user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Whether you believe in a conspiracy theory or not, it is the nature of conspiracies to conceal themselves. This makes proofs difficult and even impossible to produce. It's a bit like a unicorn: Some things have to be believed to be seen.
margaret123- so it is a matter of faith?
I personally cannot believe anything until I experience. Empiricism is that which I follow.
No, but neither do I have any proof that is *wasn't*.
I'm a conspiracy agnostic.
There is no physical evidence that confirms a conspiracy. No demolition chord, not blasting caps, no explosive shock tubes, no video evidence showing the deafening cracking sounds and bright flashes preceding any of the collapses, no pictures, or pieces of missiles hitting the pentagon. They simply rely on non-experts, misquoted witnesses or simply witnesses who are describing other things (explosions, are more often than not, nothing to do with bombs). They also show a complete lack of understanding when it comes to analysing and balancing sources and their reliability.
Until they show some hard physical evidence, I'll stick with the official version - because that has physical evidence, and it is the more logical explanation.
no video by wolf_nipple_chips on Mon Oct 02, 06 3:37am
Rubbish and outright lying again. There's plenty of video evidence showing the same thing as the hundreds of witnesses reported. In slow motion the long lines of explosions blowing out entire floors, floor by floor, before the faling debris could reach those floors, is easily seen. This is backed by the seismic data with the TOO SHORT times for the tremors.
{ I'll stick with the official version - because that has physical evidence
by wolf_nipple_chips on Mon Oct 02, 06 3:37am}
Like that indestructible passport? No that isn't credible either.
What about the Pentagon, supposedly hit by a passenger jet, but never any photos or videos from all those CCTVs showing this "invisible plane"? There should be some sign of a 150ft wingspan with big jet engines on them smashing into those walls; the width of damaged area is TOO SMALL, just like the turbine parts are TOO SMALL.
What about the WTC steel? gee, most of it was sent away and recycled ASAP. Not much evidence there. More like coverup and DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE.
For logic, funny you can ignore the logical conclusion that when something is IMPOSSIBLE, and somebody tells you that it happened despite this IMPOSSIBILITY, and that this same someone has been already proven a habitual liar, that you can think they're not lying yet again! The Bush Administration is such a habitual liar, and they keep promoting certain IMPOSSIBLE EVENTS as having happened; a logical, rational person would long ago have stopped believing them. I've yet to see ANYONE show that those cellphone calls were possible with any scientific study to PROVE IT. I've also yet to see ANYONE provide a mathematical or computer simulation of the destruction of WTC 1, 2, & 7 which actually showed that gravity driven collapses were possible while sticking to the empirical data.
Ignoring every single piece of evidence that is contrary to your claims without so much as a cursory investigation is not the basis for a valid theory is it?
So far conspiracy theorists have produced nothing resembling any kind of evidence to back up any of their claims.
They refute or ignore the forensic investigations and DNA identification of passengers, the physical wreckage found at the sites (especially shanksville and the pentagon), flight recorder evidence, eyewitness testimony that doesn't agree with them, any models or computer simulations of the attacks.
Instead we are faced with a barrage of outright lies, misrepresentations, distortions, speculation, guesswork, anomaly hunting, logical fallacies, cherry-picked photographic evidence, nonsensical and nonscientific methods of video footage analysis and an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Be very clear, folks. There will never EVER be any evidence they will accept. Be prepared to deal with this madness 40 years from now just as we have to make do with people who mistakenly believe that Kennedy was shot by more than just Oswald.
Lovelynice, when did I say "no video". How can I be lying when I didn't even say that?
Re: Passport - It's irrelevant. Only CT's bring that up.
Re: Boeing 757, they have a 124 ft wingspan, and the damage relects that. And 90ft wide hole and limestone damage to the facade beyond that.
Re: WTC Steel, was searched thoroughly. 19,000 pieces of body were found, how many shock tubes, blasting caps or lenghs of detonation chord were found? Or are 2,000 NYPD, NYFD, FBI and FEMA workers in on it as well?
RE: The WTC explosions - were simply the building collapsing, or pressurised air bieng forced out through maintenance floors.
I still haven't had an answer to my latest ballot lovelynice.
Lovelynice- "What about the Pentagon, supposedly hit by a passenger jet, but never any photos or videos from all those CCTVs showing this "invisible plane"? There should be some sign of a 150ft wingspan with big jet engines on them smashing into those walls; the width of damaged area is TOO SMALL, just like the turbine parts are TOO SMALL."
- I have never seen a source concerning the hole or making it out to be the wrong size. As for not showing the footage? It is clear that the authorities have not wanted to release the footage. But, if it were a conspiracy, I do believe that they would have the technology to fake a video. If it is a conspiracy, why have they not faked a video, as they could very easily do? Not that it matters- there was clear footage of the planes in New York City, and you still reject this as evidence. So if there was footage of Washington DC and the plane, I'm sure you would reject it anyway, as you ahve so quickly dismissed the New York case.
"What about the WTC steel? gee, most of it was sent away and recycled ASAP. Not much evidence there. More like coverup and DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE."
- They did investigate trhough teh wreckage for a long time. How long did you want them to keep it sitting there? It was logical to eventually remove it. Not that it matters, no matter who or how many investigated it, would you be claiming that they were all supposedly in on it?
"Bush Administration is such a habitual liar, and they keep promoting certain IMPOSSIBLE EVENTS as having happened; a logical, rational person would long ago have stopped believing them."
- No, I don't think that is solid evidence. To claim that Bush has lied in the past, does not prove that he lies all the time about everything. That is a weak argument.
"I've yet to see ANYONE show that those cellphone calls were possible with any scientific study to PROVE IT"
- What cellphone calls? Be specific and outline what is supposedly impossible about cell phone calls.
"Like that indestructible passport"
- The building collapsed, it is not that the whole thing blew up. For that reason, people were pulled out alive. It is not surprising if an object, such as passport survived as well. Do you know the identity of the person that owned this so-called passport?
"I've also yet to see ANYONE provide a mathematical or computer simulation of the destruction of WTC 1, 2, & 7 which actually showed that gravity driven collapses were possible while sticking to the empirical data."
- I have. I saw a documentary that dealt exclusively with the architecture of the buildings and why they collapsed the way that they did. They interviewed engineers, the architect, designers and phycisists about the architecture of the building, its infrastructure, its weakspots, its internal frame, the way the the floors were held up, what material was in between each floor- and thus how the parts melted as they did, how the collapse of one floor led to the collapse of the floors beneath, and then beneath that, and so on and so on. Its simple physics, and I have seen it happen to other buildings around the world. For example, the collapse of a shopping center in South Korea seemed to collapse in a similar way (although that was an accident), in which a weakness in the UPPER floors can cause it to collapse on the lower floors, causing them to collapse on the floors below them, and so on and so on. The manner in which the towers collapsed the way that they did have been explained to me. Or were the documentary makers, the architects, engineers, designers, building safety experts, and the phycisists all in on the conspiracy as well? That is a stretch and very hard to believe, it seems unlikey to me.
"There's plenty of video evidence showing the same thing as the hundreds of witnesses reported. In slow motion the long lines of explosions blowing out entire floors, floor by floor, before the faling debris could reach those floors, is easily seen. This is backed by the seismic data with the TOO SHORT times for the tremors."
- I ahve not seen such evidence. BUt of course the fact that the extra weight of airplanes added to the building is an important factor. The buildings were not physically designed to hold that much extra weight. I'm srue it would have caused the foundations below it to buckle at some point under the pressure. This follows simple physics, doesn't it?
Voted : No, not any solid evidence, but I have questions
I've given up caring.. because I've completely lost faith in People :p It doesn't matter anymore if my questions are ever answered.
But the big thing I still wonder is WTF hit the Pentagon? I know about the explosion I felt that morning and I know I've never seen anyone who saw a plane.. I know we're all supposed to Accept that a passenger jet dissentegrated into that hole.
Just another question I don't expect will ever be aswered.. best to let it go..
by Jyl on Mon Oct 02, 06 7:03am
[+]
{ I have. I saw a documentary that dealt
by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 6:33am}
1- You're storytelling unless you can show a link, name, quote, source, or anything else to back what you say.
2- Despite what you, I have checked into this very thoroughly and NO SUCH MATHEMATICAL FORMULA, nor any computer simulation has yet been able to simulate those collapses and prove that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse.
Now please hurry and back your bullshit.
{ I ahve not seen such evidence.
by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 6:33am}
WHY ?
It's been mentioned often enough. For what reason are you maintaining a deliberate pretense of ignorance? I thought you were an intelligent person who would look into such things when they'd been mentioned so often. Videos of such evidence are freely available and easily found for download.
{What cellphone calls? calls.by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 6:33am}
Yet it seems again you pretend ignorance. Without any credibility.
Lovelynice- I saw the documentary years ago. I believe it was on the History Channel.
The separate documentary I saw recently on the completely separate issue of a building collapse in South Korea, in which the floors fell on one another, as well. This shows that this sort of collapse has happened elsewhere too. The Korean building collapse (shopping center), I saw from a documentary on National Geographic.
{claim that Bush has lied in the past, does not prove that he lies by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 6:33am}
You do read what you write don't you? Are you trying to pretend now that a proven habitual liar, and I don't just mean G W Bush as you well know I was refering to the Bush Administration, are you trying to be pretend that they are honest? They lie so often, about so many things, why should anyone trust them about ANYTHING?
Of course, you also try to pretend is that the rest of my comment about what they lied about didn't exist as part of the same comment. In that I was asking why should I believe, or anyone else believe, a proven LIAR, especially when that LIAR is lying about something which is known as FACT to be IMPOSSIBLE? Of course, only a FOOL would believe such a source of low credibility, especially so when the claimed event(s) is IMPOSSIBLE.
{I saw the documentary years ago. ...
The separate documentary I saw recently ...
by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 8:20am}
You're STILL storytelling. When you finish telling your stories which mean absolutely nothing, prove nothing, and are no more than nothing, perhaps you'll get around to citing sources, quotes,. and links.
HURRY UP.
{the extra weight of airplanes added to the building by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 6:33am}
Are you on drugs? You must be!
Let's see if I get this clear; you have the peculiar idea that around a couple of hundred thousand tons of steel-framed skyscraper designed to support six times it's own weight, designed to cope with hurricane force winds, designed to survive earthquakes of least Richter 7.0, and designed and built to cope with MULTIPLE PLANE IMPACTS from 707s (which are close to the same weight and speed as 757/767s) was going to be bothered by the tiny extra 115 tons of passenger plane's weight.
Is that right? To me, it sounds as if you just dropped around 80 IQ points in credibility.
Got any evidence yet, Lovelynice?
Any parts of planes, missiles, explosives etc that back up your claims?
The steel was quickly sent away to be recycled
Going to China and India
china . o rg. c n / english / 2002 / Jan / 25776 . h t m
Limited examination of very little of the steel
By the time of Corley's testimony, nearly all of the steel had been recycled. His ASCE volunteers had saved a mere 156 pieces of steel, most of them small "coupons" cut from larger pieces.
911 research . wtc 7. net / wtc / official / nist / index . h t m l
{They did investigate trhough teh wreckage for a long time. by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 6:33am}
One of these days please show me a link to the scientific and forensic analysis of the hundreds of thousand tons of steel that was sent away to be recycled so rapidly that the investigators were shocked and horrified. The steel beams were quickly recycled before investigators even had the chance to look at them. The investigators weren't even permitted to see the most important evidence of all - the steel! Many of the most respected engineers in the USA complained not only about the recycling, but also about the Federal government's suffocating control of their investigation. On December 25, 2001, the New York Times ran a story about the frustrations of some of the engineers who were called in to study the cause of the collapse: "Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with BUREACRATIC RESTRICTIONS THAT PREVENTED THEM FROM INTERVIEWING WITNESSES, EXAMINING THE DISASTER SITE, AND REQUESTING CRUCIAL INFORMATION like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments."
Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York City’s history. Manning wrote "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center."
'In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.' -- NY Times
"I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling" -- Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer; fire protection engineering department, University of Maryland and WTC collapse probe member quoted in NY Times (December 25, 2001)
Got any evidence, widehead?
Until you idiots can cite a link, source, and quote from SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, whose mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the EMPIRICAL DATA (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) PROVES that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse, YOU HAVE NOTHING!
You have also not yet been able to cite any scientific study that proves that those cellphone calls were possible.
No have you answered these questions;
WTC1
AA Flt 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST
Both times are real and accurate
QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event?
(It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40)
Logically, because your beloved NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way you win is you MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)).
or cite anything to back the 9/11 "Arabs did it with boxcutters" silliness with an answer to this one;
EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.
Can any of you silly shills cite a single exception to this?
With a photo, video, or anything else.
and by the way, a four storey toy factory does not count as a steel-framed hi-rise building. Neither do two-storey wood & brick townhouses. Nor do buildings that are only partially finished, that made only of cheap steel jacks with concrete plates but no steel crossbeams. Also, neither do all-concrete apartment buildings. I've seen a lot of excuses, but I've yet to see any of the USA government shills actually cite a real steel-framed hi-rise.
{. best to let it go..
by Jyl on Mon Oct 02, 06 7:03am}
How gutless. No, NEVER. If the American revolutionaries thought that way, the USA would still be a british colony.
{Any parts of planes,
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Oct 02, 06 8:48am}
I'm wondering when you are going to show the fuselage and plane parts in that 20ft wide hole in Pennsylvania, that a huge passenger jet (wings and all) is alleged to have flown into...
Lovelynice, they found over 19,000 human remains, 50,000 personal belongings. The steel is irrelevant, why didn't these people find traces of explosives, shock tubes, caps, detonation cable - anything remotely to do with explosives? Because it didn't exist.
I still haven't had an answer to my latest ballot lovelynice.
also by the way, widehead, I have NEVER said anything about missiles hitting the Pentagon? But then you also have NEVER proven with a video that a huge passenger jet hit the Pentagon. I'm waiting like everyone to see this evidence.
"You're STILL storytelling. When you finish telling your stories which mean absolutely nothing, prove nothing, and are no more than nothing, perhaps you'll get around to citing sources, quotes,. and links."
- I don't have the details of the documentary. I wish you could see it though. I'm sure you would have been able to offer a good critique of it. But, yes, I have no details of the source in question.
"claim that Bush has lied in the past, does not prove that he lies by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 6:33am}
You do read what you write don't you?"
- My full quote was that just because someone has lied in the past, it doesn't mean that they lie about everything.
"Let's see if I get this clear; you have the peculiar idea that around a couple of hundred thousand tons of steel-framed skyscraper designed to support six times it's own weight, designed to cope with hurricane force winds, designed to survive earthquakes of least Richter 7.0, and designed and built to cope with MULTIPLE PLANE IMPACTS from 707s (which are close to the same weight and speed as 757/767s) was going to be bothered by the tiny extra 115 tons of passenger plane's weight."
- I was merely thinking out loud, and was not making grand declarations. As for the idea that it supposedly could withstand that many plane crashes, I didn't know that. Do you have a source on that. I mean six times its own weight? So hypothetically, you are telling me it could hold up how much?
"Limited examination of very little of the steel
By the time of Corley's testimony, nearly all of the steel had been recycled. His ASCE volunteers had saved a mere 156 pieces of steel, most of them small "coupons" cut from larger pieces.
911 research"
- Exactly how long was it before all materials were removed? Removed 'quickly' is ambiguous. As for the government taking complete control of studying the collapse- isn't that expected in a time of national emergencies?
"Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York City’s history."
- Because, it is indeed different to anything in NYC history. It is a breech to national security- and that is an issue in which governments monopolise control over the situation.
The manner in which the towers collapsed? Let me throw out some empty words, hot air and rhetoric:
A plane crashes into the side of it. There is a huge hole and destruction in a middle section of the tower as a consequence. There is fire as well. The fire melts the supports and frameworks that hold the levels above up. It takes a while for it to melt and for the pressure to collapse it. It does. This causes the floor to crash on the floor below it. This causes the floor below it crash on the structure below that, and so on and so on. Or is this theory impossible?
Voted : No, not any solid evidence, but I have questions
In reference to the metal being hauled off. A large truck load of it stopped in the town that my parents live in on the way to Houston. Curiosity seekers gathered around to look and touch. Any one of them could have taken a sample of the dust and smaller bits laying on the bed of the trailer, as did a few for souvenirs. Knowing how secretive the govenrment can be, one has to ask why those trucks were even allowed to stop if they were hauling material that contained explosive residue (evidence). Especially since the possibility of someone taking a small piece and having it indepentantly examined for explosive residue would be not be impossible.
How could a passport survive the collapse? The same way drivers licenses, ID cards, and various papers and documents survived. In a collapse of that magnitude, a smaller object has a greater chance of surviving than something larger like a desk or or kitchen stove.
Speaking of kitchen stoves (like the ones in the resturant on the top floor of the north tower)... At least one of those towers had natual gas lines running through it. Ruptured lines tend to explode...
They're not arguments to prove or disprove, they're just arguments that I've very seldome (if ever) seen brought up.
Voted : No, not any solid evidence, but I have questions
Silverstein made sure there was no proof. Don't worry. He'll still get his temple built by 2012.
{ hot air and rhetori
by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 9:32am}
None of those excuses work, please provide the following;
Cite a link, source, and quote from SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, whose mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the EMPIRICAL DATA (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) PROVES that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse, because without that kind of scientific evidence YOU HAVE NOTHING!
{"Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York City’s history."
- Because, it is indeed different to anything in NYC history. It is a breech to national security- and that is an issue in which governments monopolise control over the situation.
by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 9:19am}
WHY are you trying to cut out and ignore the rest of what Bill Manning stated?
Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York City’s history. Manning wrote "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center."
{"Limited examination of very little of the steel
By the time of Corley's testimony, nearly all of the steel had been recycled. His ASCE volunteers had saved a mere 156 pieces of steel, most of them small "coupons" cut from larger pieces.
911 research"
- Exactly how long was it before all materials were removed by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 9:19am}
Obviously so damn fast that his team only was able to get hold of 156 cutoffs. I don't believe that's anywhere near enough for a thorough investigation, and neither did any of the other investigators. They all complained this speed of destruction of evidence.
On December 25, 2001, the New York Times ran a story about the frustrations of some of the engineers who were called in to study the cause of the collapse: "Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with BUREACRATIC RESTRICTIONS THAT PREVENTED THEM FROM INTERVIEWING WITNESSES, EXAMINING THE DISASTER SITE, AND REQUESTING CRUCIAL INFORMATION like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments."
Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York City’s history. Manning wrote "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center."
'In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.' -- NY Times
"I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling" -- Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer; fire protection engineering department, University of Maryland and WTC collapse probe member quoted in NY Times (December 25, 2001)
Socrates is apparently trying desperately to pretend that none of this proves that there was a rapid destruction of evidence. Poor man.
Lovelynice, they found over 19,000 human remains, 50,000 personal belongings. The steel is irrelevant, why didn't these people find traces of explosives, shock tubes, caps, detonation cable - anything remotely to do with explosives? Because it didn't exist.
{I was merely thinking out loud
by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 9:19am}
Oh how you try to wriggle and dodge the utterly revealing stupidity of your own excuses.
Let's remind everyone how DUMB you sound;
({the extra weight of airplanes added to the building by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 6:33am}
Are you on drugs? You must be!
Let's see if I get this clear; you have the peculiar idea that around a couple of hundred thousand tons of steel-framed skyscraper designed to support six times it's own weight, designed to cope with hurricane force winds, designed to survive earthquakes of least Richter 7.0, and designed and built to cope with MULTIPLE PLANE IMPACTS from 707s (which are close to the same weight and speed as 757/767s) was going to be bothered by the tiny extra 115 tons of passenger plane's weight.
Is that right? To me, it sounds as if you just dropped around 80 IQ points in credibility.
by Lovelynice on Mon Oct 02, 06 8:38am}
Face facts, you sounded like a total moron, socrates.
^Jesus, are you capable of having a civilised converstation?
{ The steel is irrelevant
by wolf_nipple_chips on Mon Oct 02, 06 10:09am}
Not according to the investigators it wasn't. Look at this expression of how "irrelevant" they thought the steel was - NOT "irrelevant" AT ALL!
On December 25, 2001, the New York Times ran a story about the frustrations of some of the engineers who were called in to study the cause of the collapse: "Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with BUREACRATIC RESTRICTIONS THAT PREVENTED THEM FROM INTERVIEWING WITNESSES, EXAMINING THE DISASTER SITE, AND REQUESTING CRUCIAL INFORMATION like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments."
Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York City’s history. Manning wrote "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center."
'In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.' -- NY Times
"I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling" -- Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer; fire protection engineering department, University of Maryland and WTC collapse probe member quoted in NY Times (December 25, 2001)
Socrates is apparently trying desperately to pret
{Jesus, are you capable of having a civilised converstation?
by wolf_nipple_chips on Mon Oct 02, 06 10:13am}
What's wrong, Mr Wolf? Socrates said a REALLY STUPID THING, and I was just pointing it out.
({I was merely thinking out loud
by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 9:19am}
Oh how you try to wriggle and dodge the utterly revealing stupidity of your own excuses.
Let's remind everyone how DUMB you sound;
({the extra weight of airplanes added to the building by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 6:33am}
Are you on drugs? You must be!
Let's see if I get this clear; you have the peculiar idea that around a couple of hundred thousand tons of steel-framed skyscraper designed to support six times it's own weight, designed to cope with hurricane force winds, designed to survive earthquakes of least Richter 7.0, and designed and built to cope with MULTIPLE PLANE IMPACTS from 707s (which are close to the same weight and speed as 757/767s) was going to be bothered by the tiny extra 115 tons of passenger plane's weight.
Is that right? To me, it sounds as if you just dropped around 80 IQ points in credibility.
by Lovelynice on Mon Oct 02, 06 8:38am}
Face facts, you sounded like a total moron, socrates.
by Lovelynice on Mon Oct 02, 06 10:10am)
I really do believe his silly excuses were DUMB.
{Because it didn't exist.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Mon Oct 02, 06 10:09am}
Well, until you can prove that those collapses were gravity-driven, then the only LOGICAL and SCIENTIFICALLY RATIONAL conclusion is that those were controlled demolitions.
and we know that the firemen found BOMBS in at least one of the buildings;
Video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC 7
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
youtube . com / watch ? v = W53 wdu 8IGlE&NR
Until you silly lot can cite a link, source, and quote from SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, whose mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the EMPIRICAL DATA (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) PROVES that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse, then your claim that they were gravity-driven collapses is just BLIND FAITH. Maybe you should just admit that you have no logic backing your side of the debate, register your religion, and move on, and stop trying to convert the rest of us.
Lovelynice- "Let's see if I get this clear; you have the peculiar idea that around a couple of hundred thousand tons of steel-framed skyscraper designed to support six times it's own weight, designed to cope with hurricane force winds, designed to survive earthquakes of least Richter 7.0, and designed and built to cope with MULTIPLE PLANE IMPACTS from 707s (which are close to the same weight and speed as 757/767s) was going to be bothered by the tiny extra 115 tons of passenger plane's weight."
- I would like a source on that data. Or are you estimating? And even if that was the intention of the design that doesn't mean that it was successful. And I was claiming that the plane caused the infrastructure of a few floors to buckle under pressure. And that those floors fell on top of the floor beneath, and so on and so on. But anyway :), I was only considering the idea because in the other documentary I saw- the mere weight of air-conditioners caused an entire shopping mall to collapse downward in South Korea. that building collpased in a similar way as the 9/11 buildings. It collapsed downward, so that the floors were collapsing on one another. In the case of that shopping mall, it was weakness on the upper levels combined with too much weight that caused THAT to collapse in a manner so that the whole structure fell downward.
"{I was merely thinking out loud
by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 9:19am}
Oh how you try to wriggle and dodge the utterly revealing stupidity of your own excuses.
Let's remind everyone how DUMB you sound;
({the extra weight of airplanes added to the building by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 6:33am}
Are you on drugs? You must be!
Let's see if I get this clear; you have the peculiar idea that around a couple of hundred thousand tons of steel-framed skyscraper designed to support six times it's own weight, designed to cope with hurricane force winds, designed to survive earthquakes of least Richter 7.0, and designed and built to cope with MULTIPLE PLANE IMPACTS from 707s (which are close to the same weight and speed as 757/767s) was going to be bothered by the tiny extra 115 tons of passenger plane's weight.
Is that right? To me, it sounds as if you just dropped around 80 IQ points in credibility.
by Lovelynice on Mon Oct 02, 06 8:38am}
Face facts, you sounded like a total moron, socrates."
- Just in case it hasn't been put up enough ;)
lovelynice- "Well, until you can prove that those collapses were gravity-driven, then the only LOGICAL and SCIENTIFICALLY RATIONAL conclusion is that those were controlled demolitions."
- I don't have the details on that documentary from the History Channel, so yeah, it doesn't really count. I was looking on google for the calculations and I couldn't find any. Only conspiracy theorist stuff. :)
"But then you also have NEVER proven with a video that a huge passenger jet hit the Pentagon"
So how did the passenger remains get there?
How did the parts of a jetliner get there?
Your dismissal of the passenger remains alone is cause for concern.
{I don't have the details on that documentary ...
by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 10:37am}
Then WHY mention it? I have no evidence from you that it even exists. Strange that you can't name it. Maybe you just made it up.
{So how did the passenger remains get there..
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Oct 02, 06 4:50pm}
Is there REAL, INDEPENDENT, SOLID EVIDENCE that those bodies are anything other than those of workers at the Pentagon? Please cite a CREDIBLE INDEPENDENT SOURCE, because any agency of the Bush Administration is NOT a truly credible source. Even the FBI doesn't have much credibility anymore.
(FBI let innocents get death sentences
smh . com . au / articles / 2003 / 11 / 21 / 10690 27333534 . h t m l
The FBI used murderers as informants in Boston for three decades, even allowing innocent men to be sentenced to death to protect the secret operation, a government report has found.
The FBI's policy "must be considered one of the greatest failures in the history of federal law enforcement" and had "disastrous consequences", the report by the House Committee on Government Reform said.
More than 20 people were murdered by FBI informants in Boston from 1965, often with the help of FBI agents, it said.
But no FBI agent or official has ever been disciplined, the report said.)
{ How did the parts of a jetliner ...
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Oct 02, 06 4:50pm}
You mean those plane parts which show no scorch marks, no burn marks, no melting, and look just dirty and old like plane parts from any old scrapyard?
How many are there? Looked to me that there's such a small quantity that somebody could just drop them off from the back of a utility vehicle or maybe a small truck.
Now, if you could just PROVE that a huge passenger jet hit the Pentagon by showing us the videos of a huge plane hitting the Pentagon from any of those 85 CCTVs, then we "might" believe you. Without such solid evidence, why should we believe the Bush Administration? I see no reason to. It's obvious that they lie all the time about everything else.
{I would like a source on that data. by Socrates on Mon Oct 02, 06 10:33am}
Fine, no problem. Not even slightly, because unlike YOU, I don't just say stuff without having anything to support what I say.
Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers of the WTC were OVER-ENGINEERED to take far more than required. This is STANDARD. You should check into what the designers said about it.
911research . wtc 7 . net / wtc / analysis / design . h t m l
Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
This is what he said, "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF JETLINERS because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center;
(February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Plane Hitting It In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center, the other being Leslie Robertson.
Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis, which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.")
A 707 is almost the same weight as a 757/767;
757-200 757-200F 757-300
Empty weight 128,730 lb (58,390 kg) 141,330 lb (64,110 kg )
707-120B 707-320B
Empty weight 122,533 lb (55,580 kg) 146,400 lb (66,406 kg)
They were made strong enough to handle hurricane force winds, and survive the direct impact of a fully loaded, fully fueled Boeing 707, here's a comparison.
911research . wtc 7 . net / wtc / analysis / docs / aircraft comparison . gi f
This is what the architectural firm stated;
(THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE, THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. .. )
And Socrates, your story about the building in South Korea, the shopping wall is irrelevant. It was NOT a steel-framed hi-rise.
You can't even cite any sources, links, or quotes, nor name the building so you're pretty hopeless at doing your research. No wonder you make such nonsensical claims.
Sorry, the shopping "mall" is irrelevant. It was NOT a steel-framed hi-rise.
and Socrates, instead storytelling about this non-existent documentary or that non-existent documentary, or going about "I saw on TV the other night", and similar rubbish, keep in mind two things;
1- It's all bullshit unless you can back it up with links, quotes, and sources that can be verified and checked.
2- If you can't even "name" the show, then as far as I'm concerned you are just making it up.
Voted : The solid, physical evidence proves there was no conspiracy
In contrast to this, the tinfoil hats have nothing except allegation. They don't bring forward physical evidence or conclusive proof, but instead attack and criticise the real facts. They don't answer valid questions with valid answers, but instead create their own ambiguous and irrelevent questions as red herrings. To them the facts are "bullshit" and the evidence is "made up", and the witnesses are "liars", and those that don't agree with them are "shills".
That is the sum of their argument. All mouth and no evidence. They have nothing for credibe physical evidence to suport their claims. Zero!
{All mouth and no evidence. They have nothing for credibe physical evidence to suport their claims. Zero!
by Jinn_the_Kafir on Fri Oct 06, 06 1:05am}
I agree, Jinn, the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS have nothing except unnspported claims. The have NEVER been able to cite any scientific study to show that cellphone calls are possible from passenger planes flying six miles up at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation; obviously claiming that such is possible without any proof simply the OCTers attempts to continue to promote USA government lies and propaganda. Same goes for their claims about the WTC buildings destruction and the mas murder of 3,000 people; the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS have NEVER been able to cite a methematical simulation or computer model based purely on the EMPIRICAL DATA (without any distortions or fictions of deliberate deviations from that data) that can successfully simulate the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7, nor show that there was enough energy for gravity-driven collapses for all three buildings. This is vital considering that they are making a bizarre claims that in one day, a fantastic miraculous event occurred which has NEVER happened BEFORE 9/11 OR SINCE - because NEVER in the entire history of steel-framed hi-rise buildings have they collapsed directly straight down in total catastrophic collapse without use of controlled demolitions.
The conclusion from these facts is simple; the cellphone calls were ALL FAKE, and the WTC buildings were destroyed by CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS on the orders of a mass murdering cabal inside the USA government.
The evidence for ONCTROLLED DEMOLITIONS is clear on video as well; with the long lines of EXPLOSIONS blowing out the floors BEFORE the faling debris from above could reach those floors, plus the TOO SHORT seimic tremors which are FAR SHORTER than the collapse times of WTC 1 & 2. Plus the HUNDREDS of witnesses who describe EXPLOSIONS and signs of CONTROLLED DEMOLITION including experienced firemen who are not so stupid as the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORISTS keep trying to insist that they are, because those firemen recognised what they were seeing - just as most of the rest of the world does.
9/11 was an inside job. Deal with the fact that the rest of us ALREADY KNOW.
We don't trust your lies anymore than we trust those of the Bush Administration about anything else.
Voted : The solid, physical evidence proves there was no conspiracy
Like I said before. In contrast to this, the tinfoil hats have nothing except allegation. They don't bring forward physical evidence or conclusive proof, but instead attack and criticise the real facts. They don't answer valid questions with valid answers, but instead create their own ambiguous and irrelevent questions as red herrings. To them the facts are "bullshit" and the evidence is "made up", and the witnesses are "liars", and those that don't agree with them are "shills".
That is the sum of their argument. All mouth and no evidence. They have nothing for credibe physical evidence to suport their claims. Zero!
government ranters remind me of(regular) customers i see in local coffee shops who insist on ranting on the government as though it's the only past time they've involved themselves in for the past 20 years jeez..(hit the waffle house guys)..these guys literally hang out in coffee shops to constantly rant politics. anyone ever heard of bowling?
actually i was referring to the conspiracy theorists.i watch that 70's show to relax,they go to have coffee somewhere and rant..that's always seemed strange to me(ranting i mean,,not watching tv)
There's now enormous and damning evidence, both solid, documentary, video, including statements from hundreds of witnesses, that the 9-11-2001 attacks were staged by a faction within the govt of the USA. That the news media in the USA and UK are still ignoring this is their own problem because their credibility is sinking daily. The majority of people already know that 9-11 was an inside job.
Voted : Yes, I will present it below
Conspiracy : Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
Logic dictates it requires more than one person to carry out the 9/11 attacks.
Even if it were possible for one individual to highjack a commercial jet, one person is incapable of highjacking two commercial jets simultaniously, flying both into the WTC towers.
As to the identity of the conspirators, there was no concrete evidence recovered to link any individual to the crime. The absence bodies, DNA and eye witness' identifying the highjackers, leaves only circumstantial evidence to work with.
Prosecutors use creditability to establish guilt in cases with no concrete evidence incriminating the accused, but circumstances create a probability the accused commited the crime.
An analysis of the facts indicates that immediately prior to the time of the attacks, Government Officials, at the very least, failed to respond with any sense of urgency to prevent the incident. In the aftermath, the Officials in charge were ill-prepared to provide congruent informnation to the public. There are a myriad of inconsistancies in the explainations of the how and why, and in an uncanny press statement within a few hours after the attack, the White House announced that their investigation had identified 19 suspects, and issued the names of the alleged highjackers.
The alleged incriminating evidence linking the 19 suspects to the attack were two foriegn passports. The circumstance around the investigation are unduly secretive and suspicious.
The passports miraculously are the only identifaction found in the debri that survived the crash, despite that there were over 200 passagers on those flights, and near 2800 people in the buildings at the time of the collapse.
In the time since the attacks, Government Officials are still unwilling to provide comprehensive details of the 9/11 attack. No conclusive evidence proving the allegations against Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or Iraq seem to exists. The White House refuses to declassify documentry evidence of the Governments failure to incept the jets prior to the attack, a reasonable explaination coelencing the incongruencies and contradictions in the investigation, or justifacation for the depth of their seditious conduct during and after the attacks.
The White House has been tried in the public forum accused of complicity. The circumstantial evidence has been entered into the record, the facts have been argued and witness' for the defense have failed to prove creditable. You are the jury in this case. You must weight the evidence and decide, based on the facts, whether the Government is guilty of conspiracy to cover up the events of 9/11.
I believe beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that the White House is guilty. Their unreasonable conduct and explainations convict them.
Watch as the votes for the vote-spammer's choices climb by upto hundreds of votes a day as he tries desperately to compensate for his small mind and flacid impotency.
wolf_nipple_chips, you never answered any of these questions.
Where's some real video of a huge plane hitting the Pentagon? You can't show any.
When is that you are you going to explain how it is possible for all the supports on a floor (both the undamaged structural supports and the damaged ones in varying amounts of damage), to fail on all sides of a building - at the exact same time - not just in 1 building, but in all 3 buildings on the same day?
When is that you are you going to provide links, quotes, and sources to back your claims about the cellphones, and show a scientific study that shows that cellphones can make successful many-minutes-long calls from passenger jets flying at passenger jet speeds, and at passenger jet altitudes?
When is that you are you going to cite any event where steel-framed hi-rises collapsed straight-down into their bases any time in the entire history of steel-framed hi-rise buildings without a controlled demolition being the cause - apart from the 3 buildings of 9-11 (WTC 1, 2, 7)?
When will you back your point of view about 9-11 with a link, source, and quote from somebody, anybody, whose mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the empirical data (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) proves that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse?
Please explain WHY if it was floors collapsing, then how the explosions were blowing out floors BEFORE those floors from above could reach them? This is visible on the videos in slow motion - you can see such on this video showing explosions going off many stories below the collapse, and eyewitness accounts of secondary explosions as well as their reporting of the first big explosions happening BELOW the plane impact point. Witnesses confirm this;
video . google . com / videoplay ? docid = 3249714675910247150 & q = 911 & h l = en
Please explain why the seismic tremors were shorter than the collapse times, and cite at least a couple of geologists and/seismic experts explaining this - because according to everyone I've asked, this is impossible and shows that the energy source for the tremors was not the collapsing buildings but could only be from another source (explosions).
You've been asked to provide real answers to many of these questions asked by Ken from Dublin, Lovelynice, Meteor7, Coldcircuit, Blackcat06, Tank Girl, but you have never answered them
|
|
