Originally posted by Phranc: Or watching the actual experts refute ever one of its bullshit claims.
Like the HUNDREDS of professors that are speaking out against the 9/11 Commission Report? What experts.
quote
Originally posted by Phranc: Or maybe I should look for the still alive friend I lost that was on the plane that didn't fly into the Pentagon. The one I spend 9-11 with her family every year. Truthers are idiots. Every one of their retarded notions can be disproved and have been repeatedly.
Ahh emotions. Designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason
quote
Originally posted by AntiKev: I don't give much credence to the "truthers" like you because, well...I saw what happened with my own eyes, granted on television,
So you watched and listened to what the media told you, and that's the reason you think World Trade Center 7 was made out of a deck of playing cards? I see no reason to try here.
IP: Logged
04:56 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
Start with those, read them with an open mind. Try to let go of the smugness that comes with thinking you've uncovered a great big secret. And while you're reading those, think about how many people would have to be in on this. How many would willingly commit murder? How many would keep it a secret? How many experts (not kids on the internet) would have to be kept silent? The very same government that so many like to call inept would have to not only plan and carry this out, but then keep everyone quiet? Clinton couldn't even keep a bj secret, Bush hasn't been able to keep simple wiretapping ops under wraps, but supposedly govt can pull this off?
[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 11-13-2007).]
IP: Logged
05:04 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
It's a F-4 being run into a concrete wall during a test of a reinforced wall designed for a nuclear power plant. Now, an F-4 is smaller than a commercial airliner, but military fighters are built to be pretty sturdy. You'll notice that the plane essentially is pulverized. No big pieces seem to remain, and nothing penetrated through to the other side.
Concrete wall vs. aluminum plane? Hmm, guess which one wins?
IP: Logged
05:10 PM
darkhorizon Member
Posts: 12279 From: Flint Michigan Registered: Jan 2006
Thats just the argument, the damage caused to the pentagon was INSANE, it left a perfectly round hole the 3 stories high, by 3 stories wide on the very inside wall. The damage caused, and the fact that no parts of the plane were left, is amazing, titanium jet engines weighing a few tons is not going to just go away.
IP: Logged
05:16 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
Thats just the argument, the damage caused to the pentagon was INSANE, it left a perfectly round hole the 3 stories high, by 3 stories wide on the very inside wall. The damage caused, and the fact that no parts of the plane were left, is amazing, titanium jet engines weighing a few tons is not going to just go away.
Either you're a fast reader, or you didn't bother to read any of the links I posted. If you are a fast reader (or maybe you've read them sometime in the past), what did you think of the sections devoted to the Pentagon?
If you didn't bother to read them, that tells me you're too wrapped up in your conspiracy ideas to have a rational debate. You have all the answers, and aren't interested in learning why those ideas are based on faulty premises. If that's the case, I won't waste any more time trying to have a conversation with you.
edit: I posted the video to show what happened to a plane when it hit a solid wall. But let's keep in mind, the F4 in the video was much lighter than a 757. That plane did not appear to have fuel, nor did it passengers, crew, and luggage.
Since I don't know what the weight of the plane in the video was, nor do I know what they weight was of the 757 the hit the Pentagon, let's look at some base weights to give us an idea. F4 max takeoff weight: around 60,000 lbs, depending on model. 757-200 max takeoff weight: 255,000 lbs. Force = mass multiplied by velocity, could that have something to do with it?
[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 11-13-2007).]
Originally posted by IEatRice:Like the HUNDREDS of professors that are speaking out against the 9/11 Commission Report? What experts.
Ahh emotions. Designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason
Logic and reason say that truthers are morons. Give me a list of professors that are speaking out against the 9-11 commission report and saying it was an inside job.
On to the experts. What experts you ask. Well there is Popular Mechanics. They did a great job. So did TLC, History Channel, NOVA and slew of others. They used accredited experts in structural engineering and chemistry and other fields. Maybe you should learn some stuff. You know listen to the experts and a bunch idiots.
A program I watched the other night said that even some of the most well-known "truthers" have rethought some of their theories. They made a popular web movie and now they're making a second one leaving some of the stuff out due to their re-examinations. Also, the owner of building seven went on record stating what he meant by saying "pull it." It was not a que to detonate the building. It was a que to terminate or "pull" the fire and rescue operation going on inside the building at the time. He was telling them to get the fire fighters out because extinguishing that fire was hopeless and it was on the verge of collapse. At the time it collapsed, building seven had been burning for over eight hours and was pounded by falling debris from the towers.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario '84 Indy
110+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials 250+ Engineers and Architects 60+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals 160+ Professors Question 9/11 190+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members 100+ Entertainment and Media Professionals
110+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials 250+ Engineers and Architects 60+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals 160+ Professors Question 9/11 190+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members 100+ Entertainment and Media Professionals
# Speech at Sonoma State University 4/20/07: "Another 2006 poll by Scripps Howard, Ohio University, which found that a shocking 16% believe that the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were brought down by explosives. Unfortunately, my research has also concluded that this is true. Tonight I will present to you the very clear evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed not by fire as our government has told us, but by controlled demolition with explosives." ]http://ae911truth.org/aboutus.php
If these building were blown up how did the shadowy group do it? It takes 100s of hours to wire it up. Not to mention the needed safe guards. Where did the y hide the tonnes of explosives? When the planes flew into the building was that part of the plan?
Idiots.
[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 11-13-2007).]
IP: Logged
06:04 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
110+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials 250+ Engineers and Architects 60+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals 160+ Professors Question 9/11 190+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members 100+ Entertainment and Media Professionals
OK, well right off the bat we can eliminate the "190+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members" and "100+ Entertainment and Media Professionals". No offense to any of them, but what are their engineering credentials? I also notice many of the "160+ Professors Question 9/11" folks have degrees in such relevant fields as Economics, Social Psychology, Creative Writing, etc.
"110+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials", again many of those people have/had jobs that are completely irrelevant to the underlying issues. And if you're claiming the govt had something to do with it, why would you trust someone with a govt job? Oh yeah, because they support your position.
As far many of the rest, have you actually read what they had to say? They offer no proof whatsoever, just something along the lines of "I don't buy the official story". Or they point to something that has long since been discredited.
I'd tell you tell enjoy your delusions, but it's really scary that a seemingly large number of people can so easily buy into these theories.
[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 11-13-2007).]
IP: Logged
06:09 PM
PFF
System Bot
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
If these building were blown up how did the shadowy group do it? It takes 100s of hours to wire it up. Not to mention the needed safe guards. Where did the y hide the tonnes of explosives? When the planes flew into the building was that part of the plan?
Idiots.
Not only that, but companies like CDI usually gut the subject building prior to wiring it for demolition. And yeah, it does take a lot of explosives and a lot of wiring. I guess no one working at the Twin Towers noticed these people ripping out drywall, and installing/wiring tons of explosives.
And the amazing thing is, the buildings began collapsing at the exact points the planes hit. That's kind of astounding: flying a plane at hundreds of miles per hour right into a spot where explosives have been planted, and not having those explosives detonate as a result of the impact and fire. Of course, people who believe in the conspiracy are willing to accept pretty much any premise, as long as it fits their agenda.
[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 11-13-2007).]
IP: Logged
06:15 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
The one that makes me laugh is when someone says that our govt. planned and executed the whole 9/11 attacks. How does a govt. that can't even find WMD when they said "that's what we're here to find.", plan an attack like that down to the most minute of details. If the govt. was capable of creating the 9/11 attacks, don't you think they could've come up with some WMD's too? Just a thought. Instead, when they asked about the WMD's, the answer was more of a "Oops. We could've sworn they were here a minute ago." lol But that's a whole other thread anyway and I'm not about to get into that too.
------------------ Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck '87 GT Auto '88 Ferrario '84 Indy
IP: Logged
07:17 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
The one that makes me laugh is when someone says that our govt. planned and executed the whole 9/11 attacks. How does a govt. that can't even find WMD when they said "that's what we're here to find.", plan an attack like that down to the most minute of details. If the govt. was capable of creating the 9/11 attacks, don't you think they could've come up with some WMD's too? Just a thought. Instead, when they asked about the WMD's, the answer was more of a "Oops. We could've sworn they were here a minute ago." lol But that's a whole other thread anyway and I'm not about to get into that too.
Yeah, some people sit and point out all the ways are govt is inept, but in the next breath try to claim that they clould have planned and executed such an intircate plan. Oh, but at the same time leave enough clues for the "truth-ers" to discover. And wouldn't they realize a govt capable of that would go around snuffing out people exposing the "truth", or at the very least, intimidate them to the point where they never spoke about it again?
IP: Logged
07:21 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20708 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
The truth in what happened! And by the way, for you truthers out there, Building No. 7 has already been rebuilt.
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building.[3] The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged from debris, including: damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floor, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[3] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure. The sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system. The sprinkler floor level controls had just a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Loss of power to the fire pump or other damage to the structure would have meant no functioning sprinklers. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[20][21]
After the north tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[22] A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[23][24] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[3] At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[25] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[26] Around 3:30 pm, given that 7 World Trade Center was unstable and would possibly collapse, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[27][25] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the collapse.
In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting. Structural elements were exposed to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of collapse
IP: Logged
08:52 PM
aceman Member
Posts: 4899 From: Brooklyn Center, MN Registered: Feb 2003
110+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials 250+ Engineers and Architects 60+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals 160+ Professors Question 9/11 190+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members 100+ Entertainment and Media Professionals
Hey folks....The following entertainers say it was a government conspiracy:
Ed Asner Matthew Bellamy Mos Def Peter Coyote Rosie O'Donnell
Hmmmmm, I wouldn't let any of these actors explain Math to my 11 year old!!!
The following Government, Military and Law enforcement Officials: General Beg of the Pakhistan Army?????????? Stephen Bekaw from Canada?????????? 3 Custodians at the Library of Congress 2 Cooks at the FBI Headquarters 2 bums that sit outside the Department of Justice
The Professors: Some guy from the Department of Music at the University of the Pacific????????? A Lecturer for Creative Writing? My sister is probably listed in there. She has a PhD in Speech and Communications.
I'm suppose to revere these putzes opinions????????????
Scott Ritter was in the list of military people too, Scott Ritter. Col. Ann Wright listen to that nut case talk some time. Its not surprizing her crazy ass is up there. Gov. Jesse Ventura! Congressman Ron Paul! Congressman Dennis Kucinich! Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney! (remember her? she was the one who was to good for a security check and slapped a cop)
Gen. Hosni Mubarak !!!!!!! OMG !!!!!!!!
I notice the words "former" and "retired pop up a lot.
The more I look at that list The more I laugh.
IP: Logged
09:22 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
That name is enough to discredit the list right there. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who would point to Rosie O'Donnell as being a voice of truth, reason, and logic cannot be taken seriously.
So let me get this straight, a Chinese sub came up under the twin towers? and it was a government cover up.
Tell me, why do you guys call them truthers when they are really just gullible ignorant idiots? I have always enjoyed a "good" conspiracy theory but this twin towers cover up thing isn't even a worth a pull in the dark.
IP: Logged
01:06 AM
DtheC Member
Posts: 3395 From: Newton Iowa, USA Registered: Sep 2005
So let me get this straight, a Chinese sub came up under the twin towers? and it was a government cover up.
This tread got way off topic in a big hurry. I'm having a hard time understanding why? The Chinese sub got real lucky or the anti-sub defense got caught with their pants down?
------------------ Ol' Paint, 88 Base coupe auto. Turning white on top, like owner. Leaks a little, like owner. Doesn't smoke, unlike owner
Originally posted by Red88FF: I have always enjoyed a "good" conspiracy theory but this twin towers cover up thing isn't even a worth a pull in the dark.
The problem is that most of us don't know what to believe. I listen to one side who tells me that the towers were brought down because of the planes and gravity, and then they turn around and tell me that they did it because they hate freedom and womens rights. They're a lot places closer and easier targets than the U.S. if they truly hated freedom.
So I turn to the black helicopter group and they have all this evidence that suggests that the government did indeed know and they're a lot of people that made a lot of money from the towers falling, even if they didn't cause it. But wait, they have all this scientific evidence before them that shows how the towers and WTC 7 was brought down under somewhat controlled demolition, with recorded explosions in the basements and firefighters testimony. But then I get to thinking, surely if the government was behind it they wouldn't have been so dumb and incompetent to leave all these clues.
But as with all tragedies that cannot be explained without a shadow of a doubt, there will always be uncertainty.
And for the record, Rosie doesn't represent me or my views. She's a dying celebrity who is trying to find something else to get her back in the spotlight after the whole "gay marriage" faded. She reminds me of Al Gore.
[This message has been edited by IEatRice (edited 11-14-2007).]
This tread got way off topic in a big hurry. I'm having a hard time understanding why? The Chinese sub got real lucky or the anti-sub defense got caught with their pants down?
And or the press got it all wrong. I thought it was a pretty good topic until the twoothers stepped in.
IP: Logged
01:41 AM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
With the sub business, if (and that's a big "IF") the Chinese got through the escort ring undected, perhaps they were trying to send a message. Their navy doesn't compare to ours, but our conventional warfare strategy for maritime operations revolves around the carriers. Because of that, a large amount of energy and resources are devoted to keeping the carriers safe. Since China can't compete, their best bet would be to instill uncertainty regarding our doctrine. Those modern diesel/electric subs, while they may seem antiquated next to a nuclear attack sub, are really very quiet and do pose a serious threat. Up pops one next to a carrier that is supposed to have nothing approach it without permission--well, that's a pretty strong message.
Another big "IF", but say for the moment China had plans regarding Taiwan. They would want to keep us away, since they wouldn't be able to fight our navy with much success. If I can't win a fight against you, my strategy would be to keep you away from that fight. Perhaps that was what they had in mind. It may not have been a strategic blunder on their part to reveal that capability. You can also accomplish your goals without actually having to engage in battle. What if their goal wasn't/isn't to attack the carrier groups head-on, but rather to generate enough uncertainty that we weren't as quick to commit them to a hot spot? Like I said, that could be farfetched, but it is an angle to consider.
Of course, it's also very likely that our forces tracked the sub, and allowed it to do it's thing. It can be equally valuable to let a potential adversary think they have a capability that they really don't.
IP: Logged
04:22 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
the only reason I entertain the possibility of what the "truthers" is because of the search & seizure laws that were ready and on deck. tho, I do expect them are default anyways, just waiting for the day.....
other than that - no way can I see such coordination working out. you have at min 4 groups of 5 guys who dont speak english coordinated with cloack & dagger internal spy's, demolition squads, explosives being snuck in & set at key *visible* center points in a populated building unnoticed. even after the fact - it cannot even begin to assemble an entire working plan which would do everything what was done.
IP: Logged
10:17 AM
AntiKev Member
Posts: 2333 From: Windsor, Ontario, Canada Registered: May 2004
Originally posted by darkhorizon: steels melting point is 2800 degrees, no doubts there, even if it is horrid steel (it had fire resistant coating on it, along with being attached to the largest heat sink in new york) your 2000 degree point is still not at all obtainable. I dont think my Chinese wood stove is melting into a pile any time soon, that has to have the worst steel you could imagine in it. Also you have to remember you have to sustain this heat for a time, and you have a very large heat sink effect with a building of this size. Focusing significant heat in a perfectly uniform manner when the building was only hit on one side is impossible. The official report says that the steel "sagged" 46 inches in the center across a 12 foot span.
Check your units and mine. 2800 degrees means nothing, 2800 degrees F means something, note I posted in C and K. Learn to read. In any case, 1500 C is only about 1300K, I can tell you for a fact that at a mixture ratio of 1.3 (mass of oxidizer to mass of fuel) that heavy hydrocarbons (i.e. Jet Fuel) burn in the neighbourhood of 2000K which is about 2253 C. Guess what...that's about 700 degrees celcius higher than the melting point of steel. A quick top of the head calculation means that the losses would have to be about 25% assuming an ideal system, and not counting all of the other combustible material around. As you increase the amount of oxidizer (air) then your temperature actually increases, and can get as hot as 3000K. More than enough to melt steel.
quote
The FEMA report states that they could not heat steel to more than 400 degrees F while reproducing the situation found in that building.
FEMA couldn't heat their a$$es if I lit a bonfire under them. Obviously they missed something. Not surprising.
quote
It is a confirmed fact that if you were standing at the very top of the building (not on the antenna), and jumped just after the antenne fell (the outside of the building still hasn't moved even though the antennae dropped ~75ft), you would reach the ground at the same time the antenna would. The majority of the structural integrity of building 1+2, was the core of the building, that was hardly damaged at all by the planes, and could never of saw direct heat, and would easily resist the "accordion effect" that the government claims happened by steel sagging and pulling the outside of the building inward.
Okay, the main structure of the buildings was in the core. That's a known fact. But do you know what that means? Of course not. You're just repeating talking points. Your assertion that the core of the building could never have seen direct heat is based on a false premise. You've never seen a building fire. I've talked to fire investigators about the subject, these are people who's job it is to determine how fires start and how they spread...it's their business. I will tell you right now that those fires spread very quickly into the centre of the building. Once structural integrity was lost it was just a matter of time. Note that the buildings collapsed HOURS after the planes hit them. Think about this...a fire, burning at 2000K (above the melting point of steel) for 3 or 4 hours. How much heat transfer is going on, even if the transfer efficiency is only 50% (which is low), we're talking about enormous amounts of heat being transferred to this steel. Only a small portion has to soften, not even melt, to allow the building to collapse.
In my old puter I had a story saved about the new wave of Soviet made subs they were selling to the Arabs that were made out of very thick reinforced concrete. Having no propulsion they would simply be towed to a point and submerge were it would sit on the bottom for extended periods of time. These sub bunkers could withstand extreme pressure and therefore be placed in very deep waters. Being made of concrete they blend into the ocean floor and are virtually undetectable.They would just sit down there until a ship or fleet would pass over or near enough to them and unload.
110+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials 250+ Engineers and Architects 60+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals 160+ Professors Question 9/11 190+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members 100+ Entertainment and Media Professionals
Aside from the absurdity of some of the people on that list, it's a complete fabrication. They've taken bits and pieces of interviews, grabbed the parts that work in their favor and made it look like those people are endorsing some dumb conspiracy theory. (not that some of those people aren't that goofy, but not all...) Ron Paul for example *never* suggested it was conspiracy. Here's what he REALLY was talking about: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html
Originally posted by DtheC: This tread got way off topic in a big hurry. I'm having a hard time understanding why? The Chinese sub got real lucky or the anti-sub defense got caught with their pants down?
I'm not sure what 9/11 conspiracy has to do with Chinese subs, either.
I think the main reason this sub could do what it did was due more to laxity in our Navy than any sudden technological superiority on the part of the Chinese. After the fall of the Soviet Union, I think the Navy stopped paying as much attention to anti-sub operations as they had during the Cold War just because the USSR was the only country which we needed to worry about.
Problem is, with the USSR gone, someone is going to fill the gap.
A smart captain who knows the capabilities of his ship, with an experienced crew, and a lot of patience, can do a lot even with a diesel sub. And supposing that sub wasn't carrying any torpedoes, just a 10-megaton thermonuclear warhead? PFOOM, and the US Navy has just lost an entire carrier battle group. To someone who knows he is outgunned, trading a sub for a nuclear aircraft carrier might seem like a pretty good deal, particularly if there isn't another carrier handy.
Let's say China wants to take Taiwan. They use a "kamikaze" (I know, wrong language and culture, but stick with me here) sub to blow up whatever carrier is in that part of the world. The US then has to scramble a carrier to that neck of the woods ASAP, but while they're fast, they don't fly; it'll take days at least, more probably weeks--and it would make it that much easier for China to take Taiwan. Maybe not EASY per se but easiER, without an American aircraft carrier in the way.
That said, though...it doesn't make sense that China would make it so plain to the US that it can do this. It's either a message or a blunder.
If it's a message, they're saying, "We can do this and we don't think you can stop us. Consider that."
If it's a blunder, that captain is going to have his ass handed to him when he gets home.
It's sort of funny. I'm glad we aren't at war with them. The human element in the American technology machine needs to be seriously reconsidered. If a goddamn Toyota Hybrid submarine can surface next to the Kitty Hawk then we should be spending far more on military technology and far less on combat readiness...
Instead, when they asked about the WMD's, the answer was more of a "Oops. We could've sworn they were here a minute ago." lol But that's a whole other thread anyway and I'm not about to get into that too. 
They're a lot places closer and easier targets than the U.S. if they truly hated freedom.
