[hal0g0dv2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl2JQfxnnHU&feature=player_embedded#!

[Berzerker]

I actually enjoy listening to Rogan speak on subjects. Think what you want about him be keeps you entertained.

Berz out.

[EmperorIS]

yea.. lets listen to joe rogan .. rofl

[Narayan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl2JQfxnnHU&feature=player_embedded#!
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a :fullofwin:

but overall review... good video and worth the watch.

[Gary Oak]

Joe Rogan tells it how it is.

[-EuroRSN-]

WAAB = We ARE ALL BACTERIA!!!

[neggo]

I used to hate Joe Rogan.

I chose to listen to some of his ramblings at one point and I just went, "Whoa, this guy is pretty fucked in the head but at the same time very brilliant". His view on life and humanity is pretty thought provoking.

[Bouncing Bettys]

The WTC 7 questioning at the end of the video almost destroys his credibility but I do agree with his assessments of the use of the military to increase the profits of the powerful who control governments. This does somewhat relate to the wikileaks controversy as having access to the truth gives the people the knowledge and ability to question their governments. With that ability, people can hopefully ensure governments no longer needlessly put soldiers lives in harm simply to line the pockets of the powerful.

[hal0g0dv2]

I actually enjoy listening to Rogan speak on subjects. Think what you want about him be keeps you entertained.

Berz out.

:werd:

[knight604]

His rant about DMT is pretty interesting. :haha:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grcqs9cDuN8

[rJZx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyc12-neTjM&feature=fvw

[Berzerker]

^^ and old.

Berz out.

[rJZx]

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/8205/kbmindblown2.gif

[shawn79]

http://cdn.mqstatic.com/files/truthcontrol/imagecache/preview/images/106.gif

[b0unce. [?]]

i've been listening to his podcast for quite a while now, it's pretty good shit. kills a good amount of time, they run for like 3 hours~

[Wongtouski]

I'm currently reading "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" Talks about the same stuff.....good read

[deep87]

The WTC 7 questioning at the end of the video almost destroys his credibility.

why? all he is doing is stating principles of physics. He doesnt come to any grand conclusion, all he says is here's the video and and according to physics things dont add up.

I'm tired of people dissmissing 'conspiracies' based on the notion that if they haven't done any tangible research themselves it must be false (not saying you havnt but i gather as much from your comment).

Is it really that hard to believe that maybe the richest and most powerful people in the world have an agenda. Is it really crazy to speculate on never before seen events because that would mean the government doesn't have your best interest in mind? Look into things before you come to a conclusion unless ofcourse ignorance is your bliss.
/rant

[2 n r]

^exactly,and hes adding to the operation northwoods thing

[Brianrietta]

It's a classic Joe Rogan rant, and a good one at that. This was a documentary shown by the BBC made in 2005 about the development of the american military institution. It's really quite good if you have an hour and a half to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm1B7x5JZfE

"There was a moment when the entire world was behind us. There was a million people demonstrating in the streets of Tehran in favor of the United States. We had the world behind us. Now kids are dying, billions are being spent every month, animosity against the States is higher now than it ever has been in history. What happened here? Is it just the experiences of September 11th, or is there something else happening here?"

[Bouncing Bettys]

why? all he is doing is stating principles of physics. He doesnt come to any grand conclusion, all he says is here's the video and and according to physics things dont add up.

I'm tired of people dissmissing 'conspiracies' based on the notion that if they haven't done any tangible research themselves it must be false (not saying you havnt but i gather as much from your comment).

Is it really that hard to believe that maybe the richest and most powerful people in the world have an agenda. Is it really crazy to speculate on never before seen events because that would mean the government doesn't have your best interest in mind? Look into things before you come to a conclusion unless ofcourse ignorance is your bliss.
/rant
It's a video discussing false flag operations with an ending suggesting there is something more to the collapse of WTC7. I used to be a Truther to some exstent before I actually looked into the evidence. As far as I know Joe Rogan is no more qualified to make conclusions of the collapse than I am. I've read the the findings of NIST report which can and does explain the causes of collapse and have spent quite a bit of time researching and discussing everything related to that day elsewhere. Its quite a massive leap in logic to suggest a total collapse event, which on the surface appears odd, is the result of some sinister conspiracy.

start here: http://www.youtube.com/usnistgov#p/f/15/PK_iBYSqEsc

I am really surprised there are still truthers about this forum. Which revised version (due to actual evidence debunking the claims) of Loose Change are we on now? Pretty soon Loose Change will be nothing but an hour and a half of repeating the "False Flag Operation!" line from start to finish.

[dangonay]

why? all he is doing is stating principles of physics.
Where is he discussing physics? I don't see him showing us any calculations or mathematics. Unless you think making statements like "why didn't the building lean or sway" to be "physics".

When some idiot talks about "controlled demolition", I refuse to listen to anything they say. The way I see it is if they're that fucking screwed to believe in one thing which is obviously incorrrect, then why should I believe in anything else they say?

[Arash]

Im with you on this one Blaupunkt69, with these new revelations, I want to start my own demolition company.
First I would build a huge catapult and launch boulders at the target building creating fires (just like when two rocks strike against each other, it creates a spark).
Then I would let the building burn for 7 hours and fall on it self.
<-- looking for investors

[Mananetwork]

Thanks to the internet we can air this shit without it being removed! The internet is providing us with freedom of speech and the government can't do anything about it.

[Arash]

They can dis-inform, look at the Trutherz above.

[goo3]

why? all he is doing is stating principles of physics. He doesnt come to any grand conclusion, all he says is here's the video and and according to physics things dont add up.

I'm tired of people dissmissing 'conspiracies' based on the notion that if they haven't done any tangible research themselves it must be false (not saying you havnt but i gather as much from your comment).

Is it really that hard to believe that maybe the richest and most powerful people in the world have an agenda. Is it really crazy to speculate on never before seen events because that would mean the government doesn't have your best interest in mind? Look into things before you come to a conclusion unless ofcourse ignorance is your bliss.
/rant

We don't design buildings like Jenga (Thank God). Your grade 8 physics isn't good enough.

This is the full report from NIST on WTC7. Read it (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf). And no, too long is not an excuse.

[hal0g0dv2]

^^ wow that is really long haha

[drunkrussian]

^^ wow that is really long haha

thats what she said
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Fafine]

joe rogans podcast is hilarious!

its long but good, if you dont want to watch the whole thing. just start it at 1:34
Bert Kreischer, Brian Redban, Recorded on 1/19/11 Joe_Rogan on USTREAM. Comedy
"its almost purple cause its so black"

[TheKingdom2000]

so which one of you guys sell DMT?

haha

[rJZx]

^+1
... expecting a PM :troll:

[deep87]

It's a video discussing false flag operations with an ending suggesting there is something more to the collapse of WTC7. I used to be a Truther to some exstent before I actually looked into the evidence. As far as I know Joe Rogan is no more qualified to make conclusions of the collapse than I am. I've read the the findings of NIST report which can and does explain the causes of collapse and have spent quite a bit of time researching and discussing everything related to that day elsewhere. Its quite a massive leap in logic to suggest a total collapse event, which on the surface appears odd, is the result of some sinister conspiracy.

I am really surprised there are still truthers about this forum. Which revised version (due to actual evidence debunking the claims) of Loose Change are we on now? Pretty soon Loose Change will be nothing but an hour and a half of repeating the "False Flag Operation!" line from start to finish.

I used to be a sheep as well before i took a look into the "evidence". You are right in saying none of us are really qualified to make conclusions about this. We do owe it to ourselves though to come to our own conclusions based on our own research. The person who delivers the message, be it Joe fuckn Rogan, should not effect our perception of that message (in an ideal world).

I went through that NIST report and found some things to be odd;

- the report was conducted after the steel was recycled
- no physical testing was done but they spent countless hours/money to 'simulate' these easily duplicated events
- the evidence molten metal at ground zero was avoided
- the report was funded by congress (personal opinion that maybe science wasn't given the highest priority in this report
- the idea that because no explosions were heard therefore nothing was used to aid the buildings collapse ignored thermite entirely
(these were just things I personally noticed and is no way an exhaustive list of evidence)

for more info start here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IACdhpfZjk

Loose change was a poorly executed documentary which actually helps in dismissing conspiracy theorists as loony but still makes some good points.


Where is he discussing physics? I don't see him showing us any calculations or mathematics. Unless you think making statements like "why didn't the building lean or sway" to be "physics".

When some idiot talks about "controlled demolition", I refuse to listen to anything they say. The way I see it is if they're that fucking screwed to believe in one thing which is obviously incorrrect, then why should I believe in anything else they say?

Here is a review of a NIST report; http://911review.com/articles/ryan/NIST_WTC7.html you'll find your math half way down.

When someone stops listening after hearing some key words I tend to think of that person as close minded. Saying that because you 'think' they're wrong about one things so that automatically makes them wrong about another is pretty backwards.

We don't design buildings like Jenga (Thank God). Your grade 8 physics isn't good enough.

This is the full report from NIST on WTC7. Read it (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf). And no, too long is not an excuse.

I read that report. I hope you find the time to read the review of the report I posted above.

Arriving to conclusions because of a 130page federally funded report is fine and all. As long as you look into all the counter arguments.
Some more info:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/index.html
http://norfidid.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/%E2%80%98phony-science%E2%80%99-revealed-in-nist%E2%80%99s-wtc-1-2-report-by-house-science-probes-of-2002-2005-part-3-of-3/

[dangonay]

^ It's not closed minded to ignore someone who spouts bullshit. If someone tells me that 2+2=5, then I would never believe anything they say regarding mathematics.


You're a complete idiot for bringing up thermite and for listening to anyone who mentions thermite. I already completely owned numerous people on RS a few years back about thermite and showed how it was impossible for thermite to have been used. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON RS was ever able to counter my argument.

There's a reason for that. It's not because I'm Einstein. It's basic simple logic.


But hey, if you want to go ahead and explain some "discrepancies" about thermite, then please answer me this simple question: Why are consipracists so hung up on the fact that pyrocool was heavily used as a firefighting agent on the WTC buildings?

[Bouncing Bettys]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6fe9YlHQwA&feature=fvsr

[LiquidTurbo]

^ It's not closed minded to ignore someone who spouts bullshit. If someone tells me that 2+2=5, then I would never believe anything they say regarding mathematics.


You're a complete idiot for bringing up thermite and for listening to anyone who mentions thermite. I already completely owned numerous people on RS a few years back about thermite and showed how it was impossible for thermite to have been used. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON RS was ever able to counter my argument.

There's a reason for that. It's not because I'm Einstein. It's basic simple logic.


But hey, if you want to go ahead and explain some "discrepancies" about thermite, then please answer me this simple question: Why are consipracists so hung up on the fact that pyrocool was heavily used as a firefighting agent on the WTC buildings?

Regardless, there are over 1,400 Professional Civil Engineers and Architects that agree something was fishy over the official statement of what happened.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[Manic!]

Someone needs to call the Mythbusters.

[dangonay]

Regardless, there are over 1,400 Professional Civil Engineers and Architects that agree something was fishy over the official statement of what happened.

http://www.ae911truth.org/
Of course there are. People who believe in conspiracies come from all walks of like. So statistically there's going to be doctors, lawyers, engineers and the like that believe in them as well. Maybe they should start a petition asking people to sign if they don't believe the 9/11 controlled demolition theory, and see how many "professionals" sign that? I'd love to see the ratio of engineers/architects that believe vs those that don't.

And if the number of professionals who agree with NIST is higher than those that believe in controlled demolition, then what? Accuse those that believe in NIST as also being part of the coverup? Attack their credentials to show they are "inferior" engineers?

Have you read the "statements" by these professionals who signed the petition? Instead of saying something like:

The WTC collapses are a rare and odd event and need to be studied further to determine why they fell the way they did.

They sound more like this:

I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes that ran into them

That quote was the very first one I clicked on (right at the top of the list) for the profiles of the people that signed the petition. Randomly clicking through many more showed similar comments. Funny how so many "experts" who claim to be following the "scientific method" can make such a statement. Not very scientific comments to me.


And lastly, for the millionth time, how come none of the truthers want to talk about PYROCOOL? Cowards.

[Arash]

I wonder why the following Chinese building, literally lite up, didnt collapse? Dangonay your the smart guy here who likes to read and knows about this stuff, show these conspiracy theorist whose right.
http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top1a.jpghttp://statismwatch.ca/2009/02/09/fire-consumes-beijing-skyscraper-unlike-wtc7-building-does-not-collapse/

[Arash]

Good god, I cant quote or edit my posts.
Heres the same link made convenient.
http://statismwatch.ca/2009/02/09/fire-consumes-beijing-skyscraper-unlike-wtc7-building-does-not-collapse/

[PiuYi]

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/8205/kbmindblown2.gif

i've been looking for this GIF, thanks! (love these commercials, especially the GT5 one)

[CanadaGoose]

It's the Industrial/military complex aka. "The best way to revitalize the economy is war, and the U.S. has grown stronger with war."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Civ2j-qNLgw

[Death2Theft]

Because there wasn't an impact with jet fuel involved therefore the temps wern't nearly high enough to melt metal/structure. The WTC would not have collapsed under a normal fire with your run of the mill flamables in the building.
Anyone else seen the retard driving on the #1 with bumper stickers saying 911 was an inside job and holding one of the stickers with his hand hanging out the drivers window? Anyone else also notice that after the olympics we had all these 911 stickers plastered over our city? It's times like these that I wish I had a big bullhorn screaming NO ONE GIVES A FUCK.
I wonder why the following Chinese building, literally lite up, didnt collapse? Dangonay your the smart guy here who likes to read and knows about this stuff, show these conspiracy theorist whose right.
http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top1a.jpghttp://statismwatch.ca/2009/02/09/fire-consumes-beijing-skyscraper-unlike-wtc7-building-does-not-collapse/

[dangonay]

I wonder why the following Chinese building, literally lite up, didnt collapse? Dangonay your the smart guy here who likes to read and knows about this stuff, show these conspiracy theorist whose right.
http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top1a.jpghttp://statismwatch.ca/2009/02/09/fire-consumes-beijing-skyscraper-unlike-wtc7-building-does-not-collapse/

That's the problem with truthers - they pick odd examples and say "this one didn't collapse despite being on fire, therefore something's wrong with the WTC collapse".

The only way this argument would make any sense is if a building constructed the exact same way got hit by the exact same type of plane in the exact same manner, and had a fire in the exact same manner. Otherwise it's just apples and oranges.


As to buildings free-falling, I found several examples without much effort. 2000 Commonwealth Avenue and Skyline Plaza are good case studies as there's lots of information about them. Basically, the top floor fell onto the one below and started a chain reaction of floors falling onto each other causing the entire building to fall perfectly ending up in the basement.

This is something truthers say can't happen (buildings falling perfectly straight into the basement), when in fact it's happened numerous times around the world. Then again, since the buildings used as examples aren't as tall as the WTC was, then my examples have no merit and can't be considered.

[Arash]

@Death2Theft
I dont watch main stream news, what kind of plane hit the wtc7 building?

@dangonay
Its apples and oranges when one building is made of bamboo and the other made of steel.
Show us a link of your examples and how they collapsed into there footprint after a fire.
At the end of the day, I think you should take a basic physics class and even have your teacher explain how steel and concrete was pulverized straight to the floor at free falling speed. Then you can make an educated assumption on what happened on 911 and not blindly accepting what the television tells you.

[dlo]

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery ;)

[liu13]

other than building 7, the testimonies about an explosion in the basements before the planes hit and dick cheney's theory that a major terrorist attack would benefit the us, along with the norwood or whatever report in the 60s

the fishiest part about 9/11 was that they were running war games at the exact time of the attack, and their radars were scrambled to simulate a attack while a real attack was going on

i mean wtf

[Arash]

Same thing with the London Bombing, there was a city wide security test going on and with the endless amount of cctv camera's, none were recording.
The most damming evidence against the official story is that the bombs had ripped upwards into the train from beneath the floor and not as if suicide bombers had walked and detonated bombs.

[Bouncing Bettys]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk&feature=player_profilepage

[Arash]

Nothing in the video is like the massive wtc7 building. There's a grainy photo of some toy factory that is suppose to compare to a building housing the mayors emergency command center, one that held numerous government agencies like "the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Security and Exchange Commission".
Lets not forget Enron's criminal evidence, evaporated to dust.
"Enron's $63.4 billion in assets made it the largest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history until WorldCom's bankruptcy the following year."
Anymore more disinfo videos you have?
:alone:

[dangonay]

@Death2Theft
@dangonay
Its apples and oranges when one building is made of bamboo and the other made of steel.
Show us a link of your examples and how they collapsed into there footprint after a fire.
At the end of the day, I think you should take a basic physics class

I gave you the names. Google them and you'll find your information. And I never said they collapsed from fires - I said that a single floor on the top collapsing on the floor below started a chain reaction that ended up with the building falling perfectly straight into the basement without leaning or falling over. These accidents happened during the construction of the bulding. Coincidentally, the first example was from a fire, since the supports for pouring the concrete were wooden timbers instead of steel commonly used today. The wind blew over a heater which burned the timbers causing the top floor to hit the one below and after that it was bye-bye to everything below.

These are actually very common accidents that happen regularly around the world. Anyone who builds high rise building knows that a sudden impact at the top could cause a chain reaction that brings the whole building down. Again, this is contrary to truther who would like to convince you a building cannot fall perfectly straight onto itself. In fact, it happens all the time. In the first example I gave you 4 workers on the second from the top floor died and their bodies were recovered in the basement. Imagine being on the top of the building and ending up in the basement. It's a conspiracy, I tell you.


You think I should take a basic physics class? Maybe I should, because my 9 years of university has obviously taught me nothing. Nor has my training in fire investigations and the numerous fires I've looked at over the years. I've seen steel melt and deform in fires with only a small amount of combustible material and a burn time of less than 20 minutes. Hell, I've seen ceramic items deform which are supposed to be good to around 1,200C (coincidentally, this is even higher than what temperature steel needs to melt).

I LOL when I read all the experts at the truther sites explaining how jet fuel can't burn that hot or that the fire in the WTC could have never reached temperatures hot enough to deform or melt steel. But what do I know. The thousands of pictures and hours of video from all the fires I looked at with melted/deformed steel mean nothing. I must have been imagining seeing it melt, because the truthers say it's not possible.

I should probably go back and tell ICBC and Transport Canada I'm no longer qualified to investigate fires on their behalf, since I have observed things that aren't supposed to happen (steel melting) - which must mean I don't really know what I'm doing.

[goo3]

Here is a review of a NIST report; http://911review.com/articles/ryan/NIST_WTC7.html you'll find your math half way down.

...

I read that report. I hope you find the time to read the review of the report I posted above.

Arriving to conclusions because of a 130page federally funded report is fine and all. As long as you look into all the counter arguments.
Some more info:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/index.html
http://norfidid.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/%E2%80%98phony-science%E2%80%99-revealed-in-nist%E2%80%99s-wtc-1-2-report-by-house-science-probes-of-2002-2005-part-3-of-3/

http://www.nist.gov/el/ssunder.cfm

That's the lead investigator for the NIST report. Does he look like he would lie to you? :troll:

The scope of the doc is: what happened to the building. It's not: what are all the possible ways we can think of to debunk conspiracy theories.

They're there to find our what likely happened. When they find sufficient evidence, they stop. It's not just them - it's you, me, everyone.. it's a waste of time/money/effort otherwise. Many things are immaterial to their stated purpose: Why didn't they do this, why did they ignore that, etc.. You guys have to show how your idea is significant enough to disprove their theory of how/why the building went down, not kill us to death by a thousand cuts.

One more thing.. this link:
http://norfidid.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/%E2%80%98phony-science%E2%80%99-revealed-in-nist%E2%80%99s-wtc-1-2-report-by-house-science-probes-of-2002-2005-part-3-of-3/

signed:
—Barbara G. Ellis, Ph.D
Senior Researcher, Legislative Division
WTC Research Alliance

Ph.D of what? Is this the same person?

Amazon.com: The Copy Editing and Headline Handbook (9780738204598): Barbara Ellis, Ph.D. Barbara G. Ellis: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41TEBGYZtvL.@@AMEPARAM@@41TEBGYZtvL

The Copy Editing and Headline Handbook [Paperback]
Barbara Ellis (Author), Ph.D. Barbara G. Ellis (Author)

About the Author
Barbara Ellis, Ph.D., is a seasoned copy editor, having served on six copydesks for nearly fifteen years and as a copy editing professor at Louisiana's McNeese State University for eight years. She lives in Portland, Oregon.


WTF MAN!

[LiquidTurbo]

dangonay, any insights on Plane hitting pentagon?

[Arash]

I gave you the names. Google them and you'll find your information. And I never said they collapsed from fires - I said that a single floor on the top collapsing on the floor below started a chain reaction that ended up with the building falling perfectly straight into the basement without leaning or falling over. These accidents happened during the construction of the bulding. Coincidentally, the first example was from a fire, since the supports for pouring the concrete were wooden timbers instead of steel commonly used today. The wind blew over a heater which burned the timbers causing the top floor to hit the one below and after that it was bye-bye to everything below.I was once building a multilevel house out of Popsicle sticks and one of the top floors gave way, collapsing everything.

You think I should take a basic physics class? Maybe I should, because my 9 years of university has obviously taught me nothing. Nor has my training in fire investigations and the numerous fires I've looked at over the years. I've seen steel melt and deform in fires with only a small amount of combustible material and a burn time of less than 20 minutes. Hell, I've seen ceramic items deform which are supposed to be good to around 1,200C (coincidentally, this is even higher than what temperature steel needs to melt).

I LOL when I read all the experts at the truther sites explaining how jet fuel can't burn that hot or that the fire in the WTC could have never reached temperatures hot enough to deform or melt steel. But what do I know. The thousands of pictures and hours of video from all the fires I looked at with melted/deformed steel mean nothing. I must have been imagining seeing it melt, because the truthers say it's not possible.
Like what was stated earlier in the videos posted, how is it that humans had survived the extreme heat your talking about and wave their arms from the windows of the burning floors?

I should probably go back and tell ICBC and Transport Canada I'm no longer qualified to investigate fires on their behalf, since I have observed things that aren't supposed to happen (steel melting) - which must mean I don't really know what I'm doing. In the pecking order of the great American academic society, I only see you as a peon. Just because you investigate car fires or have seen steel melt doesnt make you an expert.

[The melting point of construction grade steel is 3000F, and weakens substantively at approx 2200F. And whereas fully oxidized fuel fires tend to burn at 1200 degrees [such as a raging house fire with light orange flame] these fires are not sufficient to cause collapse; furthermore even if fires were able to reach sufficient temperatures, it is well beyond the laws of physics for such a collapse to offer little or no resistance, as massive amounts of energy are absorbed in the compression of the remaining steel frame. Even buildings classed as fully involved do not collapse, and still would as we stated, offer far more resistance to gravity forced collapse than air. Therefore the government's explanation for the reason WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds can not be reconciled with physics, unless one includes the "controlled demolition" hypothesis.

[dangonay]

^ Are you able to post anything that shows you understand materials science, or are you only capable of copying and pasting what others say?

I have seen steel trusses in commercial buildings buckle and sag from fires. Are you going to tell me that's not possible? Ask any firefighter and they'll tell you the same thing. Go drive by any recent fire in The Lower Mainland and see all the bent, melted and deformed steel framework.

Tell me this: if steel can't deform from a fire, then why do we even bother to insulate steel girders with flame proof materials?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Arash]

Even if, so your saying because some floors give way, the rest of the building that is still intact will snap and disintegrate into a pile? at free falling speed?

I only copy and paste because it makes sense.

[Arash]

WTC7 is one massive concrete and steel building, only demolitions could bring a fortress like this down the way it collapsed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUwYJbupRzI

[dangonay]

^ BTW, if I'm nothing more than a peon, the what word would you use to describe yourself? Just curious as to what your "credentials" are.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Death2Theft]

Why I am even wasting time explaining this is beyond me but this will be my last attempt in this matter.
You have an impact with super high temps from jet fuel at about 1/2 to 3/4 height of the building, the supports get melted away. When the last support fails, you have free fall of roughly half the building onto the next floor. Where do you think all that momentum is going to go? DOWN.
Now had the support broken off at the sides of the building causing just the top half to fall, then perhaps only the top would fall off and the rest would still be standing. However that is not how the design buildings when there is so much stuff nearby. They are designed to implode. If a building toppled to one side instead of collapsing on itself there would be MUCH more damage.

[haha13]

cool video

[Arash]

Where do you think all that momentum is going to go? DOWN.Dam right its going to go down, but the laws of physics or just looking at his dam picture should clue you in that it would not collapse the floors beneath at free falling speed.

Do you think if I were to inject acid at the top levels of this wood model building, that the forces from the top would make the rest pancake? Sounds stupid to me.
http://i53.tinypic.com/2czf30y.jpg

^ BTW, if I'm nothing more than a peon, the what word would you use to describe yourself? Just curious as to what your "credentials" are.They call me troll around here, but I see myself as someone who has recognized the system.

Im illuminated to the fact that Canada is actually the name of a corporate system that we are in. its laws (legislative) and rules are to make itself more efficient and powerful, and are not designed to work for the people (specially with fractional reserve banking)

The system uses television to influence People go to school and strive to become academic achievers to climb the social ladder for social status, to claw your way to the top with the notion that the one with the most stuff wins. All along creating division and your enslavement to own a box on the ground which you'll constantly be paying rates and payments for just to live.

Inspired by Max Igan

[TheKingdom2000]

I think what makes it hard to believe 9/11 was set up is the fact that soo many people died. And how can anyone think the government planned this.

It's just so crazy that we can not comprehend. Which is why there are soo many skeptics out there.

Personally, I think there might be something fishy out here. Not exactly sure what is going on though. Alas, we'll never know.

Now if WikiLeaks could get this information that would be a zingerrrrrrrr

[LiquidTurbo]

^
MANY people died in Vietnam. So what? The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fabrication.

[dangonay]

Dam right its going to go down, but the laws of physics or just looking at his dam picture should clue you in that it would not collapse the floors beneath at free falling speed.

Do you think if I were to inject acid at the top levels of this wood model building, that the forces from the top would make the rest pancake? Sounds stupid to me.
http://i53.tinypic.com/2czf30y.jpg

Only thing that sounds stupid is you. Seriously, you're comparing a wood model injected with acid to a real life 100 story building of steel and concrete that got hit by a 200 ton aircraft? ROFL
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Arash]

I'll compensate the aircraft with a pencil. :D
I think most of us can relate better with this wood play structure to understand the basic resistance forces in this scenario.

Why wouldnt this steel just bend over and over on to each floor if the weight was that great?... never-mind the concrete that would create even more resistance.
Take a paperclip for example and positions it to snap by some great weight... you wont be able to.
WTC7's key joints were severed like butter with advanced demolition techniques that day, that is why we get this amazingly fast collapse.
http://www.structuremag.org/images/0109-ci-1.jpg
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q275/turnstilestex/wtc-7.gif

[LiquidTurbo]

^ Haha, that GIF is pretty awesome.

[dangonay]

So Arash, I see you linked a picture from Structuremag. I'm curious, did you even bother to read their assessment of WTC7? Or are they on the shit list of companies, organizations and engineers who can't be trusted since they offer an explanation counter to what the conspiracists believe? Maybe if you dig deep enough you'll find a money trail to Structuremag that shows they received money to write a favorable report on WTC7.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[shawn79]

911 was a set up by the u.s government to maximize profit.

It was an excuse to bring the middle east to war

[Arash]

Maybe you should ask your superiors (since your explanation wasnt sense-able) why this flaming building never collapsed and wtc7 did.
Oh that's right, wtc7 was hit with a plane... look I dont want to turn your life upside down, we wouldnt want to turn you into a truther and have your friends laugh at you. http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top4.jpg

[liu13]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8zPSw-LzIA

[dangonay]

Maybe you should ask your superiors (since your explanation wasnt sense-able) why this flaming building never collapsed and wtc7 did.
Oh that's right, wtc7 was hit with a plane... look I dont want to turn your life upside down, we wouldnt want to turn you into a truther and have your friends laugh at you.
The only one being laughed at is you. You are like all truthers/conspiracy freaks. Whenever someone questions you, your comeback is to copy/paste some article you read or some video you watched. Why can't you speak for yourself? And your logic is all the same. If it's not a straw man argument then it's a false dichotomy. Or the very common "argument from ignorance".

[rsx]

Dam right its going to go down, but the laws of physics or just looking at his dam picture should clue you in that it would not collapse the floors beneath at free falling speed.

Do you think if I were to inject acid at the top levels of this wood model building, that the forces from the top would make the rest pancake? Sounds stupid to me.
http://i53.tinypic.com/2czf30y.jpg

They call me troll around here, but I see myself as someone who has recognized the system.

Im illuminated to the fact that Canada is actually the name of a corporate system that we are in. its laws (legislative) and rules are to make itself more efficient and powerful, and are not designed to work for the people (specially with fractional reserve banking)

The system uses television to influence People go to school and strive to become academic achievers to climb the social ladder for social status, to claw your way to the top with the notion that the one with the most stuff wins. All along creating division and your enslavement to own a box on the ground which you'll constantly be paying rates and payments for just to live.

Inspired by Max Igan

So...we shouldn't go to school, educate ourselves or be ambitious?

[Arash]

There's a silver-lining for some prospects, but basically tomorrows jobs after the student loans, the habits that are ingrained along the way... and locking down for a mortgage in most cases is the key to enslavement.

@Dangonay
Read your last 3-5 rebuttals, they comprise of grade school name calling where I bring forth, in your words, freak analysis.

[dangonay]

^ Now you're just being delusional. You know, there's a difference between attacking a person and attacking their beliefs. What's really lame is you following my posts in other forums to make snide comments. Very mature of you.

Now, since nobody wants to bring it up I will. Pyrocool. Conspiracy theorists have been talking about this since the very beginning.

It goes like this: they claim thermite gives off UV radiation. Pyrocool (which is a flame retardant foam used to fight fires) absorbs UV radiation. Pyrocool was dumped in large quantities on the WTC wreckage (this is a fact I'll agree with). Conspiracists claim it was used to hide evidence of thermite by blocking UV radiation.

There's one huge flaw with this: thermite DOES NOT emit UV radiation. Their reasoning for using pyrocool is flawed since there's no UV to absorb.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[gdoh]

sry i just saw this and had to post it lol...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/376115134_bfcc5fee4a.jpg

not saying i think it was set up or anything just lol'd when i saw the pic =]

[Arash]

Right dangonay, who could forget Pyrocool... this is the elephant in the room that my truther homeboys and I always try to avoid.
You win man, your right... why would ones own government want to slaughter its own citizens when it could quench it thirst over-boards, congratulations.

[Nightwalker]

Why does this convo need to be all about 9/11? Irregardless of who was ultimately responsible, the actions taken since that time are unmistakable.

[dangonay]

Arash, one only has to look at the number of fails you have to realize the majority of people don't agree with anything you say.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[gdoh]

Arash, one only has to look at the number of fails you have to realize the majority of people don't agree with anything you say.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

do not try to reason with a troll because there is none

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

Im illuminated to the fact that Canada is actually the name of a corporate system that we are in. its laws (legislative) and rules are to make itself more efficient and powerful, and are not designed to work for the people (specially with fractional reserve banking)

The system uses television to influence People go to school and strive to become academic achievers to climb the social ladder for social status, to claw your way to the top with the notion that the one with the most stuff wins. All along creating division and your enslavement to own a box on the ground which you'll constantly be paying rates and payments for just to live.

I will have to agree with that.

I agree with the fact that we are all slaves, to a higher entity (whether it be some form of corporation or just a group of individuals or whatever), which has most if not all people convinced they are living their lives as free people.

the worst part is there is nothing you can really do about it other than become a terrorist.

I agree the most with the part about the banking system. If I were to become a terrorist, it would have to be to fight the banking system. Just the fucking fact that the banks are privately owned is already so fucked up, I seriously don't see why people can't see that.

oh well, I just have to wake up drag my ass to work and enslave myself for 9-5 so they can give me a few gold coins so i can exchange it for food and water and shelter, so i don't die. i mean if i really wanted to go build my own house, and have my own farm, and start my own little self sustaining tribe somewhere, tell me exactly where the fuck any government would let me do that? there is no free land. we're always under someone, someone's rules, those rules are made to insure they prosper.

money can't fix the problem. if i were a millionaire, I'm still attached to the system, powered by money, which is not really owned or controlled by me. nor do I actually own anything that is worth that much, it's just all part of the system.

I can't really see it change though. Something radical has to happen. some fucking world disaster, alien invasion lol, some error in the system causing it to collapse like a mother fucker, and then, and only then will people be willing to listen and make a change, when there's nothing left, when money is worthless.

money is not the root of all evil. it's just a catalyst that was invented by us, to accelerate cycle that humans have done and still continue to do today. and by the way, i agree with joe rogan.

we're here to eat the cake. we're here to destroy. that's what humans are best at. we're war machines. we're the ultimate weapon of the universe as far as we know. i'm almost proud of that, i mean if you're not, what are you proud of? lol, everything we've ever invented, thought of, or done is to further our race and ensure we continue to reproduce, spread and destroy everything that goes against our programming (destroy, expand, consume).

everything in this world is some kinda balance. everything has an end, we can't see the bigger picture, we're just some animals on a fucking spec of dirt in space. the way i see it is, this piece of dirt called earth, unlike most planets, has some biological growth on it (we call it nature), and like all living things, they come to an end, and we are that process. maybe im wrong, but whatever, lol we do what we do. if we are the most destructive force to have woken on this planet (or universe), so be it.

hm, this is starting to sound like agent smith's lecture to morpheus.

as for this 9/11 crap, i duno, i don't really care anymore. if the usa needed an excuse to invade the middle east and take more resources to insure their system survives, then that's excuse enough.

everyone wants to live. everyone has their way. join them, if you don't like it, kill them, there's no other way. being neutral only lasts so long, one day, they're gonna come knockin on your door and you'll be faced with the 2 options i just gave you.

[RiceIntegraRS]

^wow that was a pretty good read

[LiquidTurbo]

^ Now you're just being delusional. You know, there's a difference between attacking a person and attacking their beliefs. What's really lame is you following my posts in other forums to make snide comments. Very mature of you.

Now, since nobody wants to bring it up I will. Pyrocool. Conspiracy theorists have been talking about this since the very beginning.

It goes like this: they claim thermite gives off UV radiation. Pyrocool (which is a flame retardant foam used to fight fires) absorbs UV radiation. Pyrocool was dumped in large quantities on the WTC wreckage (this is a fact I'll agree with). Conspiracists claim it was used to hide evidence of thermite by blocking UV radiation.

There's one huge flaw with this: thermite DOES NOT emit UV radiation. Their reasoning for using pyrocool is flawed since there's no UV to absorb.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)


Why is it that when I google Thermite it all tells me that the reaction emits dangerous UV

[dangonay]

^ Should've waited until Arash posted it up. I wanted to see if he'd actually google it, but he didn't since he never does his own research.

I intentionally left out one key word - reaction. Thermite emits UV only while reacting/burning. As soon as the reaction stops, the UV stops.

Yet from day one all the nutjobs were saying they used pyrocool to prevent UV radiation from escaping the WTC rubble. They got so hung up on the idea of thermite emitting UV and pyrocool absorbing UV (and the smoking gun connection they "discovered") that they completely missed the fact (by accident or intentionally) that there would be nothing in the WTC rubble to emit UV since the reaction had long since stopped.


My point during one of the previous RS discussions on 9/11 is that if these truthers could miss something so obvious, how could you trust anything they say? How could someone dig so deep to find the truth and consult so many "professionals", "experts" and "scientists" and yet make such a huge mistake as to suggest there would be UV emitting thermite in the WTC rubble? Didn't any of their scientists catch this?

[goo3]

oh well, I just have to wake up drag my ass to work and enslave myself for 9-5 so they can give me a few gold coins so i can exchange it for food and water and shelter, so i don't die. i mean if i really wanted to go build my own house, and have my own farm, and start my own little self sustaining tribe somewhere, tell me exactly where the fuck any government would let me do that? there is no free land. we're always under someone, someone's rules, those rules are made to insure they prosper

You can build your own boat, set your own sails, fish your own fish, tell govt to fuck off - they don't own the oceans :fullofwin:

[dangonay]

Nervermind. There's very little left for free land, although if you didn't mind living up north I think you could still get 160 acres for free. Just don't expect to be near anyone.

[LiquidTurbo]

^ Should've waited until Arash posted it up. I wanted to see if he'd actually google it, but he didn't since he never does his own research.

I intentionally left out one key word - reaction. Thermite emits UV only while reacting/burning. As soon as the reaction stops, the UV stops.

Yet from day one all the nutjobs were saying they used pyrocool to prevent UV radiation from escaping the WTC rubble. They got so hung up on the idea of thermite emitting UV and pyrocool absorbing UV (and the smoking gun connection they "discovered") that they completely missed the fact (by accident or intentionally) that there would be nothing in the WTC rubble to emit UV since the reaction had long since stopped.


My point during one of the previous RS discussions on 9/11 is that if these truthers could miss something so obvious, how could you trust anything they say? How could someone dig so deep to find the truth and consult so many "professionals", "experts" and "scientists" and yet make such a huge mistake as to suggest there would be UV emitting thermite in the WTC rubble? Didn't any of their scientists catch this?


I actually hadn't heard of Pyrocool actually.

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q275/turnstilestex/wtc-7.gif

But seriously, with a background in engineering, I do find is very unbelievable that the above could happen with some small fires inside WTC7. Have we seen this happen before elsewhere? You can actually see the building 'sag' just right before the collapse. When structural pieces exceed their yield limit, they don't come crashing down like that, the permanently deform, and then yield permanently.

You talk about Carbon Steel iBeams bending under fire sure, I can buy that, it all depends on the load. Pancake collapse theory on WTC1/2 sure, I can buy that, ie, its not IMPOSSIBLE.

But building 7 is suspicious as hell to me, as to why the building wouldn't partially collapse. Also, with plane hitting Pentagon, I do find it strange that there was never any video/photo of that. The most secure building on Earth? And no rubble? Something just doesn't add up.

[Bouncing Bettys]

^


Small fires? top to bottom that building was on fire including a massive gouge scooped out by the falling towers. Given the enormity of the fires, the weakened creaking building, and the fact they had lost hundreds of their fellow firefighters when the 2 towers fell, they were ordered to pull back because it wasn't worth the risk and further loss of life. That's not something you do for small fires.

WTC7 being a C/D does not work unless you also say WTC1 and WTC2 were also brought down by C/D. Without a C/D of the 2 towers, no one could predict the behaviour of the buildings coming down outside their footprints. The conspirators had no idea that when 2 planes were to strike the 2 towers that debris from the collapse would do damage if any to WTC7. What were they going to do if WTC1 and WTC2 managed to completely miss WTC7 and leave it unscathed? Were they going to set off their charges and bring it down and hope no one noticed? To me, WTC7 C/D truthers can't have their cake and eat it too. You need to explain the C/D of WTC1 & WTC2 first.

No one had any idea the towers would collapse after they were both struck by planes. No one factored in the nearly full tanks of jet fuel or the incredibly high speeds they would impact. The planes struck with more than 10 times the energy of the empty slow 707 it was designed to withstand. No one considered the burning of all that office furniture or the expansive open floors combined with smashed windows allowing oxygen to ferociously fuel the fires. Truthers have shifted the focus away from the towers because their explanations have been thoroughly debunked and WTC7 on the surface appears suspicious but still explainable.


as for the pentagon, there are other video angles.
YouTube - RKOwens4's Channel

[highfive]

I will have to agree with that.

I agree with the fact that we are all slaves, to a higher entity (whether it be some form of corporation or just a group of individuals or whatever), which has most if not all people convinced they are living their lives as free people.

the worst part is there is nothing you can really do about it other than become a terrorist.

I agree the most with the part about the banking system. If I were to become a terrorist, it would have to be to fight the banking system. Just the fucking fact that the banks are privately owned is already so fucked up, I seriously don't see why people can't see that.

oh well, I just have to wake up drag my ass to work and enslave myself for 9-5 so they can give me a few gold coins so i can exchange it for food and water and shelter, so i don't die. i mean if i really wanted to go build my own house, and have my own farm, and start my own little self sustaining tribe somewhere, tell me exactly where the fuck any government would let me do that? there is no free land. we're always under someone, someone's rules, those rules are made to insure they prosper.

money can't fix the problem. if i were a millionaire, I'm still attached to the system, powered by money, which is not really owned or controlled by me. nor do I actually own anything that is worth that much, it's just all part of the system.

I can't really see it change though. Something radical has to happen. some fucking world disaster, alien invasion lol, some error in the system causing it to collapse like a mother fucker, and then, and only then will people be willing to listen and make a change, when there's nothing left, when money is worthless.

money is not the root of all evil. it's just a catalyst that was invented by us, to accelerate cycle that humans have done and still continue to do today. and by the way, i agree with joe rogan.

we're here to eat the cake. we're here to destroy. that's what humans are best at. we're war machines. we're the ultimate weapon of the universe as far as we know. i'm almost proud of that, i mean if you're not, what are you proud of? lol, everything we've ever invented, thought of, or done is to further our race and ensure we continue to reproduce, spread and destroy everything that goes against our programming (destroy, expand, consume).

everything in this world is some kinda balance. everything has an end, we can't see the bigger picture, we're just some animals on a fucking spec of dirt in space. the way i see it is, this piece of dirt called earth, unlike most planets, has some biological growth on it (we call it nature), and like all living things, they come to an end, and we are that process. maybe im wrong, but whatever, lol we do what we do. if we are the most destructive force to have woken on this planet (or universe), so be it.

hm, this is starting to sound like agent smith's lecture to morpheus.

as for this 9/11 crap, i duno, i don't really care anymore. if the usa needed an excuse to invade the middle east and take more resources to insure their system survives, then that's excuse enough.

everyone wants to live. everyone has their way. join them, if you don't like it, kill them, there's no other way. being neutral only lasts so long, one day, they're gonna come knockin on your door and you'll be faced with the 2 options i just gave you.

I agree but when say our self sustaining tribe is thriving and prospering, another tribe can come over and kill and steal from us instead. lol

You're right about the millionaire part, whatever happens you're fucked if your country collapse. haha

On the whole 9/11 thing..this thread reminds of the scene in Transformers 2 when that go don't be sucking on the sack bro... the media's ball sack. hahahaha

[bengy]

nvm

[liu13]

how come they found no bodies at the pentagon crash

even the plane didnt leave large amounts of debris, seemed like it exploded

even ppl in the pentagon were moved to different rooms just prior to the attack

[LiquidTurbo]

^


Small fires? top to bottom that building was on fire including a massive gouge scooped out by the falling towers. Given the enormity of the fires, the weakened creaking building, and the fact they had lost hundreds of their fellow firefighters when the 2 towers fell, they were ordered to pull back because it wasn't worth the risk and further loss of life. That's not something you do for small fires.

WTC7 being a C/D does not work unless you also say WTC1 and WTC2 were also brought down by C/D. Without a C/D of the 2 towers, no one could predict the behaviour of the buildings coming down outside their footprints. The conspirators had no idea that when 2 planes were to strike the 2 towers that debris from the collapse would do damage if any to WTC7. What were they going to do if WTC1 and WTC2 managed to completely miss WTC7 and leave it unscathed? Were they going to set off their charges and bring it down and hope no one noticed? To me, WTC7 C/D truthers can't have their cake and eat it too. You need to explain the C/D of WTC1 & WTC2 first.

No one had any idea the towers would collapse after they were both struck by planes. No one factored in the nearly full tanks of jet fuel or the incredibly high speeds they would impact. The planes struck with more than 10 times the energy of the empty slow 707 it was designed to withstand. No one considered the burning of all that office furniture or the expansive open floors combined with smashed windows allowing oxygen to ferociously fuel the fires. Truthers have shifted the focus away from the towers because their explanations have been thoroughly debunked and WTC7 on the surface appears suspicious but still explainable.


as for the pentagon, there are other video angles.
YouTube - RKOwens4's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/37/iBHi9CbrNf4)

That video is really grasping at straws. I just want one clear picture of the aircraft. Of course there isn't any, which is bizarre is hell.

[Bouncing Bettys]

how come they found no bodies at the pentagon crash

even the plane didnt leave large amounts of debris, seemed like it exploded

even ppl in the pentagon were moved to different rooms just prior to the attack
"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
–Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept.

The remains of everyone on board flight 77 was recovered and identified as well as a number of belongings which were returned to the families of the victims. the only person not identified was a 2 yr old passenger.

If the plane had defied the laws of physics and exploded rather than punching through the building, there would not have been enough force for the plane to continue over 300ft through a re-enforced concrete building (designed like a fortress no less) and a missile wouldn't have that ability either. There was plenty of sizable plane debris found inside and outside the Pentagon

debris from the pentagon may be viewed here
YouTube - RKOwens4's Channel

[goo3]

how come they found no bodies at the pentagon crash

even the plane didnt leave large amounts of debris, seemed like it exploded

even ppl in the pentagon were moved to different rooms just prior to the attack

They found body parts and airplane parts. Do your homework and stop crying wolf. It's getting old.

[dangonay]

I actually hadn't heard of Pyrocool actually.


That's because the conspiracists realized their mistake. However, that didn't stop all the major 9/11 truth sites from talking extensively about Pyrocool for several years after 9/11. Now all references of it have basically been removed and if you were to search for the keyword "pyrocool" in any major truther site you will find nothing. I guess they all want this huge mistake they made to be quietly forgotten.

Which brings up another point. Anyone who has followed 9/11 truthers since the beginning would have noticed that their theories keep evolving. Truthers will never sway from their position that WTC 1 & 2 were brought down in a controlled demolition. When one of their points gets proven wrong, they look to other areas.

Truthers keep saying they want an independent investigation, but that won't solve anything. If an independent investigation was done and they came to the conclusion that it really was the combination of the planes and fires that brought down the towers, they'd all be screaming that the investigation was another conspiracy and we'd be back at square one.

Does anyone think a fundamentalist (like Westboro Baptist Church) will ever change their beliefs no matter how much evidence they are presented with? Same thing with a truther.

[dangonay]

"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
–Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept.

The remains of everyone on board flight 77 was recovered and identified as well as a number of belongings which were returned to the families of the victims. the only person not identified was a 2 yr old passenger.

If the plane had defied the laws of physics and exploded rather than punching through the building, there would not have been enough force for the plane to continue over 300ft through a re-enforced concrete building (designed like a fortress no less) and a missile wouldn't have that ability either. There was plenty of sizable plane debris found inside and outside the Pentagon

debris from the pentagon may be viewed here
YouTube - RKOwens4's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4#p/u/43/YTNRkb7AaQk)


Of come on, everyone knows those pieces of debris were all planted after the fact. The first responders who showed up all were given a specific piece of debris and were told where to drop it when they arrived so they could fake an airplane crash.

[Death2Theft]

I disagree, what do you think happened to the ussr? When people were taking wheelbarrows of money and burning it for heat? Surely they must have learnt the errors in the way of paper money. Yet what are they using now? Just another form of paper money. Well them russians must be really fucking stupid? I doubt that, heck you dont have a cold war for 20-30 years with the most powerful nation on earth, if you dont have some smart people running your country.
I will have to agree with that.

I agree with the fact that we are all slaves, to a higher entity (whether it be some form of corporation or just a group of individuals or whatever), which has most if not all people convinced they are living their lives as free people.

the worst part is there is nothing you can really do about it other than become a terrorist.

I agree the most with the part about the banking system. If I were to become a terrorist, it would have to be to fight the banking system. Just the fucking fact that the banks are privately owned is already so fucked up, I seriously don't see why people can't see that.

oh well, I just have to wake up drag my ass to work and enslave myself for 9-5 so they can give me a few gold coins so i can exchange it for food and water and shelter, so i don't die. i mean if i really wanted to go build my own house, and have my own farm, and start my own little self sustaining tribe somewhere, tell me exactly where the fuck any government would let me do that? there is no free land. we're always under someone, someone's rules, those rules are made to insure they prosper.

money can't fix the problem. if i were a millionaire, I'm still attached to the system, powered by money, which is not really owned or controlled by me. nor do I actually own anything that is worth that much, it's just all part of the system.

I can't really see it change though. Something radical has to happen. some fucking world disaster, alien invasion lol, some error in the system causing it to collapse like a mother fucker, and then, and only then will people be willing to listen and make a change, when there's nothing left, when money is worthless.

money is not the root of all evil. it's just a catalyst that was invented by us, to accelerate cycle that humans have done and still continue to do today. and by the way, i agree with joe rogan.

we're here to eat the cake. we're here to destroy. that's what humans are best at. we're war machines. we're the ultimate weapon of the universe as far as we know. i'm almost proud of that, i mean if you're not, what are you proud of? lol, everything we've ever invented, thought of, or done is to further our race and ensure we continue to reproduce, spread and destroy everything that goes against our programming (destroy, expand, consume).

everything in this world is some kinda balance. everything has an end, we can't see the bigger picture, we're just some animals on a fucking spec of dirt in space. the way i see it is, this piece of dirt called earth, unlike most planets, has some biological growth on it (we call it nature), and like all living things, they come to an end, and we are that process. maybe im wrong, but whatever, lol we do what we do. if we are the most destructive force to have woken on this planet (or universe), so be it.

hm, this is starting to sound like agent smith's lecture to morpheus.

as for this 9/11 crap, i duno, i don't really care anymore. if the usa needed an excuse to invade the middle east and take more resources to insure their system survives, then that's excuse enough.

everyone wants to live. everyone has their way. join them, if you don't like it, kill them, there's no other way. being neutral only lasts so long, one day, they're gonna come knockin on your door and you'll be faced with the 2 options i just gave you.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Of come on, everyone knows those pieces of debris were all planted after the fact. The first responders who showed up all were given a specific piece of debris and were told where to drop it when they arrived so they could fake an airplane crash.
That's one thing Truthers seem to forget to discuss with their conspiracy theories is the sheer number of people required to make this operation possible. A conspiracy of this magnitude would require thousands of people to be paid off/threatened. To start you have all the people needed to secretly plant the charges - a number in the hundreds for a job as big as two 110 story buildings and the 47 story WTC7. Then you have the building personnel of all 3 buildings any possibly other surrounding buildings (security, parking attendants, etc) who might spot something to be paid/threatened to look the other way while this massive operation was going on. Then you have air traffic controllers who where monitoring the flight paths of the 4 planes and people who could doctor the records of those flights, Then you have the hundreds of first responders - police, firefighters, EMTs, rescue workers etc who would have to be paid/threatened to not discuss the multitudes of evidence left from controlled demolitions or the molten metal from magical thermite as well as to plant evidence of planes and passengers at the Pentagon and WTC. You'd also have to pay off the structural engineers of the NIST, the 9/11 Commission, and so on. Would you also include Osama and his ilk for claiming responsibility? Please forgive me Truthers if I am leaving anyone out but that's a lot of people.

Conspiracies usually only work when the number of people involved is as few as possible. This conspiracy involves a very conservative estimate of a thousand people. That is a lot of people to keep quiet, especially after more than 9 years. When there is a risk of people talking, the higher ups of the conspiracy will try to tie up loose ends but we aren't hearing of any of these conspirators mysteriously dying or disappearing.

You have to ask yourself what is more plausible: this massively intricate false flag operation involving thousands of people of all walks of life, requiring countless variables and unknowns to work out just right, or a situation where a group of well trained and well funded fundamentalists managed to catch a country with its pants down by simply highjacking 4 passenger jets with boxcutters.

I belive these Truthers just can't accept that the most powerful nation in the world could be outsmarted by people from a third world country. There have been many examples of simple technologies and tactics defeating the most advanced systems. For example -the Vietnam war: using simple gorilla tactics, hand-dug tunnels, etc to fight a nation with napalm, guided missiles, helicopters, etc. All this technology and inventiveness can be defeated by human nature. We are given all these gadgets and people will fail to use them properly or use them at all. Its why with all these security upgrades at airports you can still have someone manage to get past security checkpoints with hidden weapons.

[choda]

What a guy, I loved Joe Rogan from Fear Factor days, especially this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C7vP061iqs

[Jayhall]

so which one of you guys sell DMT?

haha

you buy the ingredients and cook it yourself. Its totally legal until you actual make the DMT, then you are in possesion of one of the most illegal controlled substances in the world. Joe Rogan is a pimp. I hardly ever find myself not agreeing with what he has to say. We're all fucked, so sit back and enjoy the ride

[Lomac]

Arash = GunMetalTeg/TheOne v2.0?

:fullofwin:

[Lomac]

Okay, here's something. Let's pretend that the collapse of the WTC7 building was a C/D. Why does it have to be the main driving point behind a thousand and one theories that the whole of 9/11 was a conspiracy?

Three major government branches were stationed inside the building: Department of Defense, CIA and IRS. Think about it for a second... A building housing potentially thousands of highly secret and confidential files has suddenly been hugely and irreversibly damaged. What do you do to prevent these files from being stolen by someone when a guard's back it turned? You pull the whole building down.

Maybe it was brought down by explosions of some kind. But even if it was, it doesn't mean there was actually a conspiracy afoot...

[LiquidTurbo]

^ you conspiracy theorist! :D

[JD¹³]

I want to know how a rookie pilot with ZERO experience in a 757 was able to fly it with such precision that he got a direct hit on the Pentagon. One that was so bad his flight instructors didn't think he would have been able to fly a Cessna 172. At more than 500mph he was able to negotiate over other low lying buildings and the interstate highway, not bounce off the ground at all in the field, and hit the side of the building perfectly. My dad spent 23 years as a fighter pilot in the military, 15 commercially flying the Tri-Star, 747-400, and new 777, with over 14,000 hours in the cockpit..... and he says there's no F'ing way.

It's been almost 10 years since the attack and everyone knows the official story. So get me the video from the hotel that had direct, unobstructed, clear, no "take the distance and measure 4x3 for scale" yadda yadda bullshit footage of the entire field and would have seen the plane hit the Pentagon. If the official story was true they would have released this footage, but they haven't. And until they do I'm not buying that a commercial jet aircraft hit it (because it's not true).

This is the footprint of a plane hitting the WTC:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnPMbur5sKinDKGiePVFclBEsEvOlJA FB17pAmy5d0SN9ygePVdA&t=1
This is the damage at the Pentagon:
http://logicalscience.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/pentagon.jpg

Nothing with wings hit the Pentagon. If you believe that Flight 77 did, please fail me so I can clearly see who the dumbest people on RS are.

[Nightwalker]

I hardly ever find myself not agreeing with what he has to say. We're all fucked, so sit back and enjoy the ride

I watched his podcast on the other page, I'd never seen it before. Loved it! I think I've agreed with everything he's had to say too.

I don't think people should get so negative though. Something that it seems gets lost, is how there has NEVER been a time that I am aware of where the average person has had so many rights, been so safe, or been so comfortable.

Conspiracy theorists sometimes make me scratch my head when they are so shocked or outraged. When has there NOT been those with power, or those who have abused their power? When has it ever been BETTER?

That said, we shouldn't all just roll over and be slaves because things are better now than they've ever been. Things can always improve.

Let's assume that there is an evil overlord society pulling strings at the top. They would be LOVING the conspiracy theorists babbling and doom and gloom. They would love people to think that they are omnipresent, and for people to fear them. They would love rumors that they're aliens, or Atlanteans or whatever the fuck.

Fact is, they would be vastly outnumbered by everybody else. Fear of them would protect them. Fearing evil helps perpetuate it :(

Fear after 9/11 was a gateway for a lot of terrible things.

[LiquidTurbo]

I want to know how a rookie pilot with ZERO experience in a 757 was able to fly it with such precision that he got a direct hit on the Pentagon. One that was so bad his flight instructors don't think he would have even been able to fly a Cessna 172. At more than 500mph he was able to negotiate over other low lying buildings and the interstate highway, not bounce off the ground at all in the field, and hit the side of the building perfectly. My dad spent 23 years as a fighter pilot in the military, 15 commercially flying the Tri-Star, 747-400, and new 777, with over 14,000 hours in the cockpit..... and he says there's no F'ing way.

It's been almost 10 years since the attack and everyone knows the official story. So get me the video from the hotel that had direct, unobstructed, clear, no "take the distance and measure 4x3 for scale" yadda yadda bullshit footage of the entire field and would have seen the plane hit the Pentagon. If the official story was true they would have released this footage, but they haven't. And until they do I'm not buying that a commercial jet aircraft hit it (because it's not true).

This is the footprint of a plane hitting the WTC:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnPMbur5sKinDKGiePVFclBEsEvOlJA FB17pAmy5d0SN9ygePVdA&t=1
This is the damage at the Pentagon:
http://logicalscience.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/pentagon.jpg

Nothing with wings hit the Pentagon. If you believe that Flight 77 did, please fail me so I can clearly see who the dumbest people on RS are.

Dude, where's your 'Thanks' button?

[Nightwalker]

With regards to 9/11, I've always thought that if it were an inside job, the simplest way to do it would be just to hijack the fucking planes and actually crash them just like the official story.

[da-suu]

u know how they say iraq ppl drove the plane into the twin towers, i wonder how the iraq ppl were able to pilot the plane all the way there ? , and where did they hijack the plane?

[Lomac]

u know how they say iraq ppl drove the plane into the twin towers, i wonder how the iraq ppl were able to pilot the plane all the way there ? , and where did they hijack the plane?

:facepalm:

[JD¹³]

Dude, where's your 'Thanks' button?
Ask SkinnyPupp.

[LiquidTurbo]

This is the damage at the Pentagon:
http://logicalscience.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/pentagon.jpg

Nothing with wings hit the Pentagon. If you believe that Flight 77 did, please fail me so I can clearly see who the dumbest people on RS are.

I find it absolutely bizarre that the entire left wall looks like its been sliced vertically perfectly.

The only explanation is that it was a collapse afterwards, sure, but that means the initial footprint is even smaller.

[Bouncing Bettys]

This is the damage at the Pentagon:
http://logicalscience.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/pentagon.jpg

Nothing with wings hit the Pentagon. If you believe that Flight 77 did, please fail me so I can clearly see who the dumbest people on RS are.
http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/imgs/hole11.jpg

There appears to be wing damage there. There are over a hundred people who witnessed with their own eyes the impact and there are hundreds more who found evidence of an American Airlines jet inside and outside the pentagon as well as bodies of passengers. If nothing with wings hit the pentagon then its classed as a missile and missiles aren't designed to punch through multiple rings of a building. Their energy is spent at initial impact (which would have caused an explosion outward from the building as well) or exploding inside but nothing like that would cause the hole over 300ft from impact. I ask you how a wingless missile was capable of knocking down multiple street lamps on its path to impact, one lamp I can recall striking a taxi on the highway. And most importantly, if it wasn't a plane, what happened to the passengers of flight 77? Were the phone calls made, the acts of heroism, in keeping others informed of their situation, the last goodbyes to loved ones; are they all fakes?

Need further evidence that a plane's wings won't penetrate a concrete and steel reinforce building? Empire State Building in 1945: a B-25 with a 62ft6inch wing span manages to punch just an 18ft by 20ft hole through the building with one engine managing to exit through the other side of the building and travelling another block. What happened to the wings?
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9311/empirestatebldgcrash2kk.jpg

[JD¹³]

:facepalm:

Did you even look at the difference between the two photos?
If nothing with wings hit the pentagon then its classed as a missile and missiles aren't designed to punch through multiple rings of a building.
Allow me to introduce you to decades old military technology:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbtzpqZOtB8&feature=related

They have winged, guided or controllable versions that look just like aircraft these days. They're also multi-charged and designed to punch through numerous layers of armour or bunker. I'm just going to assume you've never heard of depleted uranium either.

Your B25 comparison is brutal. A B25 made of aluminum traveling at a MAXIMUM of 285mph will of course not do anything near the damage of a steel and titanium constructed jet liner traveling at over 500mph. The mass and speeds are unbelievably different so this is not even close to a credible argument. It's also a hypocritical one from you, because if you actually believed this you would know that the B25 incident is why the WTC was constructed to withstand much heavier and faster aircraft hits. Yet you say these hits were enough to bring down the entire structures. Right.

I'm not going to argue every little detail of the incident with you, but having been surrounded by both the military and commercial airline industry for more than 25 years there is no way you're going to convince me Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[liu13]

the most coincidental part about 9/11 is that norad was running war games exactly at the time of execution, you'd think the us would be secure at all times

how convenient for terrorists

[LiquidTurbo]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/pentagon_010912-n-3235p-020.jpg

I see no evidence of:

-Rolls Royce Engines
-Fuselage

-Anything resembling plane garbage. ie:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200903/r352229_1616419.jpg

[Bouncing Bettys]

They have winged, guided or controllable versions that look just like aircraft these days. They're also multi-charged and designed to punch through numerous layers of armour or bunker. I'm just going to assume you've never heard of depleted uranium either.
Nothing with wings hit the Pentagon.
what of the over 100 witnesses, a number of them having a militiary/aviation background who saw a commercial jet strike the pentagon. What of the passengers on Flight 77 who made phone calls, giving updates and last goodbyes to loved ones? You are correct, a missile can do some of the damage that was done to the pentagon but it was also proven that an aluminum plane can penetrate a concrete and steel structure and continue out the other side of a building.
http://www.truthnews.com.au/storage/images/pentagon/wreckage.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CLCwkcHdmw&feature=related

Your B25 comparison is brutal. A B25 made of aluminum traveling at a MAXIMUM of 285mph will of course not do anything near the damage of a steel and titanium constructed jet liner traveling at over 500mph. The mass and speeds are unbelievably different so this is not even close to a credible argument. It's also a hypocritical one from you, because if you actually believed this you would know that the B25 incident is why the WTC was constructed to withstand much heavier and faster aircraft hits. Yet you say these hits were enough to bring down the entire structures. Right.
Most commercial airliners flying today and more so 9 years ago were constructed of aluminum not steel or titanium. Yes the mass and speeds of Flight 77 and the B-25 were different but so were the buildings they struck. The Empire State Building was build of concrete and steel to the standards of the 1920's. The Pentagon: "It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes—enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety. The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows—2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each—that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out."

As to the B-25 crash somehow making an argument that planes should not have been able to do the damage they did to the WTC towers - I never claimed the impacts alone brought down the buildings and the evidence agrees with me. The B-25 was low on fuel, lost in fog trying to find a place to land. An engine from the plane continued on through the building and traveled another block. Flight 11 and Flight 175 were deliberately flown into steel buildings at high speeds and loaded with fuel, taking out key columns It has already been shown that concrete and steel react differently to impacts and fire than what occurs in a steel structure alone. The resulting fires from the jet fuel as well as the office furniture contributed much more to the collapse than the initial impacts.

[Bouncing Bettys]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/pentagon_010912-n-3235p-020.jpg

I see no evidence of:

-Pratt and Whittney Engines
-Fuselage
this was already posted before but apparently you didn't watch it. YouTube - RKOwens4's Channel

[dangonay]

Nothing with wings hit the Pentagon. If you believe that Flight 77 did, please fail me so I can clearly see who the dumbest people on RS are.

Aren't you in the process of trying to become a fighter pilot with aspirations of getting into the F35? I sure hope the military conducts thorough testing on their candidates so that a nutjob conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe in simple logic gets to take the controls of a $100mil jet fighter.

[bengy]

Aren't you in the process of trying to become a fighter pilot with aspirations of getting into the F35? I sure hope the military conducts thorough testing on their candidates so that a nutjob conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe in simple logic gets to take the controls of a $100mil jet fighter.

Wow, so anyone who thinks different is now a nutjob? You're a fuckin idiot buddy and you need to pipe the fuck down.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Aren't you in the process of trying to become a fighter pilot with aspirations of getting into the F35? I sure hope the military conducts thorough testing on their candidates so that a nutjob conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe in simple logic gets to take the controls of a $100mil jet fighter.

or one with such an aviation background who believes the majority of commercial jets in use today are constructed of steel and titanium rather than aluminum which even someone with zero background can distinguish.

[dangonay]

-Anything resembling plane garbage. ie:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200903/r352229_1616419.jpg

So you use as an example a picture of a plane that catches fire after overshooting a runway to a plane that smashes into the ground/building? Typical apples to oranges comparison of a truther.

Wikipedia has a nice page listing all the major commercial airline crashes. You can find it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commerci al_aircraft


Here's a picture of a similarly sized plane, an Airbus 321 that slammed into the side of a hill. Where did all the wreckage disappear to?

If you sift through the cases from the Wikipedia site and look at aircraft that have crashed by overshooting or made emergency landings, they look like the picture you provided - the plane suffered damage from fire, not from impact. You look at pictures at planes that crashed into the side of a hill or large structure you will see lots of examples of planes with very little left to identify.


http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2010/07/28/pakistancrash103134524.jpg

[JD¹³]

Aren't you in the process of trying to become a fighter pilot with aspirations of getting into the F35? I sure hope the military conducts thorough testing on their candidates so that a nutjob conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe in simple logic gets to take the controls of a $100mil jet fighter.
Thankfully in Canada everyone is entitled to an opinion and to voice it as they wish, that is a freedom I wish to defend. I'm not making any wild accusations I'm just stating my opinion on what I think did (or did not happen). The official story used to be that the world was flat, but not everyone chose to believe it...

[dangonay]

Wow, so anyone who thinks different is now a nutjob? You're a fuckin idiot buddy and you need to pipe the fuck down.
Oh, poor poor baby. Did I make you angry?


I don't want my tax dollars going to train people who believe in fairy tales or who claim to be scientific but ignore evidence that's right in front of their eyes. This is not a matter of opinion - it's a matter of physical evidence.

[JD¹³]

or one with such an aviation background who believes the majority of commercial jets in use today are constructed of steel and titanium rather than aluminum which even someone with zero background can distinguish.
I meant steel and titanium components but failed to make that point more clear. Anyways, carry on nitpicking...

[liu13]

didnt the architects of the wtc say the towers can withstand more than 1 airplane hits

[Bouncing Bettys]

didnt the architects of the wtc say the towers can withstand more than 1 airplane hits
Frank De Martini once said he "believed" the towers could withstand multiple hits but that wasn't a tested or calculated theory. He was speaking of a scenario in which a 707, empty of fuel and flying at low speeds trying to land at LaGuardia or Newark, would unintentionally crash into a tower. Flight 11 and Flight 175 were slightly bigger planes, full of fuel, flying at much higher speeds than a plane looking to land. The increased energy factor of the 2 impacts as well as the fully loaded fuel tanks were not factored in the initial construction nor Frank DeMartini's beliefs. Despite the increased impact energy, the two WTC towers did manage to absorb the impact of the planes as evidence of their remaining upright for nearly an hour after impact. But adding the resulting fires, which were not factored into calculations, weakened the remaining steel columns causing collapse.

[dangonay]

I want to know how a rookie pilot with ZERO experience in a 757 was able to fly it with such precision that he got a direct hit on the Pentagon. One that was so bad his flight instructors didn't think he would have been able to fly a Cessna 172.

How do you know the hijacker was a rookie pilot who couldn't fly a Cessna 172? Nobody identified Hani Hanjour as being the pilot of the plane - they only say he was one of five hijackers that attended school in the US and was seeking to become a pilot.

That's like saying they filmed one of the hijackers buying a swiss army knife so he was the only one armed on the flight. Can you imagine the hijackers sitting around getting ready and the leader asks "OK, who's got the knife" and they say "Larry was in charge of bringing the knife, but they made him check it in his baggage".

Common sense would dictate that they all brought knives/weapons just in case one or more would have been forced to check it. Likewise, it makes sense that more than one of them was a pilot in case during the struggle one of them was injured. For all we know, Hani Hanjour could have been the backup pilot and was trying to brush up before the hijcaking (he tried to rent the Cessna only weeks before 9/11).

[gdoh]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912#

[penner2k]

That's the problem with truthers - they pick odd examples and say "this one didn't collapse despite being on fire, therefore something's wrong with the WTC collapse".

The only way this argument would make any sense is if a building constructed the exact same way got hit by the exact same type of plane in the exact same manner, and had a fire in the exact same manner. Otherwise it's just apples and oranges.


As to buildings free-falling, I found several examples without much effort. 2000 Commonwealth Avenue and Skyline Plaza are good case studies as there's lots of information about them. Basically, the top floor fell onto the one below and started a chain reaction of floors falling onto each other causing the entire building to fall perfectly ending up in the basement.

This is something truthers say can't happen (buildings falling perfectly straight into the basement), when in fact it's happened numerous times around the world. Then again, since the buildings used as examples aren't as tall as the WTC was, then my examples have no merit and can't be considered.

The problem with that is that the building was designed in such a way that you could could take out multiple floors and the building would stay standing....

Most buildings are built as columns but the wtc wasnt. The building was built around a center column that could withstand multiple impacts from a airplane. If that center column would get damaged enough to allow for the building to actually fall the building would not come straight down. It would fall over. The whole theory that the jet fuel melted everything is bs too since if you watch when it got hit the plane blew up and within seconds the jet fuel was all burned up. All you would have burning at that point is paper other stuff that really doesnt burn all that hot.


http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm

This site actually shows pictures of how the building was built and explains it all (and no this isnt some some theory on how the building was built. Its actually magazine articles from back when the building was being built.)

[penner2k]

Frank De Martini once said he "believed" the towers could withstand multiple hits but that wasn't a tested or calculated theory. He was speaking of a scenario in which a 707, empty of fuel and flying at low speeds trying to land at LaGuardia or Newark, would unintentionally crash into a tower. Flight 11 and Flight 175 were slightly bigger planes, full of fuel, flying at much higher speeds than a plane looking to land. The increased energy factor of the 2 impacts as well as the fully loaded fuel tanks were not factored in the initial construction nor Frank DeMartini's beliefs. Despite the increased impact energy, the two WTC towers did manage to absorb the impact of the planes as evidence of their remaining upright for nearly an hour after impact. But adding the resulting fires, which were not factored into calculations, weakened the remaining steel columns causing collapse.

When the planes hit the building they blew up and the jet fuel was burned off really quickly... The burning was just whatever was in the offices which would never get hot enough to melt structured steel. Unless somehow all the center columns that actually held the building up managed to melt at exactly the same speed the building would just fall over. Its pretty much just a really really really strong cage built around the elevator core. Then off that they had metal beams that came off. So you take out a couple floors and the building stays standing since the floors above arent actually relying on what is below it to stay standing.
I'm not 100% sure but there is a building in Vancouver that has a center core and then the building hangs off it that is a good example how that works. Technically the first couple floors are "missing" yet the building still is standing.
Normal buildings are built as columns that go from top to bottom. You take out a couple of columns below and now everything on top is putting a lot more force on the remaining columns and the building would come down.

[JD¹³]

How do you know the hijacker was a rookie pilot who couldn't fly a Cessna 172?
How do you know he wasn't?

I find it quite improbable that a highly trained and professional pilot would become a religious martyr. It's possible of course but very very unlikely that a man who has dedicated so much of his life to the training and attention to detail required to get to that position would throw it all away for religious ideals. A professional pilot not only doesn't fit the profile of a martyr but he would quite simply be too smart to be an expendable pawn.

If Hanjour WAS in fact just a backup pilot why would he need to go to American schools to learn to fly? The primary pilot could have taught him all the basics he needed to steer the jet and control it's speed. Regardless, hitting a huge building like the WTC which stands above the rest of the skyline and hitting the low-lying Pentagon are two very different scenarios. And as I said the absolute precision flying that it took to make that attack would have been very difficult for a seasoned pilot who was very familiar with the handling characteristics of that airliner.

[Bouncing Bettys]

When the planes hit the building they blew up and the jet fuel was burned off really quickly... The burning was just whatever was in the offices which would never get hot enough to melt structured steel.

Truthers still can't understand that we're not talking about melting steel, we're talking about weakening it which requires a lot less heat.

explain this experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGsOkT__M7Y&feature=related

and I've already posted this video showing that this was not the first time steel structures have collapsed due to fire and no jet fuel was present in these examples
YouTube - RKOwens4's Channel

[penner2k]

ok so the support was weakened... how does it fall straight down then?

If you have 4 sides to the support that would mean that in order for it to come straight down it would have to melt at exactly the same temp. all the way around in order for it to start to collapse on itself.. I just dont see how that is possible.. One side would weaken first and the building would topple and not come straight down since as soon as one side starts collapsing you are actually having less weight on the other side.

Also pause the video at 15 seconds.. That is how a normal tower is built. The twin towers werent built like that. It was a center support that had supports coming off of it that each floor sits on. That means that you could actually completely remove a couple of floors and everything above it would stay standing. Also they did the test on a 1 ton piece of steel. The steel in the tower weighed 22 tons a piece..

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/hoist-panel.jpg

Looks a little different then the little piece of steel they used in that video isnt it?

And before you argue that they scaled the load... Look at the way they were welding stuff on.. Pieces across (again.. the building wasnt designed like that... the load would be vertical and not horizontal)

[JD¹³]

Dangonay is suddenly silent......... ?

[liu13]

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/8976/18matrixsm.jpg/
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/2481/18simpsons911.jpg/

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Hollywood_911.htm

[LiquidTurbo]

So you use as an example a picture of a plane that catches fire after overshooting a runway to a plane that smashes into the ground/building? Typical apples to oranges comparison of a truther.

Wikipedia has a nice page listing all the major commercial airline crashes. You can find it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commerci al_aircraft


Here's a picture of a similarly sized plane, an Airbus 321 that slammed into the side of a hill. Where did all the wreckage disappear to?

If you sift through the cases from the Wikipedia site and look at aircraft that have crashed by overshooting or made emergency landings, they look like the picture you provided - the plane suffered damage from fire, not from impact. You look at pictures at planes that crashed into the side of a hill or large structure you will see lots of examples of planes with very little left to identify.


http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2010/07/28/pakistancrash103134524.jpg

That's a great point, except that photo is probably taken hours if not days after the crash when everything has burned itself out and all fires are gone. This happened in the mountainous remote region of Pakistan.

Pentagon is in the middle of a city. Surely immediately after the crash we would have seen journalist photos showing immense amount of debris. This is just not the case.

[TheKingdom2000]

1) I didn't know rogan had sleeves
2) i didn't know joe rogan could teach GSP anything

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3N5Rnx37O0&feature=feedu

I always knew joe could fight, but I've never he was legit.
The best part is the HUGE difference between joe's kick vs GSPs kick

[Redlines_Daily]

he might earn some more credibility if he didnt say fuck every second word.

[Jeys]

Joe Rogan is the man.

[Jeys]

I want to know how a rookie pilot with ZERO experience in a 757 was able to fly it with such precision that he got a direct hit on the Pentagon. One that was so bad his flight instructors didn't think he would have been able to fly a Cessna 172. At more than 500mph he was able to negotiate over other low lying buildings and the interstate highway, not bounce off the ground at all in the field, and hit the side of the building perfectly. My dad spent 23 years as a fighter pilot in the military, 15 commercially flying the Tri-Star, 747-400, and new 777, with over 14,000 hours in the cockpit..... and he says there's no F'ing way.

It's been almost 10 years since the attack and everyone knows the official story. So get me the video from the hotel that had direct, unobstructed, clear, no "take the distance and measure 4x3 for scale" yadda yadda bullshit footage of the entire field and would have seen the plane hit the Pentagon. If the official story was true they would have released this footage, but they haven't. And until they do I'm not buying that a commercial jet aircraft hit it (because it's not true).

This is the footprint of a plane hitting the WTC:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnPMbur5sKinDKGiePVFclBEsEvOlJA FB17pAmy5d0SN9ygePVdA&t=1
This is the damage at the Pentagon:
http://logicalscience.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/pentagon.jpg

Nothing with wings hit the Pentagon. If you believe that Flight 77 did, please fail me so I can clearly see who the dumbest people on RS are.

A plane did not hit the Pentagon. It was a missile, I believe (not sure).

But anyways, the TRUSTY government will tell you a plane hit the pentagon, and the sheeps will believe it.

[goo3]

^ as opposed to the sheep who are too lazy to read engineering reports?

[Bouncing Bettys]

middle of a debate and my computer takes a dump. I'm not done with this thread and will be back soon to respond to the truthers/flat earthers.

[dangonay]

I'm curious why truthers never seem to explain what REALLY happened, they can only concentrate on what they think DIDN'T happen.

- There's NO way a plane hit the Pentagon.
- There's NO plane wreckage at the Pentagon.
- There's NO way WTC building collapsed because of fire.
- There's NO way the WTC fires were hot enough to melt steel.
- There's NO way the WTC towers could free-fall.
- There's NO way something with wings hit the Pentagon (just for you JD13).

Seems all they can do is offer ridiculous explanations why something DIDN'T happen. Why don't they tell us what REALLY happened, using the EVIDENCE to support their theory?

I'll tell you why - it's because this is how conspiracists work. When there's a lack of evidence to support your argument you have to resort to dismantling the other argument. You then claim that since argument A is invalid (because you supposedly proved it wrong), you can conclude that argument B becomes valid.

This is a false dichotomoy (for people who don't know what that is, here's a brief description). A false dichotomoy is where you are told there are only two possibilities, black and white, when in fact there could be 3 or more choices. Often used by conspiracists who start off by stating there are only two choices. The conspiracist then spends time proving choice 'A' wrong and at the end concludes the choice 'B' is correct. No evidence is ever presented to prove choice 'B' - indeed they don't need to since they already proved 'A' is wrong.


So, for the conspiracists, tell me what exactly hit the Pentagon? Was it a missile? A Global Hawk? Show me how a strike by either of these will match the damage done to the Pentagon. Don't keep tellng me what DIDN'T happen, I want to know what ACTUALLY happened.

[strykn]

man I watched joe rogans stand up comedies fucking hilarious

[Arash]

dangonay please respond to penner2k's last post so that we can finally put these conspiracy theories behind us.

[JD¹³]

- There's NO way something with wings hit the Pentagon (just for you JD13).

So, for the conspiracists, tell me what exactly hit the Pentagon? Was it a missile? A Global Hawk? Show me how a strike by either of these will match the damage done to the Pentagon. Don't keep tellng me what DIDN'T happen, I want to know what ACTUALLY happened.
:D

The problem is there's no way to say definitively. Until the US government releases the footage that has a clear view of the strike then all anyone has is speculation. Like I said earlier it's been almost 10 years and they're sticking with the official story, so why do they continue to hide the footage? If they have nothing to hide then they should prove it, do you not agree?

It could have been a small plane loaded with explosives, could have been a missile of some sort, could have been something specifically designed for this sole attack, we'll never know until that footage is seen. The current evidence heavily suggests that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon but many choose not to believe it along with many other aspects of what went on that day.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist I'm just questioning the official story. 9/11 as a whole just seems off. There are too many extenuating circumstances and questionable occurrences in a single day. From NORAD operations, to the way the towers collapsed, to a rookie pilot handling a 757 with the precision of a guided munition on his first flight. Add the fact that in top secret documents the US government has planned staged attacks in order to justify political or military moves in the past.... and people smell smoke. The timing of 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Iraq, the falsified evidence of WMD's, the rebuilding contracts in the billions and billions of dollars just adds fuel to idea. Even if only part of the official story is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a lie, how would that make you feel about the rest?

Despite all the evidence produced to say what happened I still can't get my gut feeling to agree with it. There's got to be a fire accompanying that smoke. The problem is they may have buried it so deep that we won't be able to prove it's existence within a time-frame when everyone still cares enough to do anything about it. That's probably what they're counting on, much like the murder of JFK.

[goo3]

The current evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon but many choose not to believe it because they're fucking dense.


There fixed. Now move on. You have nothing.

[penner2k]

dangonay please respond to penner2k's last post so that we can finally put these conspiracy theories behind us.

He cant... Its virtually impossible to that the support weaken at EXACTLY the same speed so the building would collapse on itself in a free fall. Like I said one side would weaken a little sooner (most likely the side that actually got hit) which would mean the building would lean a little to one side. Now instead of all the weight being evenly distributed across there would be thousands of pounds more on one side which in turn would cause that side to weaken at an even greater speed.. The building should topple since it would slowly compound the problem.
Also another problem is you have a support structure that pretty much going straight up and down from top to bottom. That is EXTREMELY strong. That would NEVER collapse on itself. At most again it would weaken and topple. But to actually collapse on itself. lol... You gotta be an idiot to actually believe that could happen. Hell look at an egg. If you put even pressure on exactly the top and bottom of its really really really hard to break.. I bet if you took 4 1 inch bolts and placed them face up on the ground and then took a semi truck and placed them exactly center on them those 4 bolts would actually hold up the truck. That would also prove my point cuz if you were even 1/10000 on an inch off of placing it dead center it would topple. It wouldnt collapse on itself.

[penner2k]

Even if only part of the official story is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a lie, how would that make you feel about the rest?

That is exactly how I feel.

Another question I have...

1993 World Trade Center Bombing? How did the building not come down from that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

[dangonay]

He cant... Its virtually impossible to that the support weaken at EXACTLY the same speed so the building would collapse on itself in a free fall. Like I said one side would weaken a little sooner (most likely the side that actually got hit) which would mean the building would lean a little to one side. Now instead of all the weight being evenly distributed across there would be thousands of pounds more on one side which in turn would cause that side to weaken at an even greater speed.. The building should topple since it would slowly compound the problem.
Also another problem is you have a support structure that pretty much going straight up and down from top to bottom. That is EXTREMELY strong. That would NEVER collapse on itself. At most again it would weaken and topple. But to actually collapse on itself. lol... You gotta be an idiot to actually believe that could happen. Hell look at an egg. If you put even pressure on exactly the top and bottom of its really really really hard to break.. I bet if you took 4 1 inch bolts and placed them face up on the ground and then took a semi truck and placed them exactly center on them those 4 bolts would actually hold up the truck. That would also prove my point cuz if you were even 1/10000 on an inch off of placing it dead center it would topple. It wouldnt collapse on itself.

I see I wasted my money finishing up my engineering degree this past year. I should simply have come to you and Arash for answers to any questions I had. I want to see some mathematical equations explaining why the WTC buildings would fall over. I don't want some bullshit statements like "That would NEVER collapse on itself" or "place a semi truck on 4 x 1 inch bolts". Seriously? Now we're comparing balancing a semi on bolts to a skyscraper? Do you truthers sit around conducting these stupid experiments to try to explain phenomenom you can't understand (or refuse to even try to understand)?

Prove to me that a building will lean or topple over. Aside from a few low-rise concrete buildings on poor foundations, no skyscraper in history has ever fallen over. So why do you think the WTC should fall over? As soon as one side weakens, the building supports will shear. You should read up on this phenomenom - there's lots of information out there. Once the shearing takes place, the entire structure will lose its ability to support the loads from above and the structure will collapse.


I see you're also complaining about the National Geographic video showing how heating steel weakens beams. You are absolutely correct - the beams the National Geographic used are tiny in comparison to the WTC steel beams, so their video demonstration should no longer be used.

I now fully expect the truthers to remove all the videos from their websites showing thermite cutters (molds used to hold thermite against steel columns to demonstarte it can cut steel vertically). I mean, you guys are using thermite to cut little 1/4" and 1/2" steel girders when the WTC beams are anywhere from 3-5" thick. So I think it's only fair you stop posting those stupid videos as well.


There are many curiosities in the natural world. Things that when people see they wonder how it's possible for that to happen - they simply don't make sense or seem to defy the laws of physics. You can see such things at your local science centre - they make for good demonstrations to make people go "oooohh and aaahhhh". As odd as they seem, they all have simple explanations to show why they behave that way. They are only "curiosities" for the simple person. Same with the WTC tower collapses. They behaved as they should according to the laws of physics. But because they didn't behave the way a "simple" person thinks they should (because they know fuck all about engineering & physics), then it must be a conspircy of some sort.

[dangonay]

Even if only part of the official story is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a lie, how would that make you feel about the rest?

Funny, I use that exact same argument against the truthers. If you can prove that even one single part of their WTC collapse theory is false, then how do you feel about the rest of the information they're giving you?

[deep87]

^both sides kinda feel the same way. Thats why this thread hasn't died. I do however feel that the entire incident should be taken into account when forming an opinion on 911. What I do appreciate though is the fact that both sides in this thread have made some effort to understand/research the issue and make up their own minds. The way that opinion is presented might not be the most diplomatic but its better then keeping your head in the sand like the general public.

[penner2k]

I see I wasted my money finishing up my engineering degree this past year. I should simply have come to you and Arash for answers to any questions I had. I want to see some mathematical equations explaining why the WTC buildings would fall over. I don't want some bullshit statements like "That would NEVER collapse on itself" or "place a semi truck on 4 x 1 inch bolts". Seriously? Now we're comparing balancing a semi on bolts to a skyscraper? Do you truthers sit around conducting these stupid experiments to try to explain phenomenom you can't understand (or refuse to even try to understand)?

Prove to me that a building will lean or topple over. Aside from a few low-rise concrete buildings on poor foundations, no skyscraper in history has ever fallen over. So why do you think the WTC should fall over? As soon as one side weakens, the building supports will shear. You should read up on this phenomenom - there's lots of information out there. Once the shearing takes place, the entire structure will lose its ability to support the loads from above and the structure will collapse.


I see you're also complaining about the National Geographic video showing how heating steel weakens beams. You are absolutely correct - the beams the National Geographic used are tiny in comparison to the WTC steel beams, so their video demonstration should no longer be used.

I now fully expect the truthers to remove all the videos from their websites showing thermite cutters (molds used to hold thermite against steel columns to demonstarte it can cut steel vertically). I mean, you guys are using thermite to cut little 1/4" and 1/2" steel girders when the WTC beams are anywhere from 3-5" thick. So I think it's only fair you stop posting those stupid videos as well.


There are many curiosities in the natural world. Things that when people see they wonder how it's possible for that to happen - they simply don't make sense or seem to defy the laws of physics. You can see such things at your local science centre - they make for good demonstrations to make people go "oooohh and aaahhhh". As odd as they seem, they all have simple explanations to show why they behave that way. They are only "curiosities" for the simple person. Same with the WTC tower collapses. They behaved as they should according to the laws of physics. But because they didn't behave the way a "simple" person thinks they should (because they know fuck all about engineering & physics), then it must be a conspircy of some sort.

You still havent actually read on how the towers were designed did you?
My arguement starts to make a whole lot of sense once you realize the design is totally different then pretty much anything out there..

[LiquidTurbo]

I see I wasted my money finishing up my engineering degree this past year. I should simply have come to you and Arash for answers to any questions I had. I want to see some mathematical equations explaining why the WTC buildings would fall over. I don't want some bullshit statements like "That would NEVER collapse on itself" or "place a semi truck on 4 x 1 inch bolts". Seriously? Now we're comparing balancing a semi on bolts to a skyscraper? Do you truthers sit around conducting these stupid experiments to try to explain phenomenom you can't understand (or refuse to even try to understand)?

Prove to me that a building will lean or topple over. Aside from a few low-rise concrete buildings on poor foundations, no skyscraper in history has ever fallen over. So why do you think the WTC should fall over? As soon as one side weakens, the building supports will shear. You should read up on this phenomenom - there's lots of information out there. Once the shearing takes place, the entire structure will lose its ability to support the loads from above and the structure will collapse.


I see you're also complaining about the National Geographic video showing how heating steel weakens beams. You are absolutely correct - the beams the National Geographic used are tiny in comparison to the WTC steel beams, so their video demonstration should no longer be used.

I now fully expect the truthers to remove all the videos from their websites showing thermite cutters (molds used to hold thermite against steel columns to demonstarte it can cut steel vertically). I mean, you guys are using thermite to cut little 1/4" and 1/2" steel girders when the WTC beams are anywhere from 3-5" thick. So I think it's only fair you stop posting those stupid videos as well.


There are many curiosities in the natural world. Things that when people see they wonder how it's possible for that to happen - they simply don't make sense or seem to defy the laws of physics. You can see such things at your local science centre - they make for good demonstrations to make people go "oooohh and aaahhhh". As odd as they seem, they all have simple explanations to show why they behave that way. They are only "curiosities" for the simple person. Same with the WTC tower collapses. They behaved as they should according to the laws of physics. But because they didn't behave the way a "simple" person thinks they should (because they know fuck all about engineering & physics), then it must be a conspircy of some sort.

dangonay, no offense, but your appeal to authority fallacies are getting tiresome. Just because you have a degree in engineering doesn't really mean that helps your arguments. "Show me an equation that it should have fallen over", could easily be turned around to "show me an equation that shows it conclusively would've free fallen!"

It would've have though WTC would have had a partial collapse like this,

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/windsor5.jpg

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/windsor8.jpeg

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/windsor14.jpeg


By the way, how about a response to the debris point I made earlier about your comparision to a crash in the mountains of Pakistan. You seem to thing that 99% wreckage can magically vaporize instantaneously upon impact.


Basically I have no problem w/ WTC1 and 2 falling. I do have issues with WTC7 and Pentagon. There are different levels of 'truthers' as you like to call them.

Essentially all I need to shut me up is simply a CLEAR video or a photo of a plane hitting the Pentagon.

I know there were earlier videos of some pictures of a few tiny pieces of wreckage, but it is not anything 100% conclusive. I think the world needs a video of the plane hitting a pentagon. 3 frames of a blurry video of a stick, and then an explosion, does not constitute anything conclusive.

[goo3]

hey, you know that new port mann bridge? why don't we just get a bunch of BAs to build it. Then they can iron out the design by writing persuasive essays to each other. Maybe attach some pics from google. A couple of schematics in crayon and you're good to go. Gravity doesn't stand a chance against arguments and persuasion.

[dangonay]

:Until the US government releases the footage that has a clear view of the strike then all anyone has is speculation.

First off, there won't be any clear footage. The idea such footage exists is pure speculation. Which is also great for truthers - claim something exists and therefore there's a reason they're keeping it a secret (hiding something).

The security cameras weren't high-def and they weren't running at 1,000 frames per second. Any footage would be like what we've got - blurry, grainy, fuzzy. These cameras were in place to catch "normal" stuff like vehicle traffic or faces of people accessing the Pentagon.

Besides, even if they released a video showing the plane, we all know what would happen. Within days some truther with a background in forensic video analysis would have "proof" the video was doctored and nothing more than Hollywood special effects.

You can't provide proof to someone who doesn't want to believe.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[LiquidTurbo]

The Pentagon is one of the most secure buildings on the planet. Enough said. Also, do you believe the wreckage mostly vaporized instantly?


A plane could fly intro Metrotown and we would have better footage than what we have for the Pentagon.


I would love to believe, but the evidence doesn't add up for me. Maybe it does for you, but it doesn't for me, and a lot of people.

You know, there were probably 'truther's' debating the Gulf of Tonkin incident back in the day. No one would have ever believe that crazy conspiracy theory of the US performing a self inflicted wound to instigate a war with Vietnam. But they did. And decades later, documents have surfaced. But it's too late and no one gives a shit. Of course that doesn't mean that 9/11 is necessarily the same, but you can ask yourself this. Do you think there ever have been a war with Iraq if 9/11 never occurred?


Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[penner2k]

First off, there won't be any clear footage. The idea such footage exists is pure speculation. Which is also great for truthers - claim something exists and therefore there's a reason they're keeping it a secret (hiding something).

The security cameras weren't high-def and they weren't running at 1,000 frames per second. Any footage would be like what we've got - blurry, grainy, fuzzy. These cameras were in place to catch "normal" stuff like vehicle traffic or faces of people accessing the Pentagon.

Besides, even if they released a video showing the plane, we all know what would happen. Within days some truther with a background in forensic video analysis would have "proof" the video was doctored and nothing more than Hollywood special effects.

You can't provide proof to someone who doesn't want to believe.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)


wait... so you are telling me that the cameras they had were "blurry, grainy, fuzzy" so they cant show video of a plane hitting the building. BUT if someone is walking around the building they can identify their face with this same camera?
Last I checked a plane was much bigger then a persons face.
While the Pentagon thing doesnt make much sense to me I'm not gonna get into that since the way the building was designed is totally classified.
The other buildings there is lots of documentation on that. The funny thing is you can actually find articles that date back to when the buildings were actually being built so you dont even need to go on a "truther" website.

Or how about his
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

This is from 1993 when the building got bombed... One of the designers saying the building could withstand a fully fueled 707.
I know you are gonna say that a 707 isnt a 767 which you are right. The 767 is bigger. BUT... Its also slower. And was only carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel (at the time).
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/aircraftcomparison.gif
Now if we take the stats of the planes and calculate kinetic energy we will see that

707 - 5622849971 Joules
767 - 5231481666 Joules

The 707 should actually do more structural damage. The 767 CAN carry more fuel but again it wasnt fully loaded while in the simulations they would have done tests on a fully loaded 707.

[JD¹³]

First off, there won't be any clear footage. The idea such footage exists is pure speculation. Which is also great for truthers - claim something exists and therefore there's a reason they're keeping it a secret (hiding something).
Bullshit, and now you're being hypocritical. You argued earlier that witness accounts of Flight 77 were concrete evidence. The problem with witness accounts is they can be influenced and the truth altered. A very basic example:

Gov't: "What did you see?"
Witness: "I saw this plane, it happened so fast... I was light in color and flew right over top of me at highspeed. I didn't get a good look but saw a big explosion at the Pentagon!"
Gov't: "That was American Airlines Flight 77! Terrorists hijacked took it over and flew it into the Pentagon!"
Witness: "Oh my god! Really! Oh my god!"

Media: "What did you see sir?"
Same Witness: "I saw American Airlines Flight 77 fly right over top of me clear as day! I watched it slam right into the Pentagon! Crazy terrorist attack!"

All of a sudden a glance of a learjet becomes a supposedly concrete witness account with identification of all markings and tail numbers of a commercial jet liner. There are numerous accounts of government agents collecting tapes from surveillance camera's in gas stations, hotels, or anything else that had a view of the park and Pentagon where the attack took place. People coming and taking tapes is such a basic witness account that it's very unlikely to be faked.

Video can be altered, but something as complex as this attack from multiple angles couldn't be done. Especially trying to match it to existing albeit it crappy footage. Bottom line is video of what hit the Pentagon exists, and the collection of it would be the ONLY 100% indisputable evidence of what really happened. In my mind there's a reason none of it has been released.

EDIT - If it is someday and you're right, I'll buy you a case of beer and cheers you to a good debate.

[dangonay]

I never said anything about eyewitness accounts regarding Flight 77 - clearly someone is mixing up my posts with somebody else's.

penner2k, I never said the cameras were "blurry or fuzzy". I said the footage would be. A camera that has a low frame rate and low equivalent shutter speed can take great shots of slow moving vehicles or people stopped at checkpoints while their ID is being checked. Video of objects (planes or missiles) travelling at 500MPH would be very poor quality.

And my original point still stands: If video footage was released, truthers would dismiss it as doctored. The Pentagon is in the same position as a celebrity that gets accused of sexual assault. Anything they say will get twisted around, so the best option is to simply keep quiet. People who believe in a conspiracy will dismiss new footage that disagrees with their position, and people who already believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon don't need any additional proof.


BTW, penner2k, I know full well how the WTC towers are constructed. Why is it that you seem to think the reason I disagree with truthers is because I don't understand their construction? It's specifically because of my knowledge of the towers, and of engineering and physics that I don't believe in any controlled demolition BS.

Why don't you find me some simulations showing the WTC towers getting hit by a 757, and burning for hours and NOT collapsing? Or show me a simulation of the towers collapsing where they lean and fall over?

There are lots of simulations on the internet available to any engineer. I can download a full simulation of the WTC towers and run it on my PC, play around with variables, remove columns, add fires wherever I want and sit back and watch what happens. Why don't the truthers produce some simulations that they themselves have run on a program like LS-DYNA (there are many more available)? They could even take out far more columns than were actually damaged to try and "force" the towers to fall over.

And then they have to "release" these simulations so anyone can go over them and check for errors or omissions that might affect the quality of the simulation. This is exactly what has happened with simulations that support the official position - I can download one and compare it with the widely available WTC blueprints to make sure the simulation is accurate and hasn't been rigged to provide a favourable outcome.

LiquidTurbo previously posted a link to a truther site with over 1,400 engineers/architects that signed a petition. How come this collective group of people (many of which would own finite element analysis software) haven't got together to create some alternate simulations?


JD13, you seem to be coming off as a a moderate truther - not like the hardcore loonies out there. So I wonder, where are you getting your 9/11 information from? I've never seen a moderate truther site, but if one exists I'd definitely go and visit it. And if there are no "moderate" truther sites that accept new evidence with an open mind, then what does that say about where you're getting your information from? Are you going to believe what some "fundamentalist" tells you?

[dangonay]

Hey, I found two simulations from a truther site. Check these babies out: :buttrock:

//
// Collapse1.java:
//
// Simulation of Twin Tower collapse times using a model that embodies
// the "pile driver" concept embraced by Bazant and Zhou
// (despite the clear evidence the tops disintegrated)
//
// Assumptions:
//
// * Each floor is an infinately thin slab, and all the mass
// of a story is concentrated in the slab.
// * Mass is uniformally distributed among the stories.
// * The overhanging portion (eg: 14 floors in the North Tower)
// falls as a block, with its bottom floor accumulating pancaked slabs
// of the once-intact floors as it encounters them.
// * Once the bottom of the block reaches the ground, the floors in it
// start to pancake from bottom to top, the roof of the tower
// falling at freefall at that point.
// * The falling block remains perfectly centered over he intact portion.
// * The accumulation of floors is inelastic.
// * Each floor's support vanishes when touched by the falling block.
// * Momentum is conserved.
// * None of the kinetic energy of the falling mass is diverted to other
// sinks (concrete pulverization, steel bending, etc.)
//
//
// Equation for elapsed time, given initial velocity v, height h,
// and gravitational acceleration g:
//
// t = - 2*v/g + sqrt(v^2/g^2 + 2*h/g)
//

class Collapse1 {
// floors
int numberFloors = 110; // number of floors
int startFloor; // floor at which collapse begins
int stopFloor; // floor to collapse to
int currentFloor; // current topmost floor of intact portion
// constants
static double g = 32; // gravitational acceleration in feet/sec^2
double h = 12.4; // distance between floors
//
// utility functions
//
public static double sqr(double x) {
return x*x;
}
public static double sqrt(double x) {
return Math.pow(x,0.5);
}
//
// compute time of one-story fall
// given initial velocity v, and height of story h
//
static double timeFall(double v, double h) {
return - v/g + sqrt(sqr(v)/sqr(g) + 2*h/g);
}
//
// compute velocity at end of one-story fall
// given initial velocity v, and elapsed time of fall t
//
static double velocFall(double v, double t) {
return v + t*g;
}
//
//
static double timeIntercept(double v1, double v2) {
return 0.0;
}
//
// constructor creates an instance
// given the floor at which the collapse start
//
Collapse1(int b) {
startFloor = b;
}
Collapse1(int b,int e) {
startFloor = b;
stopFloor = e;
}
//
// timeCollapse returns the time that it takes the roof
// to reach the ground.
//
double timeCollapse() { // time from start until roof reaches ground
double v = 0d; // set initial velocity to zero
double m; // mass of falling portion
double ts = 0d; // set elapsed time to zero
double t; // time
m = numberFloors - startFloor; // set mass to number of stories above
for (currentFloor = startFloor;
currentFloor > stopFloor;
currentFloor--) {
t = timeFall(v,h); // time to fall story
v = velocFall(v,t); // velocity after falling story
v = v*m/(m + 1); // velocity after inelastic impact
ts += t; // update total elapsed time.
m++; // increment falling mass to include story
}
if (stopFloor != 0) {
System.out.println("crash zone to floor "+ stopFloor +": "+ ts);
return ts;
}
// time for bottom of falling portion of
// building to reach the ground
System.out.println("crash zone to ground: "+ ts);

t = timeFall(v,h*(numberFloors - startFloor));
ts += t;
// time for roof to reach ground
System.out.println("roof to ground: "+ ts);

return ts;
}
//
//
//
public static void main(String[] argv) {
if (argv.length < 1) {
System.out.println("syntax: \n"+
"\tjava Collapse -a <height> <velocity>\n"+
"\tjava Collapse -p <start-floor>\n"+
"\tjava Collapse -t <start-floor> <stop-floor>\n");
System.out.println("\ndescription: \n"+
"-a: prints time an object in freefall takes to reach the ground\n"+
"\t<height>: height in feet at start\n"+
"\t<velocity>: velocity in feet/second at start\n"+
"-p: prints time to total collapse of a WTC tower\n"+
"\tfirst prints time bottom of falling top hits ground\n"+
"\tnext prints time roof hits ground\n"+
"\t<start-floor>: floor at which collapse starts, eg: 82, 96\n"+
"-t: prints time to collapse to given floor for WTC tower\n"+
"\t<start-floor>: floor at which collapse starts, eg: 82, 96\n"+
"\t<stop-floor>: floor at which to list time, eg: 96 - 24 = 72\n");
} else {
Collapse1 that;
char c;
c = argv[0].charAt(1);
switch (c) {
case 'a':
double h = Double.valueOf(argv[1]).doubleValue();
double v = Double.valueOf(argv[2]).doubleValue();
System.out.println(
"time "+ timeFall(v,h) +" for height "+ h +" starting "+ v);
break;
case 'p':
int start1 = Integer.valueOf(argv[1]).intValue();
that = new Collapse1(start1);
that.timeCollapse();
break;
case 't':
int start = Integer.valueOf(argv[1]).intValue();
int stop = Integer.valueOf(argv[2]).intValue();
that = new Collapse1(start,stop);
that.timeCollapse();
break;
}
}
}
}


and another....


//
// Collapse2.java:
//
// Simulation of Twin Tower collapse times using a model that embodies
// the "pile driver" concept embraced by Bazant and Zhou
// (despite the clear evidence the tops disintegrated)
//
// This simulation generalizes the earlier simulation, Collapse1.java,
// by adding parameters to model the following:
//
// * A specified fraction of the mass falling within the Tower's
// profile moves to outside the profile during each story collapse,
// and thereafter does not participate in accelerating mass downward.
// * The increasing mass of stories lower in the Tower can be specified.
//
// With those generatlizations, Collapse2.java retains the
// following assumptions of Collapse1.java
//
// * Each floor is an infinately thin slab, and all the mass
// of a story is concentrated in the slab.
// * Mass is uniformally distributed among the stories.
// * The overhanging portion (eg: 14 floors in the North Tower)
// falls as a block, with its bottom floor accumulating pancaked slabs
// of the once-intact floors as it encounters them.
// * Once the bottom of the block reaches the ground, the floors in it
// start to pancake from bottom to top, the roof of the tower
// falling at freefall at that point.
// * The falling block remains perfectly centered over he intact portion.
// * The accumulation of floors is inelastic.
// * Each floor's support vanishes when touched by the falling block.
// * Momentum is conserved.
// * None of the kinetic energy of the falling mass is diverted to other
// sinks (concrete pulverization, steel bending, etc.)
//
//
// Equation for elapsed time, given initial velocity v, height h,
// and gravitational acceleration g:
//
// t = - 2*v/g + sqrt(v^2/g^2 + 2*h/g)
//

class Collapse2 {
// floors
int numberFloors = 110; // number of floors
int startFloor; // floor at which collapse begins
int stopFloor; // floor to collapse to
int currentFloor; // current topmost floor of intact portion
double thicken = 0d; // mass of top floor as fraction of bottom
double dispersion = 0d; // fraction of mass dispersed per floor
// constants
static double g = 32; // gravitational acceleration in feet/sec^2
double h = 12.4; // distance between floors
//
// utility functions
//
public static double sqr(double x) {
return x*x;
}
public static double sqrt(double x) {
return Math.pow(x,0.5);
}
//
// compute time of one-story fall
// given initial velocity v, and height of story h
//
static double timeFall(double v, double h) {
return - v/g + sqrt(sqr(v)/sqr(g) + 2*h/g);
}
//
// compute velocity at end of fall
// given initial velocity v, and elapsed time of fall t
//
static double velocFall(double v, double t) {
return v + t*g;
}
//
// compute distance of fall
// given an elapsed time t
//
static double distanceFall(double t) {
return 0.5*sqr(t)*g;
}
//
// constructor creates an instance
// given the floor at which the collapse starts
//
Collapse2(int start) {
startFloor = start;
}
//
//
//
double floorPosition(int floor) {
return (double)floor/(double)numberFloors;
}
double floorMass(int floor) {
return 1d + thicken * (1 - floorPosition(floor));
}
double floorsMass(int top, int bottom) {
double m = 0d;
for (int i = top; i >= bottom; i--)
m += floorMass(i);
return m;
}
//
// timeCollapse returns the time that it takes the roof
// to reach the ground.
//
double timeCollapse() { // time from start until roof reaches ground
double v = 0d; // set initial velocity to zero
double m; // mass of falling portion over footprint
double e = 0d; // mass of rubble outside footprint
double ts = 0d; // set elapsed time to zero
double t; // time
double mc;

m = floorsMass(numberFloors,startFloor); // mass of block
for (currentFloor = startFloor;
currentFloor >= stopFloor;
currentFloor--) {
t = timeFall(v,h); // time to fall story
v = velocFall(v,t); // velocity after falling story
mc = floorMass(currentFloor); // mass of current story
v = v*m/(m + mc); // velocity after inelastic impact
ts += t; // update total elapsed time.
m *= 1d - dispersion; // remove mass dispersed from pile-driver
e += m*dispersion; // add to dispersed mass
m += mc; // increment falling mass to include story
}
if (stopFloor != 0) {
System.out.println("crash zone to floor "+ stopFloor +": "+ ts);
return ts;
}
// time for bottom of falling portion of
// building to reach the ground
System.out.println("crash zone to ground: "+ ts);

t = timeFall(v,h*(numberFloors - startFloor));
ts += t;
// time for roof to reach ground
System.out.println("roof to ground: "+ ts);

System.out.println("mass dispersion ratio: "+ e/(e + m));

return ts;
}
//
//
void readArgs(String[] argv) {
int narg = argv.length;
for (int iarg = 2; iarg < narg; iarg += 2) {
String flag = argv[iarg];
String val = argv[iarg + 1];
if (flag.equals("--stop")) {
stopFloor = Integer.valueOf(val).intValue();
} else if (flag.equals("--thicken")) {
thicken = Double.valueOf(val).doubleValue();
} else if (flag.equals("--dispersion")) {
dispersion = Double.valueOf(val).doubleValue();
}
}
}
//
//
public static void main(String[] argv) {
if (argv.length < 1) {
System.out.println("syntax: \n"+
"\t java Collapse2 -t <height> <velocity>\n"+
"\t\t prints time an object in freefall takes to reach the ground\n"+
"\t\t <height>: height in feet at start\n"+
"\t\t <velocity>: velocity in feet/second at start\n"+
"\t java Collapse2 -d <time>\n"+
"\t\t prints distance an object in freefall drops in a time interval\n"+
"\t\t <time>: time interval in seconds\n"+
"\t java Collapse2 -c <start-floor> <options>\n"+
"\t\t prints time to total collapse of a WTC tower\n"+
"\t\t first prints time bottom of falling top hits ground\n"+
"\t\t next prints time roof hits ground\n"+
"");
System.out.println("\noptions: \n"+
"\t --start <start-floor>\n"+
"\t\t floor at which collapse starts, eg: 82, 96\n"+
"\t --stop <stop-floor>\n"+
"\t\t floor at which collapse stops, eg: 0\n"+
"\t --thicken <mass-thicken>\n"+
"\t\t fractional mass of bottom floor beyond top, eg: 0.5\n"+
"\t --dispersion <mass-dispersion>\n"+
"\t\t fractional dispersion of mass outside footprint, eg: 0.1\n"+
"");
} else {
Collapse2 that;
char c;
c = argv[0].charAt(1);
switch (c) {
case 't':
double h = Double.valueOf(argv[1]).doubleValue();
double v = Double.valueOf(argv[2]).doubleValue();
System.out.println(
"time "+ timeFall(v,h) +" for height "+ h +" starting "+ v);
break;
case 'd':
double t = Double.valueOf(argv[1]).doubleValue();
System.out.println(
"distance "+ distanceFall(t) +" for time "+ t);
break;
case 'c':
int start = Integer.valueOf(argv[1]).intValue();
that = new Collapse2(start);
that.readArgs(argv);
that.timeCollapse();
break;
default:
System.out.println(
"invalid option: "+ c);
}
}
}
}



I am so fucking stupid. Here I'm telling people to use a finite element analysis program like LS-DYNA, and spend hundreds of hours inputting data on the WTC towers, the materials they are made of, specific dimensions of all construction materials used, and then spend several hundred hours more to model a 757 so you could crash it and see what happens.


All this time I should have just written a short 2 page JAVA applet to do the simulation for me.

[JD¹³]

I never said anything about eyewitness accounts regarding Flight 77 - clearly someone is mixing up my posts with somebody else's.

My bad, somebody did.

JD13, you seem to be coming off as a a moderate truther - not like the hardcore loonies out there. So I wonder, where are you getting your 9/11 information from? I've never seen a moderate truther site, but if one exists I'd definitely go and visit it. And if there are no "moderate" truther sites that accept new evidence with an open mind, then what does that say about where you're getting your information from? Are you going to believe what some "fundamentalist" tells you?
I don't get my information from any specific websites. I've seen a lot of evidence presented from both sides in various forms from video to commissioned reports to diehard websites. I've taken from both sides what I think is credible and formed my own opinions from there in collusion with my own common sense. As stuff gets debunked on both sides only to be re-debunked well.... eventually one side comes out on top.

EDIT - Not going to continue to make arguments. We'll just agree to disagree.

[goo3]

While the Pentagon thing doesnt make much sense to me I'm not gonna get into that since the way the building was designed is totally classified.


Not really..

edit:

4401

etc..

[JD¹³]

Not really..
Hey Troll, intelligent people are having a discussion so this might not be the place for you. Contribute something meaningful or GTFO.

[dangonay]

Regardless, there are over 1,400 Professional Civil Engineers and Architects that agree something was fishy over the official statement of what happened.
dangonay, no offense, but your appeal to authority fallacies are getting tiresome. Just because you have a degree in engineering doesn't really mean that helps your arguments.

What's the difference?


"Show me an equation that it should have fallen over", could easily be turned around to "show me an equation that shows it conclusively would've free fallen!"

I believe I just did. Those equations are software simulation programs like LS-DYNA. I'd love to see a truther put together a simulation that shows how explosives were used to bring the towers down. Too bad they're busy spending all their money on usless propaganda and making stupid movies (like Loose Change) instead of actually conducting their own tests and investigations.


Please, oh please, answer this one question for me:

How come no truthers have ever done a full-blown simulation of the WTC collapse? Where are all their engineers who would have the expertise and ability to do so?

[goo3]

Hey Troll, intelligent people are having a discussion so this might not be the place for you. Contribute something meaningful or GTFO.

it's a total waste of time and effort

but ur right, i'm out.. not my place to be in your discussion.

[b0unce. [?]]

omg what has this thread become @_@

[dangonay]

I actually spent time last night visiting many of the popular 9/11 websites. After looking them over I noticed two things that stood out:

1. Most of them are read-only. That is, they don't have forums. The few that do are heavily moderated. A small number are open format and promote free discussions. Why is this?

ae911truth.org is the site with the petition that 1,400 architects and engineers (hence the name "aetruth.org"). Why don't they have a forum where all these architects and engineers can share their ideas? Why not pool all that talent into a combined investigation and actually get something done instead of re-posting all the same articles that all the truther sites have?


2. The popular sites accept donations and sell merchandise to make money, supposedly to cover operating costs. Where are the records of donations? Many are registered non-profit corporations.

Why don't all the sites get together and start up an investigation fund? They could form another non-profit corporation and have people donate funds directly there. With all the truthers out there it should be very easy to quickly raise millions of dollars and start their own independent investigation.

Or are these sites just another form of televangelism? Spread the word to the believers, accept donations and profit.


I wrote to several of them politely asking if I can see a balance sheet or something to show where the money goes, as I wanted to make a donation. Anxiously awaiting their responses back.

[dangonay]

Update:

None of the 9/11 truther sites I contacted have bothered to answer back after I requested to see their expenses before I make a donation. I did a search of the IRS and sure enough many of them are registered as a non-profit corporation and can issue tax receipts (if you specifically request it - another odd item as I would expect they'd operate like most non-profit groups and issue receipts for any donations above a fixed amount, usually $10 or $20).

According to the IRS, the rules have changed and you are no longer required to physically send a letter to the groups head office to make a request to see their tax returns (and a summary of their income/expenses). Now they are required to respond to e-mail requests, but I guess none of them got my e-mails (or maybe they all got filtered). So now I'm going to physically write them and request to see their tax returns and see what they say.

I did a search for Form 990 at the IRS (which also makes records available online for anyone to see) and none of the truther sites I visited that are also registered non-profit corporations have ever filed a tax return. Maybe they have all incorporated in the last year, and the first filing will be coming up.

Or maybe they make so little money that they are exempt (organizations receiving less than $25,000 per year don't have to file).

Which brings me back to the main site I looked at ae911truth.org, the one with 1,400 architects & engineers who signed their petition.

They claim they have a staff of around 12 who spend most of their time keeping the site operating (it's sort of their full-time job). They also claim it costs thousands of dollars per month to pay for expenses related to keeping their site going. This is why they encourage people to commit to making a monthly donation to help sustain their site. This makes sense, as a lot of charities like regular monthly donations.

However, they also allow people to make anonymous donations of cash or money orders. This is supposedly to help people who are scared of the government finding out they're making donations to a "controversial cause". How convenient - getting money orders and cash in the mail anonymously.

So if it costs so much money to keep ae911truth.org going (and they have been around for 4 years now), then how come they have never filed a Form 990? Their own admission to expenses (plus a stipend to their staff) puts them way above the $25,000 limit required by Form 990.


Well, I guess I'll just have to wait and see their response to my mailed in requests.

I also encourage others to e-mail truther sites that accept donations and politely ask to see how their money is spent. You can do as I did and say you're trying to find someone who is being responsible with the money they receive. Perhaps I was just unlucky with my e-mails. It would be interesting to see if anyone else gets a response to their request, and what that repsonse actually says.

[liu13]

jet fuel doesnt melt steel

there were explosions heard in the buildings before the planes hit

there were no bodies found or big plane parts found at the pentagon

no planes were intercepted

doesnt get more suspicious than that