So how did the Towers Fall?

enharmonic

MasterModeler wrote:

not to mention tower 7 imploding because of "falling debris"

Tower 7 was "pulled" according to its owner because it was not structurally sound. I'll give you Tower 7, too. Not odd that a "pulled" building imploded in a uniform manner.

The NIST itself refuted the "Pancake" theory, which seems to not be in their best instrests, as it is an important part of the official explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FujppU50EpA

I'd also ecourage you to get at least a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

sonicreducer

farfromglorified wrote:

The amount of C4 required to blow up the world trade center isn't something you can hide. You don't use C4 to secretly blow up steel skyscrapers and get away with it.

that is an assumption,...

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

That "ever-so-leadable" public is now largely opposed to this administration, in large part because of the failure to find WMDs in Iraq.

and that changes what, exactly? are the troops coming home? did the war not happen?

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

Question away. You don't care about questions though.

People really come across likes asses when they assume they know so much about the other person's thought process. People have different opinions on this and everything else. There's no need to treat the other view as inferior to your own. None of us here can claim for sure that we know what happened that day so it's best to respect opinions from all angles. Just discuss the topic and drop the know-it-all asshole bit.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

and that changes what, exactly? are the troops coming home? did the war not happen?

No. But if the point of staging 9/11 was to affect change in the Middle East, it failed before it really got started. Because of the failures in Iraq, this administration will be able to go no further. Planted WMD in Iraq would have ensured just the opposite. We'd be preparing for an Iranian invasion right now.

farfromglorified

sonicreducer wrote:

that is an assumption,...

No, it's not. The next time a dinky building in your area is detonated using RDX (the main component of C4), go check it out.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

No. But if the point of staging 9/11 was to affect change in the Middle East, it failed before it really got started. Because of the failures in Iraq, this administration will be able to go no further. Planted WMD in Iraq would have ensured just the opposite. We'd be preparing for an Iranian invasion right now.

I think they thought they could envoke 9/11 and people would get behind it time and time again. I don't think they were counting on this many people being fed up. They are not fed up because of the lack of WMDs, they are fed up because of the cost of this war and how it's never ending.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

People really come across likes asses when they assume they know so much about the other person's thought process.

Then I'm an ass.

People have different opinions on this and everything else.

Of course.

There's no need to treat the other view as inferior to your own.

You're right. There is no need to treat another view as inferior as my own. There is, however, the option to do so.

None of us here can claim for sure that we know what happened that day so it's best to respect opinions from all angles.

The rule applies to all opinions except for my opinion, right?

Just discuss the topic and drop the know-it-all asshole bit.

This rule applies to everyon except for you, right?

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

Then I'm an ass.



Of course.



You're right. There is no need to treat another view as inferior as my own. There is, however, the option to do so.



The rule applies to all opinions except for my opinion, right?



This rule applies to everyon except for you, right?

No, they apply to me, too.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I think they thought they could envoke 9/11 and people would get behind it time and time again. I don't think they were counting on this many people being fed up. They are not fed up because of the lack of WMDs, they are fed up because of the cost of this war and how it's never ending.

But why chance it? Furthermore, why not plant the WMDs in a hole 3 months ago? If these people are so evil genius to orchestrate or manipulate 9/11, I fail to see why they wouldn't do the same with Iraq.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

But why chance it? Furthermore, why not plant the WMDs in a hole 3 months ago? If these people are so evil genius to orchestrate or manipulate 9/11, I fail to see why they wouldn't do the same with Iraq.

Because they are cheap, greedy MFers who knew they didn't/ don't have to go the extra mile. After 9/11, they knew they could/still can string people along without having to pick up a finger.

sonicreducer

farfromglorified wrote:

No, it's not. The next time a dinky building in your area is detonated using RDX (the main component of C4), go check it out.

i know what RDX is. it's been around for a long time. but you can't assume that they COULD NOT plant explosives and get away with it. they could have. more than likely, they could not have, but you don't know.


did you know that there were 4 ton girders found 600 feet away from the towers? the pancake theory, the most notable and widely accepted theory, doesn't explain how that could have happened.

beachdweller

pushmepullme wrote:

I got passed a really good essay today, written by a bunch of engineer teachers, all with PHds and what not, on why they can't believe that the towers fell like they did. They made some interesting points:

1. The temperature of the fire in the tower could only have reached 650 degrees, yet steel only melts at 2800 degrees. this is untrue, it was far hotter, but regardless, even at 650 degrees, it would be enough to weaken the steal, you don't need to melt the steal/iron, just weaken it

2. The fuel in the aeroplanes would have burnt out after 10 minutes.untrue, the fumes alone could keep fire going for hours, jet fuel is far more flammable than diesel or gasoline, past plane crashes with less fuel have burned for hours upon hours, fact

3. There have only been 3 incidents, ever, ever, ever of buildings falling straight down, without it have been an implosion. Those three were the 2 towers plus WTC7. WTC7 didn't implode, nor fall exactly like the two towers, recheck the facts

4. WTC7 fell in exactly the same way as the Twin Towers, despite have been neither hit by a plane, or having had any substantial fires. nope

Any comments, other than the 'you're talking shit!' kind?

xxx xxx xxx xxx

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Because they are cheap, greedy MFers who knew they didn't/ don't have to go the extra mile. After 9/11, they knew they could/still can string people along without having to pick up a finger.

Yeah, they sure can:

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

I love it. They'll go the extra mile to slaughter thousands of Americans and then actively cover it up for years, but they won't plant a WMD in Iraq because they're "cheap and lazy".

farfromglorified

sonicreducer wrote:

i know what RDX is. it's been around for a long time. but you can't assume that they COULD NOT plant explosives and get away with it. they could have. more than likely, they could not have, but you don't know.

Ok, I don't know for sure.

did you know that there were 4 ton girders found 600 feet away from the towers? the pancake theory, the most notable and widely accepted theory, doesn't explain how that could have happened.

You don't know that for sure.

WindNoSail

Of all the stupid conspiracies there have been, this one is the ultimate stupid conspiracy theory. I am sorry, but it just makes me really sick with people who have bought into this one....it actually shows your lack of common sense, wisdom, good judgement. And you people can vote!

Both buildings were hit by planes that were hijacked. Do we need to discuss this? Imagine the theories that would fly if there was no video!

Both buildings were on fire with plenty of fuel other than just jet fuel.

Steel melts, weakens, breaks from the impact, whatever. It all creates a structure that is weakened. If a building 110 stories tall was totally on fire for hours and it didn't collapse, that doesn't give good insight to a building hit by an airplane at 400 to 600 mph, tearing internal structure upon impact, much like a bomb. EXPLOSION creates shredded steel all the time. And with tons of jet fuel, and with lots of fire coming later, who knows how hot it really got in there. No way to know in my opinion.

Bin Laden takes credit, Al Queda takes credit.

Arabs around the world celebrated, at least showing motive.

Both buildings collapsed roughly in the area of the impacts, if there were bombs planted by the govt then the hijackers would have to have known where to hit the buildings beforehand, and hit that area. Not easy at those speeds to hit certain floors and I doubt they had time to count from the top down. And the devices would have to be planted where the planes were going to hit, ahead of time with no one noticing.

And on the Pentagon: people think proof is there that no plane hit that building because there are no pics. If there were no pics of the WTC you would be saying the same thing, but there are pics because there were cameras on Tower I which was burning. But if there weren't any video that doesn't mean it wasn't true. And it was dumb luck those photographers from France doing the documentary caught the first plane going in. Absense of video proof means nothing.

You don't need a picture to determine that a hijacked plane (77) hit the Pentagon, and it killed all the passengers, one being the wife of a high offical, Ted Olsen. His wife was on TV regularly as a conservative commentator, Barbara Olsen. Haven't seen her on TV doing commentary since, maybe she is with Elvis. FYI, I have a cousin who's friend was a pilot on that plane. He's gone.

The conspiracy requires unbelievable scenarios to be believed, much more unbelievable than the actual truth.

Bwalker545

Didnt read the whole thread but there are a couple things that I have always wanted to say...
In regards to the "fire not being hot enough" Do you know what a forge is? do you understand the concept of a billow to increase the heat of a fire? Do you understand the winds that take act on buildings of that size? I really shouldnt need to say more...
Second, as has already been said...the implosion of the towers would take MONTHS to plan and plant... and Lots of people, at least 1 of which im sure would have a pretty guilty feeling by now... 2 the towers do not fall "straight" down if you look at the video the first tower falls slightly to the size it was hit on first... the pancake theory does explain the huge girders flying out ...place a pen between your finger tips and squeeze...pen shoots oout doesnt it?...you can spit it out pretty far with some force... now imagine the pen is a measly 4 ton girder...8000lbs... and you are able to squish it between 2 floors with the weight of the WTC coming down... at a little angle even, not "straight" 600feet isnt that far... oh and if it was an "Implosion" why would the girder fly out anyway? Its sad that people have come so far as to think our goverment is capable of this... it would take alot more than just our goverment to pull this off.... come on someone claim its the illuminati or the Mason's at least...

Affroman

T-Bone 82 wrote:

Lets argue for a second that they are sick enough. Do you not believe that one person somewhere in Washington would not catch wind of this and have a little bit of a problem with it? If hell froze over and it was possible that our government orchestrated this gruesome attack, do you really believe they'd be able to keep a lid on it?

Yes, you know why? Because who in their own right mind would want to deface the American government...I mean legitimately deface it. Let's say I'm Joe Schmoe and I work in the Pentagon. I am told by my government that all of 9/11 was done by our own government. I first of all would not and could not generate enough validity for my claim to warrant a mass public backing nor would want to cause a general chaotic nightmare. Everyone's initial reaction to my claim is "that guy is a loonatic".

Furthermore, can you imagine what the American public would do if they found out their government planned something like this? It would be anarchy. Do you think anyone in America, a country that has far surpassed any other country in terms of wealth and economic oppurtunity, would want to destroy what we have? And if there is someone who would want to do that, how valid would outsiders perceive him/her? Let's face it, America is way to stuck up to try to shoot ourselves in the foot.

dkst0426

Affroman wrote:

Yes, you know why? Because who in their own right mind would want to deface the American government...I mean legitimately deface it.

Ask Alex Jones
Or Noam Chomsky
Or Hilary Clinton
Or Janeane Garofalo
Or Michael Moore

And before anyone slams me as being unfairly biased, please note that I am in fact being rather complimentary towards these noted leftists, because based on the quoted post, I am in fact acknowledging that they are "in their own right mind."

WindNoSail

dkst0426 wrote:

Ask Alex Jones
Or Noam Chomsky
Or Hilary Clinton
Or Janeane Garofalo
Or Michael Moore

And before anyone slams me as being unfairly biased, please note that I am in fact being rather complimentary towards these noted leftists, because based on the quoted post, I am in fact acknowledging that they are "in their own right mind."

Well maybe they are the ones behind 9-11. Fits perfectly into their plan I think. Not anymore crazy than Bush doing it, maybe even less crazy since we know Michael Moore made money off the movie. If Bush went to Iraq for oil, then maybe Michael Moore bombed the Towers for movie success!