This makes the torture thing seem petty.

From politics to poetry, if it isn't covered in one of the other forums and you want to share it with us, put it here.

This makes the torture thing seem petty.

Postby The Gunslinger » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:34 am

Watch this video in it's entirety. It's amazingly strong evidence to suggest 9/11 wasn't just about Islamic extremists attacking us. Has anyone else ever seen anything about this topic?

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150&hl=enhttp://necrodustdevils.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Flavius Infernus
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:51 am

Re: This makes the torture thing seem petty.

Postby -Papa Gino » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:49 am

1. There were actually two Nova specials on this. The first one did the "bifurcated" theory (one building collapsed because the outside columns melted and gave way; the other, because the screws on the trusses supporting the floors melted and the thing pancaked). The second special basically updated that to say "both fell because the outside columns gave way", if memory serves. WT7 was never discussed in the first one, barely touched upon in the second one.

2. With respect to the controlled demolitions theory - what these guys never answer is - why bother? Why go through the whole thing of faking planes going into buildings when you can just set up a simple terrorist bomb, not unlike 1993? [I mean, you have to dispose of the real planes and passengers, fake aircraft crashes, immediately put out fake news wire stories - I saw the first one within 30 seconds of the explosion, though it was only a headline, fake the news and amateur videos (why doesn't anyone show the building exploding "by itself"?), etc. Very messy and complicated.]

And if planes did go into the buildings (pretty much the only way you get the big irregular hole in the support columns of one of the towers - very hard to do with deliberate demo work), why bother then bombing them? And how do you set up the bomb just underneath the holes? The execution risk alone (i.e. chance of screwing up) such a complex sequence of events is extraordinary.

So I wouldn't call it totally implausible, but it's quite bizarre they would choose this option out of all the available ones for "faking" a dramatic terrorist act.

3. The thing that is being obfuscated - almost certainly so - is all the pre-911 work. There is some evidence that the government knew something was up and shut down the investigations. There is certain evidence that other governments told it more or less what was about to go down, and those reports were ignored. There are meaningful inconsistencies in the hijacker stories (e.g. the car with their passports and a Boeing instruction manual in Arabic - implausible to the point of being ridiculous, and withdrawn from the general news-stream within a very short period of time). How they kept getting past all the Immigration and FBI checks is another thing to focus on. Etc. Things that don't necessarily scream "the CIA did it", but which cast the story in somewhat of a new light vis-a-vis the official version. At the least there was some degree of negligence, just how much we don't know - we haven't been told, deliberately so. At worst, I have read of foreign intelligence agency analysts positing that these guys had some active help (the more "fringe" guys assert that Bin Laden never really left the CIA payroll). Regardless, the 911 Commission was too carefully chosen to even bother examining any of these issues, and now the thing is dead and buried. Guys running their mouths off about controlled demolitions - even if their right - only help bury it further, in my opinion.
-Papa Gino
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:51 pm

Re: This makes the torture thing seem petty.

Postby -The Fabulous Orcboy » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:44 am

Bah.

That video has been around for a while, and the "conspiracy nuts" for even longer.

Popular Mechanics did a complete debunking of nearly all these myths back in Mar 2005. It's still one of the most complete, easily available debunkings available.

All that video is, is wild speculation, and careful editing. The whack-jobs who put it out also have an axe to grind. This is literally the same level of delusional conspiracy-mongering as the folks who think the US government faked the Apollo moon landings in a movie studio in Hollywood.

BTW, here's the EASIEST way to prove that these guys are absolutely, 100% full of it.

I'll let Maddox explain, because he has a real way with words :)
-The Fabulous Orcboy
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:18 am

Re: This makes the torture thing seem petty.

Postby The Gunslinger » Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:41 am

@ Gene...
Quote:
2. With respect to the controlled demolitions theory - what these guys never answer is - why bother? Why go through the whole thing of faking planes going into buildings when you can just set up a simple terrorist bomb, not unlike 1993? [I mean, you have to dispose of the real planes and passengers, fake aircraft crashes, immediately put out fake news wire stories - I saw the first one within 30 seconds of the explosion, though it was only a headline, fake the news and amateur videos (why doesn't anyone show the building exploding "by itself"?), etc. Very messy and complicated.]

And if planes did go into the buildings (pretty much the only way you get the big irregular hole in the support columns of one of the towers - very hard to do with deliberate demo work), why bother then bombing them? And how do you set up the bomb just underneath the holes? The execution risk alone (i.e. chance of screwing up) such a complex sequence of events is extraordinary.

To answer some of that, apparently the 1993 bombings didn't get enough sentiment to get us into war vs terrorism. Any why bomb them? So they will fall & get more sentiment to get us into war. Do I believe this? I dunno know. I'm still digesting it all.

@ Ken & everyone else... how do you explain WTC7 going down as fast as if it was demolished on purpose? Did you catch (early in the video) that it contained super-important offices, especially documents regarding some sort of controversial investigations. What about the fact that there's never been buildings that have totally collapsed due to fire, and the examples of the ones they gave that did NOT collapse?

I could've view the 2nd link you gave Ken cuz my job blocked it as "tasteless" but looking at part of the the link: 911_morons, I'm getting a wiff of mostly name calling and little backup counter-evidence. I'll still keep an open mind before I check it out at home. I'm going to look at the Popular Mechanics link now
:2guns:
User avatar
The Gunslinger
 
Posts: 3505
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:48 pm

Re: This makes the torture thing seem petty.

Postby Bauhaus » Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:13 pm

In my former life I was an architect. As I was watching the towers burn from across the river in Jersey City, I was immediately struck by the extent of the fire burning multiple floors extensively (not just small fires that one thinks of originating with electrical or similar point sources.) After about an hour I turned to a person standing next to me and commented that the buildings weren't going to last much longer. The fire retardant insulation was going to "burn off" exposing the structural steel. Shortly thereafter, the first tower fell.

The way these buildings are built is to surround structural steel with a fire retardant. If memory serves, it's usually only about 3 hours worth of protection. (In your home it's only an hour or so worth of gypsum or other material.) 1/2" of gypsum is going to protect the structure for an hour. Most steel beams have a coating of retardant applied to the steel. Part of the theory was that some of this material was knocked off when the plane struck the building (mostly on the inside core.)

The WTC buildings were structurally designed like a donut with structural members around the inside core and on the outside (most of the outside of the building, including the glass, is just decorative and typically just hung from the structure.)

From the footage I saw of glass imploding and from most of the studies it was determined that the inside structural core took enough damage to compromise the buildings integrity. As the core collapsed the floors fell together, and just like clapping your hands together, air had to escape to the outside, blowing out the windows and making the sound that many people heard (including me a mile away across the Hudson.)

The similarity between how the building collapsed and how the building would have been brought down in a controlled explosion has more to do with the way the building was designed than anything else. It collapsed the way it did because that was the way it was built. Any steel building would have had a similar problem with the fire. Concrete and brick buildings would have reacted differently, but the extent of the fire, its heat, and the damage done to the fire retardants would have been pretty predictable.
Blood for the Blood God!
User avatar
Bauhaus
 
Posts: 2826
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:30 am

Re: This makes the torture thing seem petty.

Postby savaughn » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:13 am

Quote:
@ Ken & everyone else... how do you explain WTC7 going down as fast as if it was demolished on purpose? Did you catch (early in the video) that it contained super-important offices, especially documents regarding some sort of controversial investigations. What about the fact that there's never been buildings that have totally collapsed due to fire, and the examples of the ones they gave that did NOT collapse?


A) Gravity. If a building collapses sufficiently to gain momentum, they all fall at the same speed. If the top part of a building gains any kind of momentum, it brings the bottom down without resistance.

B) You're quoting the (disastrous) FEMA report that suggested there has never been a fire-proof building that collapsed due to fire. Not quite an accurate statement but then the FEMA analysis of WTC7 is disastrous. For example, they grossly underestimated the amount of debris that hit that building. After the collapse of the first two buildings the entire eastern wall of WTC7 was buckled and waiting to pull the rest of the building down. Add to that uncontrolled fires on 3 of the bottom 7 floors for what... seven and a half hours?

C) Buildings such as One Meridian Plaza and Torre Este de Parque Central are not really valid comparisons in this case. While these structures did sustain long uncontrolled fires, they did not first have a building dropped on them. WTC7 had a complete structural failure of the eastern portion of the building before the fires started and enough debris rained on it to rip 10 story openings in the outside walls (internal damage from debris is mostly unknown but there is video footage of the extensive external damage).

For the the twin towers, the NIST report data is extremely thorough, accurate, and conclusive. WTC7 is a much more complex issue, however, and I believe they are still working on that report. Personally, I'm comfortable just waiting for the data.
savaughn
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 12:30 pm

Re: This makes the torture thing seem petty.

Postby -Papa Gino » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:53 am

1. Lou - 1993 was a different time (a), a different administration (b) and a different setup. They exploded the bomb in the garage, causing not much more than a lot of smoke and a 3-hour+ evacuation.

Kinda different from bringing the whole thing down with thousands of casualties, wouldn't you say?

2. With respect to the fire impact - buttressing what Dave has posited, remember that his was 200+ tons of jet fuel per aircraft as the igniter and tons upon tons of paper as fuel, with lots of wind (read: oxygen) around. This is the perfect scenario for an extremely high-temperature fire (in fact, the worst scenario as these things go). Plus the impact had already weakened the external support columns and shorn off a whole mess of insulation internally. That the steel would buckle was basically a matter of time once it started.

3. Re: WT7 - well, gee wiz, when something falls down from a great height it hits something with...wait for it...Momentum is still Mass times Velocity, right? And the gravitational acceleration is still fairly constant on this planet?

So yes, I'm comfortable waiting for the engineering report, but given the amount of debris and potentially burning fuel that rained down that day, I'm not at all surprised the thing came down. It's actually more surprising that buildings like the WFC "glass" gallery and the hotel across the street were still standing in the end.
-Papa Gino
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:51 pm

Re: This makes the torture thing seem petty.

Postby mattbird » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:12 pm

Idunno man, South Park has me pretty convinced it was Kyle
jer732 wrote:Birdoff makes me want to rage quit life
mattbird
 
Posts: 5595
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:25 pm

Next

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron