.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
for those that would argue this was during clean up,... are firemen the ones who were cutting the beams? why didn't they cut the beams to the ground?
to me, this is the best evidence i've seen of a 'demolition'.
~Ron Burgundy
I'll post my whole reply that you edited to see if it makes any difference:
I think that covers it, because the damage you described i would call "very little" for a building 1/4 of a mile high. However im happy about this if you can address the points i bought up in another post after addressing the other answer i got to this, which in terms of good debate was much more helpful than learning that you walk past it everyday.
Your daily walking route doesnt really help me to understand the whole situation, however i hope it satisfies any needs you have for a walking route, fresh air, bit of nature, efficiency in getting where you need to be etc. These are the things i like to weigh up when deciding my walking routes, but this is probably for another thread, we can discuss it there if you like.
And you gave no examples of buildings being destroyed, only a couple that needed repairs and one awaiting demolition. But to be honest im not really interested in this aspect its a done deal.
if that isn't proof, then what the fuck is?
~Ron Burgundy
a plane hit the pentagon at, what, almost 600mph,... i want to see some pics of the cars that got blown away b/c i know it was low enough to knock down the light poles,... but maybe when it made a pass over the highway it was still too high and the thrust was above the cars,...
~Ron Burgundy
Sorry dude personally i havent got that far yet, i havent found any answers for my current big three.
The problem with the debate even at this level is that one side wants to find out what happened and the other wants to talk down to people as if they are being stupid for asking questions and not just believing what big brother says. Go figure huh!
Actually the problem is not that its like that here, its that its exactly like that to the very top.
You want to know the truth of what it all comes down to?
People know its bollocks, some in their heads some just in they're hearts, but some are too scared to admit it, while others are just happy to be under the wing and so will argue half-assed lies to defend the pack.
some are just stupid.
What can you do? keep tryin i guess, we only want answers dont we?
fuck it, i give nothing for this bullshit
Proof of what? A picture without context is not proof.
What if I showed you a picture of a Unicorn? What would that prove?
I assume this was the argument you were referring to? Since you are not going to believe the explanation that the Government gave (understandable), you probably won't believe the statements from engineering experts in a investigation both by the History Channel as well as PBS, I highly doubt you would ever consider anything that does not back your conspiracy belief, which is fine. May I ask for your facts from someone a little more reputable than Art Bell? Also I'm glad that you enjoyed my walking comment, you should consider taking a look at the actual site yourself instead of conducting your fact finding mission online.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
Sweet! Do you have one??? Just being a smart ass. I agree with your comment!
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
Well now we have this never ending war with an invisible, unbeatable enemy, and an underhanded government that is happy to play perpetual war games on our tax dollars.
Bush took us down the garden path into an unwinnable war. Does the US not have any military strategists available? Must we be lied to daily for three , four....five terms of office to figure out these guys are all habitual liars that have zero morals dating back generations?
What a joke...
It is imperative, more so now than ever, that we get to the bottom of 9/11.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
will any of these ppl do?
http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
b/c they know they can't answer it, just like they can't answer why building 7 collapsed
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
We'd have to see the reports on how the cleanup was performed. I'd like to know if they were actually clearing debris at that level, or just pulling it all apart with large machinery.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Thats the trouble with making assumptions without reading thru the debate, i'd personally moved on to this bit:
Following on from this:
Now you're up to speed on this debate without having to walk anywhere.
My motivation for debating this issue is to find out the truth whatever that may be, i've moved on in my life from tryin to make a point.
Whats your motivation?
If you have nothing to add to the debate why bother?
And i walk past the Tower of London everyday but i dont get flashbacks and see it being built, or falling down, and being renovated, i know only what i investigate about it.
tell me how exactly this picture is out of context. there are two firemen standing next to rubble with beams poking up that look just like cutter charges sliced and diced 'em,... how is that out of context? i asked earlier in the thread if anyone could find a date on the picture or who took it. i seriously doubt it is fake.
~Ron Burgundy
were the firemen in charge of clean up (honest question) and if not could they have been there for the photo? and why would they only cut it down to where it was versus cutting it to the base?
~Ron Burgundy
Not really. Although it is an impressive list of ex-government and military officials, the majority of their complaints stem from the 9/11 Commission report dropping the ball, and aeronaurtics experts speaking of the unlikely nature that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon. On the flip side of the coin you can find the same types of individuals (Government employees past and present as well as military professionals) that will say the exact opposite. Opposing viewpoints of experts in their own field that have no business making claims as to what happened due nothing for me. That goes for both sides. To me the explanation that has been provided on the collapse on the WTC towers from physicists holds more water than a government or military official ever will. Where are the scientists and physicists on the conspiracy theory side? I'm sure they are out there, but I get endlessly frustrated by looking over conspriacy theory sites that talk about planes not crashing, missles hitting the towers, Flight 93 landing instead of crashing, etc. etc. If you have a link to experts in demolition as well as a link to scientific experts discussing the improbable nature of the towers collapsing on their own without explosives, I will be quite thankful! Here's a link that I found that was a good read:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"