Reply With Quote
This has been done to death anyways.
Here is all the "research" one really needs to do.
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
Random Guy, you're wasting your time asking for some answers. It's mouse, he's just here to troll.
This has been done to death anyways.
Here is all the "research" one really needs to do.
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm
July 11, 2006
The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans beleive 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
By Terry J. Allen
Americans love a conspiracy. According to a May 17 Zogby poll, 42 percent believe the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are covering up what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
There is something comforting about a world where someone is in charge—either for good (think gods) or evil (think Bush insiders plotting 9/11). Many people prefer to believe a Procrustean conspiracy rather than accept the alternative: Life can be random, viciously unjust and meaningless; tragedy and joy alike flow from complex combinations of good and bad intentions, careful plotting, random happenstance and bumbling incompetence.
Conspiracy hypotheses often consist of a vast pile of cir stantial evidence shaped into a seemingly coherent whole with the strong glue of faith. Debunk one or even many allegations and the pile still stands, impressive in its bulk and ideological coherence. If size were all, it would convince Pyrrho himself.
Scientific theories, on the other hand, depend on interlocking chains of evidence: The integrity of the whole relies on the soundness of each link. Break any one and the theory founders.
The 9/11 conspiracy is a classic example of a faith-based pile hypothesis. Its proponents cite a mountain of evidence to conclude that the U.S. government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks for its own traitorous ends, chiefly staging “a new Pearl Harbor” to rally support for an invasion of Iraq.
I spent months as a researcher conducting a fact-by-fact dissection of a few key aspects of this hypothesis. I approached the project knowing that U.S. cabals had previously concocted casus belli to drive public support for war: the Gulf of Tonkin for Vietnam, incubator babies for the first Gulf War. And clearly from its early days, the Bush administration had lusted for war with Iraq.
But the hypothesis that it planned and executed the 9/11 attacks is just not supported by a chain of evidence, nor do the facts support the conspiracists’ key charge that World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by pre-positioned explosives.
Structural engineers found the destruction consistent with fires caused by the jet liner strike; that temperatures need not actually melt the steel but that expansion and other fire-related stresses would account for compromised architectural integrity.
When David Ray Griffin, a theologian by trade, said it was “physically impossible by laws of physics” for the planes alone to have brought down the towers, I asked what engineers had confirmed that. “I haven’t talked to any because they would be too afraid to tell the truth,” he said. “How would you be able to protect your family if you were to accuse the government?” he asked, accusing the government.
Many conspiracists offer the collapse of WTC Building 7 as the strongest evidence for the kind of controlled demolition that would prove a plot. Although not hit by planes, it was damaged by debris, and suffered fires eventually fueled by up to 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored near ground level. Griffin cited as evidence of government complicity that the building’s sprinkler system should have, but didn’t, put out the fires. But the theologian did not know and had not considered that the collapse of the towers had broken the area’s water main.
Another conspiracist, Alex Jones, writes on his Web site, “Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted … that he and the NYFD decided to ‘pull’ WTC 7.” (Leave aside how unlikely it would be for the government to include Silverstein in a treasonous conspiracy, or that the NYFD was in on it, too.)
Silverstein’s actual quote: “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
Jones continues: “The word ‘pull’ is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.” In fact, a Lexis Nexis search for a three-year period fails to find one American reference to “pull a building” without the preposition “down” when referring to intentional destruction. An alternative explanation would be that given the lack of water and the number of injured and missing firefighters, the NYFD decided to pull workers from Building 7 to concentrate on search and rescue at the fallen towers.
In the end, this kind of undermining of individual “facts,” although relatively easy, is irrelevant for those who base their beliefs on piles rather than chains of evidence.
But the work should be done. Pile conspiracies can be dangerous. Those who deny that HIV is responsible for AIDS, for example, have contributed to unnecessary infections and deaths.
And the 9/11 conspiracy hypotheses distract from the growing chain of evidence do enting how the Bush administration actually manipulated this country to war on a train of lies riding tracks of fear—cynically using the bodies of the 9/11 victims as fuel.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2702/
I think we can all guess what kind of stuff makes up the "pile" of evidence given by CTers...
To be sure, there are discrepancies and omissions in The 9/11 Commission Report, and the Pentagon and FAA appear to have not been fully truthful and forthcoming about what happened that day. Not every riddle that Griffin and other conspiracists pose has a ready answer. But almost all of their major assertions are baseless. And their own theories have such gigantic holes and require such monumental leaps of logic that they discredit themselves.
At bottom, the 9/11 conspiracy theories are profoundly irrational and unscientific. It is more than passing strange that progressives, who so revere science on such issues as tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming, are so willing to abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a cul-de-sac. They lead nowhere. And they aren't necessary to prove the venality of the Bush Administration. There's plenty of that proof lying around. We don't need to make it up.
http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/?page=6
Hey RandomGuy have you seen a movie called Why the towers fell? I would like you to watch it so we can have a debate on it since you seem to be good at debating the 911 issues.
Let me know if you watch it I would like your input.
Ah yes, here's where mouse tries to stall by throwing ten hours of the same repackaged news footage at you.
I could give you my views, Then I could give you the scientific evidence, and I can give you what others have found. But it will be of no use since AggieHoops says I am here just to Troll. So maybe another day when he's not around to delete my .Could you please give me your full theory about 9/11 that accounts for thermite and high explosives and Silverstien and the CIA and invisible helicopters and cruise missiles.
Heavy things fall from great heights. Hit other things. Bounce around. Hit other buildings. It's right there in front of your eyes.
He's not a mod anymore, remember? The wicked witch is dead, right? That excuse is no longer valid.
Can I give my input also?
Oddly enough there are tons of "movies" by that le for some reason.
You will have to specify which one.
Then, I will see if I really want to watch it, in this case probably NOT watch it if it is another conpiracy demolition theory heap of .
I have spent quite enough of my time reading and watching about the "theory", I just want honest answers to my questions about it. Ihave yet to see ANY conspiracy theorist be able to honestly answer the bit about the amount of kinetic energy and force that I have posted in this thread.
I have spent enough of my personal time to realize how flawed the logic and science is behind virtually all of the 9-11 conspiracy stuff, if you ask me to waste more of my time watching any more of this crap, you can pay me $20 an hour for my time, just like my bookkeeping clients do.
I have come to two conclusions from watching all that the CTers have to offer:
1) It is a religion for them.
2) For the most cynical among them it is an excuse to sell t-shirts and pump up their own egos.
If there is a big evil conspiracy out there, and these ass-clowns actually discovered it, it would be like someone with Downs Syndrome discovering Unified Field Theory.
He's not a mod anymore, remember? The wicked witch is dead, right? That excuse is no longer valid.
Who wants some pissed off Ex Mod insulting their every post?
I'm still waiting for your input. You have yet to post any non-evasive honest answers to these questions. They will not go away no matter how much you wish them to.
Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?
Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?
Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?
Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?
If the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?
How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)
How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)
What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?
Mouse is scurred.
This one is not about bashing Bush, They don't talk about who knew what, They don't wear tin foil caps. It's just a do entary on steel frame buildings and how they react to fire and Passenger plans.
They point out the fact that the pancake theory does not make sense since the elevator shaft should have been standing still. It was all welded steel that should have maybe bent or leaned to one side but should not have dissinigrated
Very good do entary,
Here is the point at which I lost all respect for NBAdan, a guy who I used to think of as semi-rational:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=418
This honestly made me very sad.
As one of the progressive bloggers pointed out:
Bush and company have proven so venal and evil in so many other ways, why make up?
Viewing this topic:
nacho, FromWayDowntown, RandomGuy, Aggie Hoopsfan
he can't stay up forever.
I would simply point back to the amount of kinetic energy involved.
REMEMBER THIS IS JUST THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY/FORCE IN THE FIRST 11 METERS OF THE 400+ METER COLLAPSE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE = m x g x h
Consider the mass of just the top floor of the building.
PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m
Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.
SOOOO
The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.
Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.
They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.
Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.
Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:
v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second
Subs ute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m
This means the 30 foot section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.
Think about this for a moment.
The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.
Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing.
STILL FURTHER
Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.
IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.
Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)
What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?
Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.
Mouse don't answer any questions until those brain washed Bush lovers answer these!
Neither mouse nor his aliases will answer any questions ever.
What does all that Popular Mechanics math have to do with a steel framed Building? Since no other Steel Framed Building has collapsed how do you know your is not just a theory?I would simply point back to the amount of kinetic energy involved.
REMEMBER THIS IS JUST THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY/FORCE IN THE FIRST 11 METERS OF THE 400+ METER COLLAPSE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE = m x g x h
Consider the mass of just the top floor of the building.
PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m
Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.
SOOOO
The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.
Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.
They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.
Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.
Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:
v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second
Subs ute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m
This means the 30 foot section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.
Think about this for a moment.
The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.
Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing.
STILL FURTHER
Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.
IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.
Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)
What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?
Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.
Your just talking out your ass. Put away the slide ruler and talk facts Brah!
1) I don't know.
2) I don't know.
Now will someone PLEASE answer my simple, yes or no questions?
They are just starting points anyways. Have to have some agreed on facts to draw logical conclusions.
If you go to the middle of this topic you will see Mouse already answered all your ,
in fact Chump had to sign off he was so embarrassed.
*whacks Buddy Holly with his "your/you're" stick*
Ok, "brah"
A moving object with mass has kinetic energy. True or False?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-23-2007 at 11:52 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
