hey man, i am not sure who you're really arguing with here...any intelligent person gave up on the steel melting argument a long time ago. anyone who hasn't is dumb. i do not question why or how the buildings fell. i do question how they got there...and, by "how they got there" you, certainly, know what i mean.
my bad, forgot they use celsius in their report, go to nist's report and go to page 140 to the 2 observations of steel they studied:
Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 permiter column panels only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250degrees celsius, which is 482F.......
...NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 <1112F>
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. 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.
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
never studied satire? even though that is not an example of someone who has a chip on their shoulder, but, instead, is an example of an extremely arrogant person.
No, I can't say I've really studied satire but from the replies in that thread, honestly, it was hard to tell. I guess maybe it may have been easier to pick on with those who don't view the subject as emotionally as others do.
As for as the chip thing goes, it definitely seemed like trying to get to someone to me....once again, knowing how emotional some are about the subject.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I can and I have, heck, MANY people have. You just don't like the answer.
You have made up your mind and nothing will ever change that. So many half-truths passed on as fact when you have no credible evidence to back it up.
I forgot how frustrating it is trying to explain something to you. I'm glad some new poor bastards are having a go at it.
Have fun.
His evidence is just as credible as yours was. I do, however, remember your frustration, distinctly. It's gotta be a bitch being proven wrong so often.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I can and I have, heck, MANY people have. You just don't like the answer.
You have made up your mind and nothing will ever change that. So many half-truths passed on as fact when you have no credible evidence to back it up.
I forgot how frustrating it is trying to explain something to you. I'm glad some new poor bastards are having a go at it.
Have fun.
is that what happened? i seem to remember you saying something like a peice of debris made it the gas lines blow up inside the building...then when i'd ask you to explain the video of it's collapse, of how it kinked in the middle then fell straight down at basically a floor per second...then you just started making personal attacks....
what do you have to back up your theory of this gas tank blowing up? plz reference this divine proof of yours.
what's frustrating is you don't explain anything...what did you explain? that you think i'm wrong? that doesn't explain a single thing. so what is it that caused the collapse?
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
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
well, no, see you asked for what i thought happened, not what i could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. first it was called into question could this even happen, yes, it can...
i have no idea what happened, i just think ppl in our government and other spheres of influence as well as factions of certain foreign government<s> had a hand in it...
for all we know the hijackers could've been set up, thinking their just hijacking a plane...then control is taken over and coincendtaly 2 months earlier authority to intercept hijacked aircraft or aircraft that deviate from their filed flight path or don't respond to calls...from NORAD and the military, plz tell me why it took cheney up until right before the pentagon was hit to do anything about it? it's even in the official report, bush was kept isolated pretty much while cheney, rummy and others were calling the shots...are you saying your government is that inept that it takes over 90 minutes of being 'attacked' to fuckin do something? and what's the purpose of taking away that authority from NORAD and the military? according to Andrew's Air Force Base F-18's are stationed 10 miles from DC, why did it take so long?
and no, that special agent johnson skit is not how i imagined it
Did you consider that 90 minutes isnt really that long a period to try and distinguish which planes, out of probably hundreds in the air, had been hijacked? I have a friend whose dad was a pilot and was on his way to land in LA on 9.11, and the military forced him to land in Vegas. Im by no means an expert in airtraffic control, but I would think in only 90 minutes it would be at least somewhat difficult to distinguish which planes are hijacked and which are legit planes. I do think mistakes were probably made, but I personally dont buy the conspiracies.
No, I can't say I've really studied satire but from the replies in that thread, honestly, it was hard to tell. I guess maybe it may have been easier to pick on with those who don't view the subject as emotionally as others do.
As for as the chip thing goes, it definitely seemed like trying to get to someone to me....once again, knowing how emotional some are about the subject.
having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean you are trying to get under someone's skin - it means that you are trying to prove something to someone or some group...instead of dealing with the issue at hand. you don't have anything to prove, so i don't understand the way you go about things sometimes.
you have no idea how emotional i am or am not about how animals are treated when they are raised particularly for slaughter and when they are taken to slaughter. i'm just realistic about it. when you take workers and pay them low wages, you are going to get shitty workers who do shitty work and fringe behavior. if you pay workers more, you would get better quality workers...if you change the process you to a more "friendly" one then that's good...but, both cost money and the consumer is the one that feels the cost hike...not the producer...so, who are you really helping?
if you want to talk about why planes flew into three buildings and a field in PA then we can talk because we probably, at least, agree that the 9/11 official story is fucking bullshit.
i'm going to play devil's advocate...that's what i do. it's fun.
is that what happened? i seem to remember you saying something like a peice of debris made it the gas lines blow up inside the building...then when i'd ask you to explain the video of it's collapse, of how it kinked in the middle then fell straight down at basically a floor per second...then you just started making personal attacks....
what do you have to back up your theory of this gas tank blowing up? plz reference this divine proof of yours.
what's frustrating is you don't explain anything...what did you explain? that you think i'm wrong? that doesn't explain a single thing. so what is it that caused the collapse?
there was no gas tank explosion...that's funny too. anyway, carry on. but, you won't convince that there was a controlled demolition of buildings 1 and 2. building 7...who fucking knows what happened there. but, if the u.s. government had some hand in this...they didn't need the buildings to fall to build their case. that was just icing on the already candle-blazing cake.
there was no gas tank explosion...that's funny too. anyway, carry on. but, you won't convince that there was a controlled demolition of buildings 1 and 2. building 7...who fucking knows what happened there. but, if the u.s. government had some hand in this...they didn't need the buildings to fall to build their case. that was just icing on the already candle-blazing cake.
I dont really understand the governments motive if they did have a hand in it. Afghanistan was obviously not a priority, and there are no natural resources to benefit us. And I know they tried to tie it to Iraq, which was quickly debunked. But if it was the US govt who orchestrated it, my question is why not pin it on Iraq from the beginning, and why even bother with Afghanistan?
having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean you are trying to get under someone's skin - it means that you are trying to prove something to someone or some group...instead of dealing with the issue at hand. you don't have anything to prove, so i don't understand the way you go about things sometimes.
Well, I've never thought of having a chip on your shoulder as trying to prove something. I always thought of it as acting resentful. I don't think I act resentful but whatever. I don't really want to talk about me.
you have no idea how emotional i am or am not about how animals are treated when they are raised particularly for slaughter and when they are taken to slaughter. i'm just realistic about it. when you take workers and pay them low wages, you are going to get shitty workers who do shitty work and fringe behavior. if you pay workers more, you would get better quality workers...if you change the process you to a more "friendly" one then that's good...but, both cost money and the consumer is the one that feels the cost hike...not the producer...so, who are you really helping?
I have no way of knowing how anyone feels here other than reading their posts. It appeared to me you really didn't give shit. How was that Popeye's? And there should be laws against such horrible conditions and treatment. You can't treat domestic animals like that but they're all cute and stuff so people care more. It really boils down to people caring...caring enough not to buy the shit until they change their practices. But looking at the responses, many just don't, as I see it. To me that's really sad. This really doesn't belong here. I guess we shoud take it to the other thread.
if you want to talk about why planes flew into three buildings and a field in PA then we can talk because we probably, at least, agree that the 9/11 official story is fucking bullshit.
i'm going to play devil's advocate...that's what i do. it's fun.
Well, tell me what you think and we can go from there.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
what i think is funny is how some ppl use official reports that are prefaced by saying it is only a theory which makes it no less valid than anyone elses. and the ever changing answers is laughable, almost as laughable as how hostile they can get
but these are the first 3 steel framed buildings to fall from fire
well, the fire was so, like, hot, it like weakened the steel, ya know?
but the nist report says less than 1/5 of the columns they tested got even hot enough to weaken it and that's not enough to...
yeah, but they were the first to be hit by planes, too!
building 7 wasn't by any pla...
hey, shut up you fucking moron! you're like so wrong and it's so obvious you're wrong that i don't even have to explain why you're wrong!
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
what i think is funny is how some ppl use official reports that are prefaced by saying it is only a theory which makes it no less valid than anyone elses. and the ever changing answers is laughable, almost as laughable as how hostile they can get
but these are the first 3 steel framed buildings to fall from fire
well, the fire was so, like, hot, it like weakened the steel, ya know?
but the nist report says less than 1/5 of the columns they tested got even hot enough to weaken it and that's not enough to...
yeah, but they were the first to be hit by planes, too!
building 7 wasn't by any pla...
hey, shut up you fucking moron! you're like so wrong and it's so obvious you're wrong that i don't even have to explain why you're wrong!
What do you think the motivation was? I definately think that Iraq was in the plans before 9/11, and probably before Bush even took office. But, if the US govt pulled off 9/11, why not completely blame it on Iraq? I dont see the need or motivation for invading Afghanistan or going after Bin Laden if Bin Laden had nothing to do with it and Iraq was the goal all along.
What do you think the motivation was? I definately think that Iraq was in the plans before 9/11, and probably before Bush even took office. But, if the US govt pulled off 9/11, why not completely blame it on Iraq? I dont see the need or motivation for invading Afghanistan or going after Bin Laden if Bin Laden had nothing to do with it and Iraq was the goal all along.
I think it would be much harder to pin the whole thing on an actual country than some terrorist cell where no one knows what the hell they are ever up to or even where they are located half the time.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think it would be much harder to pin the whole thing on an actual country than some terrorist cell where no one knows what the hell they are ever up to or even where they are located half the time.
I dont agree. In my lifetime Saddam has been America's biggest enemy and supposed threat. What percentage of this country even knew who Bin Laden was? I guarantee you not as many as knew who Saddam was. I certainly think Bush used 9/11 to help his case against Iraq, but I cant possibly see why he wouldnt have blamed it on Iraq from the beginning, if it was indeed our government that pulled off 9/11. Makes no sense to me. I think Bush dropped the ball on 9.11, but I dont think he had anything to do with it. Just my opinion.
What do you think the motivation was? I definately think that Iraq was in the plans before 9/11, and probably before Bush even took office. But, if the US govt pulled off 9/11, why not completely blame it on Iraq? I dont see the need or motivation for invading Afghanistan or going after Bin Laden if Bin Laden had nothing to do with it and Iraq was the goal all along.
they don't want just a few sips, they want to drain the well dry
ok, say they blamed it on iraq...saddam is dead, they had elections...how to do we keep the justification going? blaming it on a bogey man like bin laden will keep it going, not just bin laden but on lots of ppl, a concept...if it was all put on iraq when it's done w/ ppl would say 'ok, you don't still need to violate so many laws <they broke over 750 so far...>, do you?
would we rationalize them opening our mail if the bogey man was hung? would we be able to raionalize the enormous spending on 'defense' <nevermind close to $9billion missing in iraq, $2.9trillion missing from the pentagon, how much have we spent on the war already?> we need to keep making these sacrifices and handing over more and more of our rights b/c we're still not 'safe', the bad man is still out there wanting to kill you and your kids b/c they hate our freedom
several of the key ppl in this administration, remember bush admited that he doesn't look into things himself, he just goes by what the ppl tell him...ppl like the vp, former sec of def, wolfowitz now head of the world bank, richard perle...iraq was just a small part of their agenda for our country. read their 2000 policy paper, they say it's our duty to exert global dominance
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
they don't want just a few sips, they want to drain the well dry
ok, say they blamed it on iraq...saddam is dead, they had elections...how to do we keep the justification going? blaming it on a bogey man like bin laden will keep it going, not just bin laden but on lots of ppl, a concept...if it was all put on iraq when it's done w/ ppl would say 'ok, you don't still need to violate so many laws <they broke over 750 so far...>, do you?
would we rationalize them opening our mail if the bogey man was hung? would we be able to raionalize the enormous spending on 'defense' <nevermind close to $9billion missing in iraq, $2.9trillion missing from the pentagon, how much have we spent on the war already?> we need to keep making these sacrifices and handing over more and more of our rights b/c we're still not 'safe', the bad man is still out there wanting to kill you and your kids b/c they hate our freedom
several of the key ppl in this administration, remember bush admited that he doesn't look into things himself, he just goes by what the ppl tell him...ppl like the vp, former sec of def, wolfowitz now head of the world bank, richard perle...iraq was just a small part of their agenda for our country. read their 2000 policy paper, they say it's our duty to exert global dominance
Im not disagreeing with many of your above points. But most of them have nothing to do with Bin Laden. I see no motivation by our government to blame 9/11 on Bin Laden if Iraq was the goal. If our government did 9.11, then why choose to blame it on Bin Laden, and not the obvious person and country they were after? Your above post has no explanation as to why it was blamed primarily on Bin Laden and not Saddam.
And I already mentioned that I thought going into Iraq was planned before 9/11, and before Bush took office. So your point about reading their 2000 paper is moot, because I agree with you on that. So explain why that means they blamed 9/11 on Bin Laden and not Saddam? Iraq has the resources, and Saddam was a much more commonly known enemy and would have been a much easier sell for them to go into Iraq first.
is that what happened? i seem to remember you saying something like a peice of debris made it the gas lines blow up inside the building...then when i'd ask you to explain the video of it's collapse, of how it kinked in the middle then fell straight down at basically a floor per second...then you just started making personal attacks....
what do you have to back up your theory of this gas tank blowing up? plz reference this divine proof of yours.
what's frustrating is you don't explain anything...what did you explain? that you think i'm wrong? that doesn't explain a single thing. so what is it that caused the collapse?
Wow! I've gone into EXTREME detail with you and others on all facets of this. If you need to use the forum's search function you are more than welcome to do so.
You are a conspiracy zealot and nothing I, or anyone else can do will ever sway you.
my bad, forgot they use celsius in their report, go to nist's report and go to page 140 to the 2 observations of steel they studied:
Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 permiter column panels only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250degrees celsius, which is 482F.......
...NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 <1112F>
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. 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.
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
El's got it again...and this is just science...nothing that screams conspiracy theory about this.
To understand better...consider what you do every summer...grilling. You have to put the lid on the grill to create the optimal temperature to cook meat. If you leave the top off, the heat never rises as high as it should/could/would. Sure, you can still cook meat, but it will take you a lot longer...twice as long perhaps.
Those two big, gaping holes in the WTC...not an optimal environment for a fire to reach it's max intensity.
One could opine that the fire would have burned hottest near the elevator shafts, since is was basically a shaft of oxygen feeding the fire from the center of the building, but the NIST has concluded that the fire did not reach temperatures that were great enough to weaken the steel.
The weight of a Boeing 737 is about 36 tons. In order for those floors to fail in a systemic, uniform way (as we saw from the "pancake" collapse), that weight woud have to be distributed evenly across the affected upper floor. Not saying that it wasn't, just that we're talking about multipule statistical and physical improbabilities that seemingly come together on this one date in time. The terror plan would have to account for and overcome laws of physics and thermodynamics...twice in the same day...at two different structural points...resulting in the same outcome.
That's all I'm saying on this subject. I'm not suggesting conspiracy, but when our own investigative body does not clearly and consisely answer the most basic mathematical and scientific questions about this disaster, it's not because they can't.
El's got it again...and this is just science...nothing that screams conspiracy theory about this.
To understand better...consider what you do every summer...grilling. You have to put the lid on the grill to create the optimal temperature to cook meat. If you leave the top off, the heat never rises as high as it should/could/would. Sure, you can still cook meat, but it will take you a lot longer...twice as long perhaps.
Those two big, gaping holes in the WTC...not an optimal environment for a fire to reach it's max intensity.
The problem I always see with this discussion is that people who don't believe the official story (at least in general) only argue against that point of view.
"the buildings couldn't have collapsed due to fire and damage caused by planes exploding inside them"
"no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire"
If you are convinced that the planes couldn't have collapsed due to fire and damage caused by huge planes exploding inside of them, then what is your explanation for the collapses, and what is the evidence that supports that explanation? People throw out theories all the time, but I haven't seen any that have nearly enough evidence to support them....a few "expert" opinions here and there on fire and structural damage don't really compare to the mountain of evidence shown in the 9/11 Commission Report. There will always be questionable pieces of evidence, but you shouldn't focus only on those and ignore the rest.
If you are truly serious about wanting the truth about 9/11 to come out, you should focus on your own explanation and finding the supporting evidence for it. Otherwise, all you're doing is wasting your time trying to convince others and yourself that the official story is crap.
Im not disagreeing with many of your above points. But most of them have nothing to do with Bin Laden. I see no motivation by our government to blame 9/11 on Bin Laden if Iraq was the goal. If our government did 9.11, then why choose to blame it on Bin Laden, and not the obvious person and country they were after? Your above post has no explanation as to why it was blamed primarily on Bin Laden and not Saddam.
And I already mentioned that I thought going into Iraq was planned before 9/11, and before Bush took office. So your point about reading their 2000 paper is moot, because I agree with you on that. So explain why that means they blamed 9/11 on Bin Laden and not Saddam? Iraq has the resources, and Saddam was a much more commonly known enemy and would have been a much easier sell for them to go into Iraq first.
as i stated, it is bigger than iraq, they don't just want iraq, they need something to keep the fear going.
look, saddam is dead, iraq had elections, right? so if he were blamed for 9/11 how could they keep things going? instead we have not a country to stop but a concept <terrorism>...bush already said this will take many, many years...that is why bin laden, to keep it going.
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
Wow! I've gone into EXTREME detail with you and others on all facets of this. If you need to use the forum's search function you are more than welcome to do so.
You are a conspiracy zealot and nothing I, or anyone else can do will ever sway you.
Handball against the curtains...
so you can't name anything?
again, debating me and not the topic...
and you're open minded? ha, youwon't change your mind either so does that not make you a zealot, as well?
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
The problem I always see with this discussion is that people who don't believe the official story (at least in general) only argue against that point of view.
"the buildings couldn't have collapsed due to fire and damage caused by planes exploding inside them"
"no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire"
If you are convinced that the planes couldn't have collapsed due to fire and damage caused by huge planes exploding inside of them, then what is your explanation for the collapses, and what is the evidence that supports that explanation? People throw out theories all the time, but I haven't seen any that have nearly enough evidence to support them....a few "expert" opinions here and there on fire and structural damage don't really compare to the mountain of evidence shown in the 9/11 Commission Report. There will always be questionable pieces of evidence, but you shouldn't focus only on those and ignore the rest.
If you are truly serious about wanting the truth about 9/11 to come out, you should focus on your own explanation and finding the supporting evidence for it. Otherwise, all you're doing is wasting your time trying to convince others and yourself that the official story is crap.
talk about throwing out theories...isn't the nist prefaced by saying that very report is nothing more than a theory??? so why does that theory get more credability?
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
His evidence is just as credible as yours was. I do, however, remember your frustration, distinctly. It's gotta be a bitch being proven wrong so often.
i have a problem with this statement.....
his evidence is just as credible???
saying that remote controlled planes may have crashed in to those towers is credible??
saying that those towers didnt recieve enough damage in order for them to fall to the ground the way they did is credible???
saying that explosive devices were involved in the destruction of those buildings is credible???
saying that the cell phone calls from the victims to their loved ones never existed is credible???
saying the u.s. government in some way was involved in 9-11 is credible???
you may think its just as credible ....but i feel a large majority of people will disagree.....
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
talk about throwing out theories...isn't the nist prefaced by saying that very report is nothing more than a theory??? so why does that theory get more credability?
Again, all you're doing is trying to point out how your opposition is wrong instead of developing your own theory based on supporting evidence, and not on discounting other theories.
Again, all you're doing is trying to point out how your opposition is wrong instead of developing your own theory based on supporting evidence, and not on discounting other theories.
Did you develop your own theory on the matter or did you go by the official report?
There's a lot of stuff that is unknown leaving holes in both theories. You can either assume or work with what you've got.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Did you develop your own theory on the matter or did you go by the official report?
There's a lot of stuff that is unknown leaving holes in both theories. You can either assume or work with what you've got.
I haven't developed my own theory on why exactly the buildings collapsed, but I don't think it matters much when thinking about the event. I'm not gonna go through it all again, because I've talked about it in another thread here.
I'm just saying this discussion always goes around in circles because people cannot stick to making an argument in favor of their own theory (or a theory they agree with)...they can only stick to asking more and more questions to try and discredit certain other theories.
Comments
I can and I have, heck, MANY people have. You just don't like the answer.
You have made up your mind and nothing will ever change that. So many half-truths passed on as fact when you have no credible evidence to back it up.
I forgot how frustrating it is trying to explain something to you. I'm glad some new poor bastards are having a go at it.
Have fun.
from my window to yours
No, I can't say I've really studied satire but from the replies in that thread, honestly, it was hard to tell. I guess maybe it may have been easier to pick on with those who don't view the subject as emotionally as others do.
As for as the chip thing goes, it definitely seemed like trying to get to someone to me....once again, knowing how emotional some are about the subject.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
His evidence is just as credible as yours was. I do, however, remember your frustration, distinctly. It's gotta be a bitch being proven wrong so often.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
is that what happened? i seem to remember you saying something like a peice of debris made it the gas lines blow up inside the building...then when i'd ask you to explain the video of it's collapse, of how it kinked in the middle then fell straight down at basically a floor per second...then you just started making personal attacks....
what do you have to back up your theory of this gas tank blowing up? plz reference this divine proof of yours.
what's frustrating is you don't explain anything...what did you explain? that you think i'm wrong? that doesn't explain a single thing. so what is it that caused the collapse?
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
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=4026073566596731782&hl=en-CA
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 you consider that 90 minutes isnt really that long a period to try and distinguish which planes, out of probably hundreds in the air, had been hijacked? I have a friend whose dad was a pilot and was on his way to land in LA on 9.11, and the military forced him to land in Vegas. Im by no means an expert in airtraffic control, but I would think in only 90 minutes it would be at least somewhat difficult to distinguish which planes are hijacked and which are legit planes. I do think mistakes were probably made, but I personally dont buy the conspiracies.
having a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean you are trying to get under someone's skin - it means that you are trying to prove something to someone or some group...instead of dealing with the issue at hand. you don't have anything to prove, so i don't understand the way you go about things sometimes.
you have no idea how emotional i am or am not about how animals are treated when they are raised particularly for slaughter and when they are taken to slaughter. i'm just realistic about it. when you take workers and pay them low wages, you are going to get shitty workers who do shitty work and fringe behavior. if you pay workers more, you would get better quality workers...if you change the process you to a more "friendly" one then that's good...but, both cost money and the consumer is the one that feels the cost hike...not the producer...so, who are you really helping?
if you want to talk about why planes flew into three buildings and a field in PA then we can talk because we probably, at least, agree that the 9/11 official story is fucking bullshit.
i'm going to play devil's advocate...that's what i do. it's fun.
from my window to yours
there was no gas tank explosion...that's funny too. anyway, carry on. but, you won't convince that there was a controlled demolition of buildings 1 and 2. building 7...who fucking knows what happened there. but, if the u.s. government had some hand in this...they didn't need the buildings to fall to build their case. that was just icing on the already candle-blazing cake.
from my window to yours
I dont really understand the governments motive if they did have a hand in it. Afghanistan was obviously not a priority, and there are no natural resources to benefit us. And I know they tried to tie it to Iraq, which was quickly debunked. But if it was the US govt who orchestrated it, my question is why not pin it on Iraq from the beginning, and why even bother with Afghanistan?
Well, I've never thought of having a chip on your shoulder as trying to prove something. I always thought of it as acting resentful. I don't think I act resentful but whatever. I don't really want to talk about me.
I have no way of knowing how anyone feels here other than reading their posts. It appeared to me you really didn't give shit. How was that Popeye's? And there should be laws against such horrible conditions and treatment. You can't treat domestic animals like that but they're all cute and stuff so people care more. It really boils down to people caring...caring enough not to buy the shit until they change their practices. But looking at the responses, many just don't, as I see it. To me that's really sad. This really doesn't belong here. I guess we shoud take it to the other thread.
Well, tell me what you think and we can go from there.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
but these are the first 3 steel framed buildings to fall from fire
well, the fire was so, like, hot, it like weakened the steel, ya know?
but the nist report says less than 1/5 of the columns they tested got even hot enough to weaken it and that's not enough to...
yeah, but they were the first to be hit by planes, too!
building 7 wasn't by any pla...
hey, shut up you fucking moron! you're like so wrong and it's so obvious you're wrong that i don't even have to explain why you're wrong!
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
What do you think the motivation was? I definately think that Iraq was in the plans before 9/11, and probably before Bush even took office. But, if the US govt pulled off 9/11, why not completely blame it on Iraq? I dont see the need or motivation for invading Afghanistan or going after Bin Laden if Bin Laden had nothing to do with it and Iraq was the goal all along.
I think it would be much harder to pin the whole thing on an actual country than some terrorist cell where no one knows what the hell they are ever up to or even where they are located half the time.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I dont agree. In my lifetime Saddam has been America's biggest enemy and supposed threat. What percentage of this country even knew who Bin Laden was? I guarantee you not as many as knew who Saddam was. I certainly think Bush used 9/11 to help his case against Iraq, but I cant possibly see why he wouldnt have blamed it on Iraq from the beginning, if it was indeed our government that pulled off 9/11. Makes no sense to me. I think Bush dropped the ball on 9.11, but I dont think he had anything to do with it. Just my opinion.
they don't want just a few sips, they want to drain the well dry
ok, say they blamed it on iraq...saddam is dead, they had elections...how to do we keep the justification going? blaming it on a bogey man like bin laden will keep it going, not just bin laden but on lots of ppl, a concept...if it was all put on iraq when it's done w/ ppl would say 'ok, you don't still need to violate so many laws <they broke over 750 so far...>, do you?
would we rationalize them opening our mail if the bogey man was hung? would we be able to raionalize the enormous spending on 'defense' <nevermind close to $9billion missing in iraq, $2.9trillion missing from the pentagon, how much have we spent on the war already?> we need to keep making these sacrifices and handing over more and more of our rights b/c we're still not 'safe', the bad man is still out there wanting to kill you and your kids b/c they hate our freedom
several of the key ppl in this administration, remember bush admited that he doesn't look into things himself, he just goes by what the ppl tell him...ppl like the vp, former sec of def, wolfowitz now head of the world bank, richard perle...iraq was just a small part of their agenda for our country. read their 2000 policy paper, they say it's our duty to exert global dominance
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
Im not disagreeing with many of your above points. But most of them have nothing to do with Bin Laden. I see no motivation by our government to blame 9/11 on Bin Laden if Iraq was the goal. If our government did 9.11, then why choose to blame it on Bin Laden, and not the obvious person and country they were after? Your above post has no explanation as to why it was blamed primarily on Bin Laden and not Saddam.
And I already mentioned that I thought going into Iraq was planned before 9/11, and before Bush took office. So your point about reading their 2000 paper is moot, because I agree with you on that. So explain why that means they blamed 9/11 on Bin Laden and not Saddam? Iraq has the resources, and Saddam was a much more commonly known enemy and would have been a much easier sell for them to go into Iraq first.
Wow! I've gone into EXTREME detail with you and others on all facets of this. If you need to use the forum's search function you are more than welcome to do so.
You are a conspiracy zealot and nothing I, or anyone else can do will ever sway you.
Handball against the curtains...
El's got it again...and this is just science...nothing that screams conspiracy theory about this.
To understand better...consider what you do every summer...grilling. You have to put the lid on the grill to create the optimal temperature to cook meat. If you leave the top off, the heat never rises as high as it should/could/would. Sure, you can still cook meat, but it will take you a lot longer...twice as long perhaps.
Those two big, gaping holes in the WTC...not an optimal environment for a fire to reach it's max intensity.
Here's a good primer on the science of fire.
http://library.thinkquest.org/2861/fire.html
One could opine that the fire would have burned hottest near the elevator shafts, since is was basically a shaft of oxygen feeding the fire from the center of the building, but the NIST has concluded that the fire did not reach temperatures that were great enough to weaken the steel.
The weight of a Boeing 737 is about 36 tons. In order for those floors to fail in a systemic, uniform way (as we saw from the "pancake" collapse), that weight woud have to be distributed evenly across the affected upper floor. Not saying that it wasn't, just that we're talking about multipule statistical and physical improbabilities that seemingly come together on this one date in time. The terror plan would have to account for and overcome laws of physics and thermodynamics...twice in the same day...at two different structural points...resulting in the same outcome.
That's all I'm saying on this subject. I'm not suggesting conspiracy, but when our own investigative body does not clearly and consisely answer the most basic mathematical and scientific questions about this disaster, it's not because they can't.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
O boy now we are comparing grilling a steak to the twin towers collapsing. yea el you are the man.
"the buildings couldn't have collapsed due to fire and damage caused by planes exploding inside them"
"no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire"
If you are convinced that the planes couldn't have collapsed due to fire and damage caused by huge planes exploding inside of them, then what is your explanation for the collapses, and what is the evidence that supports that explanation? People throw out theories all the time, but I haven't seen any that have nearly enough evidence to support them....a few "expert" opinions here and there on fire and structural damage don't really compare to the mountain of evidence shown in the 9/11 Commission Report. There will always be questionable pieces of evidence, but you shouldn't focus only on those and ignore the rest.
If you are truly serious about wanting the truth about 9/11 to come out, you should focus on your own explanation and finding the supporting evidence for it. Otherwise, all you're doing is wasting your time trying to convince others and yourself that the official story is crap.
as i stated, it is bigger than iraq, they don't just want iraq, they need something to keep the fear going.
look, saddam is dead, iraq had elections, right? so if he were blamed for 9/11 how could they keep things going? instead we have not a country to stop but a concept <terrorism>...bush already said this will take many, many years...that is why bin laden, to keep it going.
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
so you can't name anything?
again, debating me and not the topic...
and you're open minded? ha, youwon't change your mind either so does that not make you a zealot, as well?
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
talk about throwing out theories...isn't the nist prefaced by saying that very report is nothing more than a theory??? so why does that theory get more credability?
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
his evidence is just as credible???
saying that remote controlled planes may have crashed in to those towers is credible??
saying that those towers didnt recieve enough damage in order for them to fall to the ground the way they did is credible???
saying that explosive devices were involved in the destruction of those buildings is credible???
saying that the cell phone calls from the victims to their loved ones never existed is credible???
saying the u.s. government in some way was involved in 9-11 is credible???
you may think its just as credible ....but i feel a large majority of people will disagree.....
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Again, all you're doing is trying to point out how your opposition is wrong instead of developing your own theory based on supporting evidence, and not on discounting other theories.
Did you develop your own theory on the matter or did you go by the official report?
There's a lot of stuff that is unknown leaving holes in both theories. You can either assume or work with what you've got.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well, you certainly have more faith in our crooked government than I ever will.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
I haven't developed my own theory on why exactly the buildings collapsed, but I don't think it matters much when thinking about the event. I'm not gonna go through it all again, because I've talked about it in another thread here.
I'm just saying this discussion always goes around in circles because people cannot stick to making an argument in favor of their own theory (or a theory they agree with)...they can only stick to asking more and more questions to try and discredit certain other theories.