See other 9/11 Articles
Title: An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11
Source:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6013
URL Source: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6013
Published: Feb 10, 2007
Author: Sue Reid
Post Date: 2007-02-10 08:45:52 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 19498
Comments: 205
An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 Sue Reid – The Daily Mail February 10, 2007 The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock. Four American airliners are hijacked by Osama Bin Laden's terrorists in an attack on the heart of the Western world on September 11, 2001. Two are deliberately flown into New York's famous Twin Towers, which collapse. A third rams into the United States defence headquarters at the Pentagon, in Washington D.C. The last goes down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and some of the passengers onboard, whose bravery was recently portrayed in a Hollywood film, United 93. Nearly 3,000 ordinary, decent Americans die in the attacks, provoking the U.S. President George W. Bush to mount a global war on terror, which leads to the invasion of Iraq, with Britain in tow. Or that's how the official story goes. Yet today, more than five years on, this accepted version of what happened on 9/11 is being challenged by a 90-minute internet movie made for £1,500 on a cheap laptop by three young American men. The film is so popular that up to 100 million viewers have watched what is being dubbed the first internet blockbuster. The movie was shown on television to 50 million people in 12 countries on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 last autumn. More than 100,000 DVDs have been sold and another 50,000 have been given away. In Britain, 491,000 people have clicked on to Google Video to watch it on their computers. Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11. A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack. The video claims the Bush administration was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the terrorist attacks to take place. It also makes the startling claim that the U.S. government might have been directly responsible for 9/11 and is now orchestrating a cover-up. Unsurprisingly, the film's allegations have been denied, even roundly condemned, by White House sources and U.S. intelligence services. Only this week, the letters page of the Guardian newspaper was full of discourse about Loose Change, which was made by a trio of twentysomethings, including a failed film school student and a disillusioned ex-soldier. Indeed, the movie's assertions are being explored by a number of commentators in America and Britain - including the former Labour Cabinet Minister Michael Meacher - who are questioning the official account of 9/11. Mr Meacher, who last year proposed holding a screening of Loose Change at the House of Commons (he later changed his mind), has said of 9/11: "Never in modern history has an event of such cataclysmic significance been shrouded in such mystery. Some of the key facts remain unexplained on any plausible basis." These words were written in a foreword for Professor David Ray Griffin's bestselling book, The New Pearl Harbour (a pointed reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II). Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the U.S. Together, the book and the movie have raised the question: could the attack be a carbon copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan by President Kennedy to stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro? In other words, on a fateful September morning in 2001, did America fabricate an outrage against civilians to fool the world and provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Iraq? This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on both sides of the Atlantic. Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did? An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent. Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the attacks could have been an inside job. It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a 'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television accounts. It was then that he changed his mind. And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to a suspected terrorist attack. Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America. Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked. Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes. But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late. And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept it. Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon. So what of the fall of the Twin Towers? The official version is that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes. It is a mantra that has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the American intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and Britain. But, according to the allegations of Loose Change (which are endorsed by Professor Griffin), the science does not stand up. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, but open fires of jet fuel - such as those in the Twin Towers inferno - cannot rise above 1,700 degrees. Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change are convinced the Twin Towers were deliberately blown up. The film shows clip after clip of the towers coming down in one fell swoop to loud and distinct booms. Were they the sound of detonators being set off? And the Pentagon attack? The hotly disputed theory of the film and Professor Griffin is that a passenger plane never hit the building at all. The terrorist pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so slow to learn the fundamentals at flight school that his tutors reported him to the authorities for his incompetence five times. How could he have guided the huge aircraft in such a complex manoeuvre into the building? And if he did, what happened to the aircraft? The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene. "But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?" Intriguingly, the narrator adds: "The only visible damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole no more than 16ft in diameter. But a Boeing 757 is 155ft long, 44ft high, has a 124ft wingspan and weighs almost 100 tons. "Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage from the wings or the vertical stabiliser or the engines which would have slammed into the building? "Remember how big the engines were," the film adds persuasively. "If six tons of steel and titanium banged into the Pentagon at 530mph, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints. And yet the only damage to the outer wall is this single hole." And what of the Boeing's 40ft high tail? "Did it obligingly duck before entering the building?" asks Professor Griffin. So if a commercial aircraft did not hit the building, what did? The wildest of all the theories in Professor Griffin's writings - echoed in Loose Change - is that the Pentagon was attacked by a military missile of some kind. Certainly, several onlookers quoted in the film claim that they saw a tiny aircraft piercing the defence HQ. Another witness says it made a shrill noise, quite unlike a giant passenger plane. So if it wasn't hijacked and flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon, what happened to Flight 77, last heard of on its way to Ohio? No one knows. But one thing is sure, asserts Professor Griffin. Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice- President, and Condoleezza Rice, at the time President Bush's national security adviser, were in the White House bunker as the drama unfolded. They, and their advisers, knew a hijacked aircraft was heading towards Washington. The obvious target was the White House, not the Pentagon. Yet Cheney and Rice were never evacuated from the White House. Did someone in high places already know that they were safe and that it was the Pentagon that was going to be the target? Of course, no account of 9/11 by the conspiracy lobby is complete without a minute-by-minute observation of President Bush's behaviour. He was hundreds of miles away in Florida, about to read a book to primary school children when the worst terrorist attack of the modern age happened. The President reportedly showed little reaction when an aide told him that the first plane had crashed into the Twin Towers. Why not? He, apparently, told the school's principal: "A commercial plane has hit the World Trade Centre, but we're going ahead with the reading thing anyway." Then President Bush, who is also the commander-in-chief of the American military, settled down to recite My Pet Goat to a group of seven-year-olds. He was interrupted a few minutes later by a whispered message in his ear from an aide that a second aircraft had hit the Twin Towers. The President's face, captured by photographers at the school, remained completely passive. He showed no sign of emotion. Now it must have been obvious a terrorist maelstrom was being unleashed on his country. But three days later, back in the American capital, he was a different man. By now he was certain that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda henchmen were to blame. Surrounded by the Christian evangelist preacher Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi and an imam, the President delivered a sermon in America's national cathedral in Washington. The words he uttered are recounted by both Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change. President Bush announced: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks waged against us by stealth, deceit and murder and rid the world of evil." The scene had been swiftly set for the West's war on terror. www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=435265&in_page_id=1811 Watch Loose Change here. Printer friendly version Email this article to a friend Last updated 10/02/2007 Homepage
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-165) not displayed.
.
.
.
#166. To: Diana, honway, ALL (#154)
Ping to post #162, Diana. honway is misrepresenting the facts.
BAC is a poofta; not too much one can expect of him.
Is anyone else having trouble reading this thread? I just signed in and it took a long time, and then when this thread came on the text is out of the boundries, and you have to scroll far to be able to read it, which makes it difficult to read. Since I am not a computer expert I don't know what is causing this, if it's only happening to me or if it's 4um's system. Thanks.
Does this thread look right to you or do you have to scroll like crazy in order to read it?
I never said that, I don't know about that. I can't read most of your post because this thread is not working right on my end, even taking long for my posts to go through. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.
It's okay on my machine.
Now you are going to give us a lesson in plasticity? Well tell us, oh *expert*, is there a difference in the stress at which steel yields in compression versus tension? I have an idea. Why don't you tell us all about dynamic load factors. Tell us what the impact of strain rate is on ultimate limit of steel. Tell us all about buckling and its affect during compression. We are dying to hear your words of wisdom, since you apparently consider yourself more "competent" than the thousands and thousands and thousands of professionals with actual education and experience in structural engineering, demolition, steel, fire, seismology and macro-world physics who seem comfortable with the notion that impact and fire brought down the towers. I don't intend to answer your question. I'm content to rely on the expertise of the tens of thousands of professionals around the world who have designed and built the world we live in and all its marvels. Unlike you, I'm not claiming expertise. I have made no personal attack. I've simply noted that you claimed expertise about steel but didn't seem to realize that steel has the same modulus of elasticity and yield strength in compression and tension. Curious... So *book learning* is for *incompetents*? In the case of a steel column, you are wrong. Here is a challenge for you. Take a pair of identical steel rods (say 1/2 an inch in diameter and a foot long) into your local university lab. Do a tensile test on one ... till it snaps. Plot the force/deflection curve and the deflection at which it fails. Now do a compression test on your second rod. Plot the force/deflection curve and note the deflection at which the experiment goes boom. Then come back and tell us your results. But the resistance of the next floor is no greater than the previous floor's resistance. And now an even greater mass has fallen the same distance as the previous mass fell to impact the first floor. Thus, there has to be even more kinetic energy in the aggregate mass than there was in the first impact. And that's without even adding in the residual velocity (energy) from the first impact. So you are simply wrong, innieway. Once the first floor collapsed, if the upper portion of the building wasn't completely stopped by the resistance of the next intact floor, nothing on earth was going to stop the collapse before it reached the ground. You don't know what you are talking about. Which is why you can't find ANY structural engineers who agree with you.
What is the OT? I'm really curious about this.
About the only "truth" I can discover in the 'official' account of 9-11, was that two 767s hit the WTC towers. That doesn't smack of "conspiracy?" Waddaya want, Slurpy? Then your kind pushes everything short of outright lies, all day long. ("It's not a 'dog;' it's an ANIMAL!") Trust the War Criminal, Bush? His associates? That's the stuff of fools and co- conspirators, such as yourself, BAC.
I'm not having any trouble, Diana. On my computer the test is still wrapping within the normal window. Have you tried restarting your computer?
Diana, the problem was caused by BeAChooser posting a picture too big for most people's resolution. I am using 1280X1024 and I have the problem you are talking about. The long time logging in though is a completely different matter and probably has something to do with the ISP that Freedom4um is using. Others have been having similar problems.
God is always good! Your "complexity cloudwork" isn't having much of an effect, BeOcho. "If you can't blind 'em with brilliance - baffle 'em with bullshit." You're at least good in the attempt - but this isn't your 'condidtioned' elPee crowd. A simple stopwatch attests to the only possible truth - controlled demolition; you can't change that with the absolute sum of your limp-wristed rationalizations. I hear the Iranian invasion is getting close - is that the discussion/information that you're trying to dissuade, with the best remnants of your bullshit?? Goldi still loves you, BAC. (But you know that better than anyone.) "Go home, BeOcho!"
i'm not having the scroll side to side issue. what browser are you using? i'm on IE. do you have firefox? try it and see if it's the same. the load time is due to a new server and some other issues Neil is checking on. it's been an intermittent problem.
I have a 1440 x 900 display and am having no trouble, Ricky. Would you care to point out the post you say is causing the problem? Because when I post large photos, I add the statement width=731 before the final >. And I previewed each of my posts before making them and they looked fine in the default window for my browser (no adjustment of width). And apparently, others aren't having problems either. So are you sure, your and Diana's problem is my fault?
It's in Isaiah in the Old Testament somewhere in chapter 8. I think it means don't worry about the bad deeds of men and their conspriacies and such just put your faith in God, at least that's what I get out of it. I went to other threads and they are not having the problem of this one where you have to scroll 3 feet to read it.
I have IE too, but it only does it on this thread and not on any others. It's still doing it, but since it's only this thread it's no big deal. So it's happening to RickyJ too, I figured I wouldn't be the only one. I remember this happened some time ago on another thread and I think Neil said it had to do with the browser we were using, but christine if you are using IE too then who knows.
The long time logging in though is a completely different matter and probably has something to do with the ISP that Freedom4um is using. Others have been having similar problems. That could be it! Thanks for the explanation.
I am using Firefox and have the problem. I tried IE to see if that was it, and I still have the problem. Here is what my screen looks like on IE: I also have the scrolling problem that Diana was talking about on Firefox, but not that line going down the page like on IE. The problem appears to be a huge image that BeAChooser has posted that was suppose to be a link, but wasn't and actually was the picture posted here.
God is always good! Hey, you are not perfect, no one is. I don't blame you for this. Yes, I do believe in this case that it is your fault though. It was post number 165.
God is always good! Those were blast hardened windows. So why would you expect them to break when nothing hit them but blast? Or is this just another thing you didn't know? What do you mean "nothing hit them but blast"? The 'label' clearly states "left wing impact area". You're the one that posted the pic. So if the left wing actually hit that area (which is slightly above the windows), then where did the engine on that wing impact? OR did that engine just fall off before impact? You posted a picture with labels to support your (and the official) story, and then changed what is claimed by the label on the picture. Could that be because you realize that if the left wing had actually hit the building (as per the claim of the label) the engine would have at a minimum taken out a window???
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
It's likely a problem associated with the photos. It's possible your browser is rendering it wide in spite of attempts to keep photos narrow. It would have nothing to do with the forum's ISP. Maybe you have your browser's settings set some special way to make everything look bigger. Something like that.
You can verify the comment that causes the problem by making a special change to the URL. In the following link, "SC" stands for "Start Comment" and "EC" stands for "End Comment". If you think it's comment #165, you can change them both to 165 and it will show the article with only that comment displayed. If you have the problem, it's either the article or that comment causing it. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45537&SC=165&EC=165#C165
On both FireFox 2.0.0.1 and IE 6 it is rendering it in full resolution.
God is always good! My apologies to Ricky, Diana and anyone else affected. This text http://www.911myths.com/Flight_11_Seat_Cushion_Large.jpg was part of my post 165 submittal. I didn't put it inside HTML that would make it an image. I had the auto hyperlink function checked and it simply showed up as the text above in red during preview mode and also on the thread after I posted it (at least whenever I viewed the thread on my computer). No image appeared when I looked at the thread. The text margins of the post and thread looked fine in both cases, wrapping where they were supposed to wrap. But, I just loaded the URL directly into my browser to see what it was and got a very large picture, as Ricky said. Then, when I went back to look at the thread, the image showed up and the margins of all text in the thread were messed up just like Ricky's and Diana's. So apparently because I did not have the image in cache(?) previously, I was not getting the picture during preview or on the thread. Normally, I add a width=731 command in front of the final > of the image HTML when posting a jpg that I know to be a large one. I guess from now on I will have to be very careful about the auto hyperlink function. Sorry. In the meantime, Neil or Christine, could you perhaps add a width=731 command before the final > in the image HTML in post 165 so that this thread's formatting returns to normal for everyone? Thanks in advance. PS. Curiously, even after I restarted my computer and cleared the cache in my browser (at least that's what the button says it does), the picture is still visible in the thread and the text margins are messed up. So apparently, this is stored somewhere else than the browsers cache. Perhaps Neil knows?
The problem is not in the formatting, but in allowing this tard to post ad nauseum lengthy posts whose purpose is to obfuscate rather than add to the relevance of the topic. It disrupts the discussion and makes the thread virtually unreadable, especially to the lurkers who don't sign in.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Here's the photo again ... First, it clearly looks to me like the right most window is shattered. In the next two, it is difficult to tell because of the smoke, although the bottom pane of the second window clearly looks intact. Hard to tell about the top pane. Well if you look at the dimensions of that wing shaped hole to the left of that window, you realize that the engine went into the building through that hole. This proves it: I didn't add the labels. I"m stuck with whatever was on the linked photo. But clearly something big made a big winged shaped hole in the structure. And broke at least one window. And damaged the outer facade beyond that wing shaped hole. You tell us. What made that hole and damaged the outer facade? A missile. What missile in any inventory in any country in the world could do that? No, you only prove you don't know location of the engine on Flight 77 (the outer extent of it is less than 25 feet from the fuselage. You only prove you don't grasp the width of the hole in the structure to the left of the main impact hole. It's clearly more than 25 feet wide.
One suggestion for dealing with the picture messing up the thread problem until Neil or Christine can add that width=731 command is to use the Bottom/Last button to view the thread. At least then we can continue the discussion, if you'd like.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
I thought I should, as it was CP from the link you posted concerning properties of steel in tensile strength vs compression strength. Like I said, just because someone is labeled "professional" doesn't necessarily equate into "competence". Doctors are "professionals", yet iatrogenic 'disease' (doctors and prescription meds) are the third leading cause of death in America. I'd say that doesn't bode too well for the argument that these "professionals" are competent. See: http://www.systemsdc.com/potiatrogenic.htm All I've done is relate my personal real world experiences. I always heard experience is the best teacher. If you choose to be content with the "expertise" of "professionals", then have at it - you certainly have the right to do so. Personally, I have chosen to rely upon what I've learned through experience when it contradicts with the "expertise" of "professionals". There are many manufacturers of farm equipment. These manufacturers have engineers that design the equipment taking into consideration the various stresses involved in it's intended application. These engineers would be considered experts in their field. Yet, I have equipment brought in to my shop all the time that failed. Through years of repairing this equipment, I have learned what works best in terms of modifications which improve on the reliability of that implement. I have tried reinforcing through means which would rely upon using the tension (or pulling) property of metal, as well as reinforcement which relies upon the compression property of metal. And experience has taught me that MUCH greater success is obtained by using the compression properties. I don't care what "the book says", or "in theory", or "on paper" - and neither do my clients. They want their equipment fixed, and want it to last. I am able to do that because of my experience in that field. That is why I asked your "field of expertise". If you have no real world experience concerning the topic, then basically all you have is an opinion. And your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes. Your refusal to address the stand down of NORAD also speaks volumes. (A) I seriously doubt if the local university lab would have the necessary equipment to perform the above mentioned tensile test. No, it's YOU who is wrong - and this statement proves your lack of experience in the topic. The fact is that the next floor WILL provide greater resistance than the previous floor. This is because the further up the structure you go the lighter the materials used. ANY resistance will weaken the inertia of the movement, and as it continues downward it is meeting with ever greater resistance due to the increasingly heavier materials used. Also in this event, the further down the building you go from the impact zone, the less the likelihood of structural integrity compromise. In any case, if the "pancaking" theory were possible, it would be impossible to happen at near freefall pace.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
i'm getting a kick out of you. :P
mmmhmmmm...especially when one such claimed "expert" makes the statement that fire turns steel into wet noodles. :P
Yeah... I wouldn't want to be eating spaghetti at his house. I already have enough iron in my diet.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
I did restart my computer to see if that helped but it didn't, but now it is working fine, thanks for figuring out the problem.
Yes, but what are the odds that all of them (thousands) are wrong and only you (and a sub-atomic particle physicist, an expert in dental structures, a couple philosophers and theologians, an economist, and the like) are right? So do you do your own doctoring, too? If you choose to do your own doctoring, be my guest. I am curious, however, since you have no faith in the competence of thousands of professionals in the structural engineering arena whether you dare enter any building, structure or vehicle designed by them. Or do you just have everything delivered to your house and never go out? Such as your belief that steel structural members are stronger in compression than tension? ROTFLOL! Well if your university can't handle a 1/2" rod, try a 1/4". Although I have to warn you, the compression test may give even lower results. Like what? What factor in the real world is going to make a steel column stronger in compression than it is in tension. I am eager to hear this. ROTFLOL! But we are talking not about going down multiple floors at once ... just one floor at a time. And if you think the thickness of structural members varies FLOOR BY FLOOR in skyscrapers, making each floor have a different resistance, it is probably YOU who proves your lack of experience. The designers will step the increase so that groups of floors will have one thicknes, if for no other reason than the cost of fabrication and the cost of keeping everything sorted during construction. And in any case, the resistance wasn't going up any faster than the gravity loads. And the gravity loads go up with the mass. So each additional floor of mass added to the impacting load counterbalanced any possible gain in resistance. Meanwhile, you blithely ignore the residual velocity from the previous impact, which will increase during the next impact because it's unlikely that the resistance just happened to increase much above that of the last floor. Sorry, you simply don't understand the mechanics of an impact like this. Which is why not one structural engineer anywhere in the world seems to agree with you. It didn't happen at "near freefall" pace. In fact, had it been a near freefall pace, a tower more than twice as high could have collapsed. Here's a GREAT report on the failure of WTC towers. You should read it. http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf
Oh it never really bothered me anyway. I was just curious why everyone wasn't seeing the apporx. 1700X1100 picture that me and Diana were seeing. Very strange indeed. My browser settings are default for both.
God is always good! Father Torque tried foisting that "pancake" theory on us over on TOS3 a while back. It didn't fly then, and it still doesn't fly.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
See him play his part in 911Mysteries "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Okay, BAC, if the floors collapsed as you'd have us believe; what took out the central 47 steel columns in both buildings - add the steel structure in WTC-7? Your shit still stinks, Slurpy!
No, that's not the case with me Neil.
God is always good! So your so called experts are the ultimate authority on everything, eh? Your so called experts designed the towers to withstand the impact of a 707 and did not take into account the fuel and resulting fires, even though the entire world has known since the beginning of aviation that fires accompany crashes, and millions if not billions have been spent trying to increase survivability of crashes by decreasing the resulting fires? They don't sound very smart or particularly "expert" to me. No, scratch that, they sound like liars to me. No "expert" would design a building to withstand aircraft impact and NOT plan for the fires. Your experts are liars, just like you.
honway - Kevin Ryan lost his job at Underwriters Laboratories for questioning the government's conspiracy theory.
honway - Dr. Stephen Jones lost his job at BYU for questioning the government's theory.
honway - The military tried to put Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer in prison for his decision to speak up concerning Able Danger.
Well, we used to have freedom of speech in this country, but look what happens to those who try to excercise it when it comes to 9-11.
#167. To: Kamala, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#157)
#168. To: BeAChooser, christine, Neil McIver (#165)
#169. To: SKYDRIFTER (#167)
#170. To: BeAChooser (#165)
But why the need to insist on bombs in the towers and no Flight 77?
#171. To: Diana (#169)
#172. To: innieway, ALL (#156)
However, with enough applied force, steel and other metals will cease to behave elastically and begin to behave plastically. ... snip ... In real life, of course, there is no such thing as a perfectly elastic or plastic material. In the case of steel, structural engineers are concerned about the tensile strength in terms of both the ultimate strength and the yield strength. When a specimen reaches its yield strength, it will begin to stretch and transition from elastic to plastic behavior. As more force is applied, the steel will reach its ultimate tensile strength and break. Structural engineers take advantage of this property in their designs. In an extreme event, such as an earthquake or major structural failure, this plastic phase is useful because it allows the structure to sag and absorb extra loads.
You still haven't answered the question
At this point in the debate a personal attack just makes you look like a dumbass grasping at straws.
The only responses I've given so far is what I've learned through experience, NOT what I've been told by others.
EVERYTHING is stronger in compression than in tension - even air.
OH, and yes, even though there is added mass in the pancake collapse theory with each new floor adding it's mass to the aggregate, the resistance force of the next floor would slow it down.
#173. To: Diana, ALL (#159)
A friend told me that in the OT it says it's a sin to talk of conspiracies.
#174. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#165)
"Tell me Diana ... why is it so important that everything about 9/11 be a conspiracy?
#175. To: Diana (#168)
I just signed in and it took a long time, and then when this thread came on the text is out of the boundries, and you have to scroll far to be able to read it, which makes it difficult to read.
#176. To: Diana (#168)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#177. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#172)
#178. To: Diana, Neil McIver (#168)
#179. To: RickyJ, Diana, ALL (#176)
Diana, the problem was caused by BeAChooser posting a picture too big for most people's resolution. I am using 1280X1024 and I have the problem you are talking about.
#180. To: BeAChooser, christine, All (#173)
What is the OT?
#181. To: christine, RickyJ, Neil McIver, BeAChooser (#178)
what browser are you using? i'm on IE.
#182. To: RickyJ (#176)
I am using 1280X1024 and I have the problem you are talking about.
#183. To: christine (#178)
(Edited)
i'm not having the scroll side to side issue. what browser are you using? i'm on IE. do you have firefox? try it and see if it's the same. the load time is due to a new server and some other issues Neil is checking on. it's been an intermittent problem.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#184. To: BeAChooser (#179)
(Edited)
So are you sure, your and Diana's problem is my fault?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#185. To: BeAChooser (#164)
I see a label on it that supposedly shows the "left wing impact area". And this marked area has 4 Pentagon windows still intact...
#186. To: christine, RickyJ, BeAChooser (#181)
#187. To: RickyJ, *4um Admin News* (#184)
It was post number 165.
#188. To: Neil McIver (#186)
It's likely a problem associated with the photos. It's possible your browser is rendering it wide in spite of attempts to keep photos narrow.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#189. To: RickyJ, Diana, Neil McIver, Christine, all (#188)
It was post number 165.
The problem appears to be a huge image that BeAChooser has posted that was suppose to be a link, but wasn't and actually was the picture posted here.
#190. To: RickyJ, Diana, Neil McIver, Christine, all (#189)
#191. To: innieway, ALL (#185)
What do you mean "nothing hit them but blast"? The 'label' clearly states "left wing impact area".
So if the left wing actually hit that area (which is slightly above the windows), then where did the engine on that wing impact?
You posted a picture with labels to support your (and the official) story, and then changed what is claimed by the label on the picture.
if the left wing had actually hit the building (as per the claim of the label) the engine would have at a minimum taken out a window???
#192. To: RickyJ, Diana, ALL (#188)
#193. To: All (#190)
#194. To: BeAChooser (#172)
(Edited)
Now you are going to give us a lesson in plasticity?
We are dying to hear your words of wisdom, since you apparently consider yourself more "competent" than the thousands and thousands and thousands of professionals with actual education and experience...
In the case of a steel column, you are wrong. Here is a challenge for you. Take a pair of identical steel rods (say 1/2 an inch in diameter and a foot long) into your local university lab. Do a tensile test on one ... till it snaps. Plot the force/deflection curve and the deflection at which it fails. Now do a compression test on your second rod. Plot the force/deflection curve and note the deflection at which the experiment goes boom. Then come back and tell us your results.
(B) Just because a lab test gives certain results doesn't mean that those results will also hold true "in the real world". Many other factors come into play. But the resistance of the next floor is no greater than the previous floor's resistance.
#195. To: angle (#193)
#196. To: innieway (#194)
All I've done is relate my personal real world experiences. I always heard experience is the best teacher. If you choose to be content with the "expertise" of "professionals", then have at it - you certainly have the right to do so. Personally, I have chosen to rely upon what I've learned through experience when it contradicts with the "expertise" of "professionals".
#197. To: christine (#196)
especially when one such claimed "expert" makes the statement that fire turns steel into wet noodles.
#198. To: BeAChooser, Ricky J (#189)
Curiously, even after I restarted my computer and cleared the cache in my browser (at least that's what the button says it does), the picture is still visible in the thread and the text margins are messed up.
#199. To: innieway, ALL (#194)
"We are dying to hear your words of wisdom, since you apparently consider yourself more "competent" than the thousands and thousands and thousands of professionals with actual education and experience..."
Like I said, just because someone is labeled "professional" doesn't necessarily equate into "competence".
Doctors are "professionals", yet iatrogenic 'disease' (doctors and prescription meds) are the third leading cause of death in America.
If you choose to be content with the "expertise" of "professionals", then have at it - you certainly have the right to do so.
Personally, I have chosen to rely upon what I've learned through experience when it contradicts with the "expertise" of "professionals".
"In the case of a steel column, you are wrong. Here is a challenge for you. Take a pair of identical steel rods (say 1/2 an inch in diameter and a foot long) into your local university lab. Do a tensile test on one ... till it snaps. Plot the force/deflection curve and the deflection at which it fails. Now do a compression test on your second rod. Plot the force/deflection curve and note the deflection at which the experiment goes boom. Then come back and tell us your results."
(A) I seriously doubt if the local university lab would have the necessary equipment to perform the above mentioned tensile test.
(B) Just because a lab test gives certain results doesn't mean that those results will also hold true "in the real world". Many other factors come into play.
"But the resistance of the next floor is no greater than the previous floor's resistance."
No, it's YOU who is wrong - and this statement proves your lack of experience in the topic. The fact is that the next floor WILL provide greater resistance than the previous floor. This is because the further up the structure you go the lighter the materials used.
ANY resistance will weaken the inertia of the movement, and as it continues downward it is meeting with ever greater resistance due to the increasingly heavier materials used.
In any case, if the "pancaking" theory were possible, it would be impossible to happen at near freefall pace.
#200. To: BeAChooser, Neil McIver (#192)
One suggestion for dealing with the picture messing up the thread problem until Neil or Christine can add that width=731 command is to use the Bottom/Last button to view the thread. At least then we can continue the discussion, if you'd like.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#201. To: innieway (#194)
In any case, if the "pancaking" theory were possible, it would be impossible to happen at near freefall pace.
#202. To: christine, innieway (#196)
What about this guy...he seems to have this all figured out just a few minutes after the towers collape. He smooth, unruffled and saying all the right things...
#203. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#199)
#204. To: Neil McIver (#186)
Maybe you have your browser's settings set some special way to make everything look bigger. Something like that.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#205. To: BeAChooser (#172)
We are dying to hear your words of wisdom, since you apparently consider yourself more "competent" than the thousands and thousands and thousands of professionals with actual education and experience in structural engineering, demolition, steel, fire, seismology and macro-world physics who seem comfortable with the notion that impact and fire brought down the towers.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest