New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

911 evidence

post #1 of 470
5/10/08 at 12:39am
Thread Starter 
I'm watching this documentary online called 911 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions. This sh*t just got real, to quote Hot Fuzz.

LINK

I know people don't like to talk about 911 or think about the unacknowledged facts behind it, but I challenge anyone to watch this methodical, non-speculative, just-the-facts dissection of the implosion itself and not see with your own eyes that the official story is inarguably false.
Reply
post #2 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:10am
C'mon. You're smarter than this.
Reply
post #3 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:13am
I tried. I really did. But I could only make it about about 9 minutes into it before shutting it off. If it had been anyone other that you posting this, yt, I doubt I would have given it that long.
Reply
post #4 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:13am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
C'mon. You're smarter than this.
Just please watch this documentary and tell me I'm not-smart, but I will only accept my not-smartness if you watch the whole thing.
Reply
post #5 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:19am
I made it 15, yelled at my computer screen in disgust, and turned it off.

I'm diving back in. I want to finish this, so a discussion can actually happen.
Reply
post #6 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:19am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amphibatron View Post
I tried. I really did. But I could only make it about about 9 minutes into it before shutting it off. If it had been anyone other that you posting this, yt, I doubt I would have given it that long.
Well, thanks, but what made you turn it off?
Reply
post #7 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
This sh*t just got real, to quote Hot Fuzz.
Racist!
Reply
post #8 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:23am
yt -- I'm not going to call you stupid. the evidence is interesting, and just like the JFK assassination, the conspiracy helps erase doubts about the general explanation. but there's nothing here that hasn't already been questioned all over the internet.

One of my friends spent a few months going crazy with all of this stuff and I patiently listened and discussed things with him. Ultimately, though, he admitted that the desire for the conspiracy supported the evidence instead of the other way around.

In all seriousness, keep looking around and finding out more. just don't expect many people to show as much interest. Especially here where cynical responses to everything are required and celebrated.
Reply
post #9 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:24am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Racist!
wtf?

Renn Brown, I hope you do watch the whole thing. What made you yell?
Reply
post #10 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Well, thanks, but what made you turn it off?
Because in those 9 minutes it was the same old "The fires couldn't have burned hot enough to weaken the structure enough to cause the collapse" argument. Maybe there's something new later on, but if you start your documentary with that, then I'm out.
Reply
post #11 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:29am
So, I watched the first part all 29ish minutes... if you'll note at 6:00-6:10 when they show the first tower falling in slow motion and you see how it falls not directly down onto itself but at a slight angle away from the other tower their entire theory falls apart.

As perhaps when the plane hit the tower causing a giant gapping hole and then when fire weakened the structure and the weight of an half an entire FUCKING BUILDING caused it to collapse.

You silly conspiracy people, try better editing to make your theories work.
Reply
post #12 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:29am
Wasn't HOT FUZZ quoting BAD BOYS II?

I simply don't know what to believe about That Fateful Day. The signal-to-noise ratio, as far as information about 9/11 goes, is horrendous. I know it seems odd that on this one particular issue, an administration which has spent every day since that one demonstrating how far from trustworthy it really is, is to be unquestioningly believed for some reason; indeed, people who doubt them on this one issue are "crazy", "conspiracy theorists", so forth and so on. Even though that day is what they used to excuse/justify/enable everything they've done since. I'm sorry, that sends my bullshit meter right off the scale as much as the kookiest conspiracy theory does.

That's like saying that the known pickpocket with multiple convictions, who got caught with the wallet you last saw when you were getting out your subway pass at rush hour, is to be believed when he says that he was just on his way to return it to you when the cops picked him up using your credit cards to buy malt liquor at 7-11. It is beyond far-fetched. Just because there's a lot of crazy people spouting a lot of bullshit about 9/11 (and holy shit, are there ever) doesn't mean the Bush Administration is in any way credible or trustworthy - especially when it comes to the day that is the source of all of their power. Now that's crazy.

What happened? No idea. I'm pretty sure it wasn't teh joos, though - that's that damn signal-to-noise ratio again. Wake me up when the FBI has enough evidence to press charges against Osama bin Laden for 9/11. And wake me up when we figure out who was responsible for the anthrax attacks against Democratic senators (b-b-but I thought the terrorists wanted us to vote Democrat?) and the media. I'll be sleeping for a while, I suspect.
Reply
post #13 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:32am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurgee View Post
yt -- I'm not going to call you stupid. the evidence is interesting, and just like the JFK assassination, the conspiracy helps erase doubts about the general explanation. but there's nothing here that hasn't already been questioned all over the internet.

One of my friends spent a few months going crazy with all of this stuff and I patiently listened and discussed things with him. Ultimately, though, he admitted that the desire for the conspiracy supported the evidence instead of the other way around.

In all seriousness, keep looking around and finding out more. just don't expect many people to show as much interest. Especially here where cynical responses to everything are required and celebrated.
Lurgee, I've seen a lot of the 911 conspiracy sites, watched Loose Change, etc. There is a lot of information in this particular documentary I have not seen before, a lot of evidence I had not seen. I found it very compelling.

I realize people are not interested and I find that incredibly depressing, though I realize that the event itself was so traumatic and horrible that people understandably have a natural aversion to it. But to sweep a crime of this enormity under the rug because no one has the courage or stomach to take it on does not bode well for us as a society.
Reply
post #14 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:35am
Thread Starter 
Well, I hope that some of you will watch this thing to the end, regardless of your preconceived judgments.
Reply
post #15 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:37am
People aren't interested because 9/11 conspiracy theories, by and large, ignore the basic facts, starting with "the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel," which disregards basic scientific principles.
Reply
post #16 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:41am
You need serious psychoactive\psychotropic drugs if you think 9/11 was a conspiracy*, it's that simple. Call your shrink, tell him the drugs aren't working and you need to up your dosage.

* notable exception: the terrorists on the planes.
Reply
post #17 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
You need serious psychoactive\psychotropic drugs if you think 9/11 was a conspiracy*, it's that simple. Call your shrink, tell him the drugs aren't working and you need to up your dosage.

* notable exception: the terrorists on the planes.

Nobody, not even the government, is saying it wasn't a conspiracy. Clearly, it was a bunch of people working together in secret to accomplish a horrible goal. It's just a question of whose far-fetched conspiracy theory you choose to buy into - the one with the US Government Seal Of Approval (in association with The Liberal Media), or someone else's. Or nobody's.
Reply
post #18 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:47am
Hi I'm a Republican demolitions "hobbyist", not a structural engineer and my opinion and video mean nothing.

"Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions"
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/466.pdf

Quote:
Abstract: Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions. The most
infamous paradigm is the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during
the crushing of one floor or group of floors and its energetics are analyzed, and a dynamic one-dimensional continuum model of
progressive collapse is developed. Rather than using classical homogenization, it is found more effective to characterize the continuum by
an energetically equivalent snap-through. The collapse, in which two phases—crush-down followed by crush-up—must be distinguished,
is described in each phase by a nonlinear second-order differential equation for the propagation of the crushing front of a compacted block
of accreting mass. Expressions for consistent energy potentials are formulated and an exact analytical solution of a special case is given.
It is shown that progressive collapse will be triggered if the total internal energy loss during the crushing of one story equal to the
energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential during the crushing of that
story exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story. Regardless of the load capacity of the columns, there is no way to deny the
inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone if this criterion is satisfied for the World Trade Center it is satisfied with an
order-of-magnitude margin. The parameters are the compaction ratio of a crushed story, the fracture of mass ejected outside the tower
perimeter, and the energy dissipation per unit height. The last is the most important, yet the hardest to predict theoretically. It is argued
that, using inverse analysis, one could identify these parameters from a precise record of the motion of floors of a collapsing building. Due
to a shroud of dust and smoke, the videos of the World Trade Center are only of limited use. It is proposed to obtain such records by
monitoring with millisecond accuracy the precise time history of displacements in different modes of building demolitions. The
monitoring could be accomplished by real-time telemetry from sacrificial accelerometers, or by high-speed optical camera. The resulting
information on energy absorption capability would be valuable for the rating of various structural systems and for inferring their collapse
mode under extreme fire, internal explosion, external blast, impact or other kinds of terrorist attack, as well as earthquake and foundation
movements.

...

Review of Causes of WTC Collapse
Although the structural damage inflicted by aircraft was severe, it
was only local. Without stripping of a significant portion of the
steel insulation during impact, the subsequent fire would likely
not have led to overall collapse Bažant and Zhou 2002a; NIST
2005. As generally accepted by the community of specialists in
structural mechanics and structural engineering though not by a
few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives, the
failure scenario was as follows:

1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed
tube and about 13% of the total of 287 columns were severed,
and many more were significantly deflected. This
caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the
load of some columns, attaining or nearing the load capacity
for some of them.

2. Because a significant amount of steel insulation was stripped,
many structural steel members heated up to 600°C, as confirmed
by annealing studies of steel debris NIST 2005 the
structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength
already at 300°C, and about 85% at 600°C NIST 2005;
and exhibits significant viscoplasticity, or creep, above
450°C e.g., Cottrell 1964, p. 299, especially in the columns
overstressed due to load redistribution; the press reports right
after September 11, 2001 indicating temperature in excess of
800°C, turned out to be groundless, but Bažant and Zhou’s
analysis did not depend on that.

3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced
viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The
catenary action of the sagging trusses pulled many perimeter
columns inward by about 1 m, NIST 2005. The bowing of
these columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multistory
out-of-plane buckling of framed tube wall. The lateral
deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact, the differential
thermal expansion, and overstress due to load redistribution
also diminished buckling strength.

4. The combination of seven effects—1 Overstress of some
columns due to initial load redistribution; 2 overheating
due to loss of steel insulation; 3 drastic lowering of yield
limit and creep threshold by heat; 4 lateral deflections of
many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor
trusses; 5 weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane
stiffness of sagging floors; 6 multistory bowing of some
columns for which the critical load is an order of magnitude
less than it is for one-story buckling; and 7 local plastic
buckling of heated column webs—finally led to buckling of
columns Fig. 1b. As a result, the upper part of the tower
fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height,
impacting the lower part of the tower. This triggered progressive
collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper
part exceeded by an order of magnitude the energy that
could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing
in the lower part of the tower.
Reply
post #19 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:49am
Honestly, despite the commission and "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States" and that "New Pearl Harbor to reshape the Middle East" paper, whenever I wonder if the Bush administration gave this their Seal of Approval or planned detonations within the buildings, I just remember that this same administration was defeated by fucking weather.
Reply
post #20 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:53am
Thread Starter 
ElCap, will you watch this documentary and give me your opinion after watching the whole thing? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Reply
post #21 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:58am
OK, I tried again and made it to the 17 minute mark. They just used pots and pans on a stove and a kerosene heater as a way to show that the steel of the towers couldn't have melted. Don't waste your time, Elcap.
Reply
post #22 of 470
5/10/08 at 1:58am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
You need serious psychoactive\psychotropic drugs if you think 9/11 was a conspiracy*, it's that simple. Call your shrink, tell him the drugs aren't working and you need to up your dosage.

* notable exception: the terrorists on the planes.
Reply
post #23 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:00am
I don't know if I should, I watched a bit and honestly couldn't really it seriously. You know, I have a lot of respect for other's professions, and enough humility at this point to admit when I don't fully understand something because it is not my field (like a presentation I went to today at a research facility that got into the mathematics of power systems engineering).

So when I see a well written paper explaining in plain English before dwelling into heavy differential equations, that while I understand what the math is doing but not the general principles of structural (and materials) engineering, I really can't bother with the conspiracy.

So I'll be honest with you, I don't know if I can watch the whole thing. Maybe I should try, but if I do, will you read the multitude of papers on the subject and be willing to discuss them? Published papers in engineering journals just carry 10000000x more weight than YouTube videos and anecdotes. Why is that more interesting?
Reply
post #24 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:05am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
I don't know if I should, I watched a bit and honestly couldn't really it seriously. You know, I have a lot of respect for other's professions, and enough humility at this point to admit when I don't fully understand something because it is not my field (like a presentation I went to today at a research facility that got into the mathematics of power systems engineering).

So when I see a well written paper explaining in plain English before dwelling into heavy differential equations, that while I understand what the math is doing but not the general principles of structural (and materials) engineering, I really can't bother with the conspiracy.

So I'll be honest with you, I don't know if I can watch the whole thing. Maybe I should try, but if I do, will you read the multitude of papers on the subject and be willing to discuss them? Published papers in engineering journals just carry 10000000x more weight than YouTube videos and anecdotes. Why is that more interesting?
Well, I think you should, and take in all sides and filter them from yourself, as Walt Whitman said.

Also, even though this is a different area of political/scientific intersection, it's relevant:
Quote:

Scientists Speak out Against Government Interference
Topics: environment | ethics | global warming | politics | science | U.S. government
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists, April 23, 2008

from the UCS reportFrom the UCS reportThe Union of Concerned Scientists' new report, "Interference at the EPA: Science and Politics at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," calls the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "an agency under siege from political pressures. On numerous issues -- ranging from mercury pollution to groundwater contamination to climate change -- political appointees have edited scientific documents, manipulated scientific assessments, and generally sought to undermine the science behind dozens of EPA regulations." The study found the White House Office of Management and Budget to be the worst culprit. A stunning "889 scientists (60 percent of respondents) personally experienced at least one incident of political interference during the past five years," while "among EPA veterans (scientists with more than 10 years of experience at the agency), 409 (43 percent) said interference occurred more often in the past five years than in the previous five-year period." One EPA scientist warned: "Do not trust the Environmental Protection Agency to protect your environment. Ask questions. Be aware of political and economic motives. Become politically active. Elect officials with motives to protect the environment and hold them accountable."
Reply
post #25 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
So I'll be honest with you, I don't know if I can watch the whole thing. Maybe I should try, but if I do, will you read the multitude of papers on the subject and be willing to discuss them? Published papers in engineering journals just carry 10000000x more weight than YouTube videos and anecdotes. Why is that more interesting?
At one point in the first video, they cite the fact that there are reems of paper blown out into the street and they question if the structures pancaked on top of each other, how did the papers "Blast Out" across the street and why didn't they get trapped. ...
Reply
post #26 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
Honestly, despite the commission and "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States" and that "New Pearl Harbor to reshape the Middle East" paper, whenever I wonder if the Bush administration gave this their Seal of Approval or planned detonations within the buildings, I just remember that this same administration was defeated by fucking weather.
No, silly, that was on purpose too.

yt, I was referencing that you credited Hot Fuzz with Bad Boys II's line. Apologies.
Reply
post #27 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:11am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
yt, I was referencing that you credited Hot Fuzz with Bad Boys II's line. Apologies.
Ah-hah! Well, I couldn't remember if it was from Point Break, Bad Boys or Bad Boys II so I just defaulted to Hot Fuzz.
Reply
post #28 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:12am
Sorry, yt, but I just can't do it. This is just another conspiracy documentary that concentrates solely on the idea that the structure couldn't have weakened and collapsed due to the fire while completely ignoring the very obvious fact that they were already severely damaged by planes flying into the buildings. You add the two together...
Reply
post #29 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:13am
HOT FUZZ actually showed Martin Lawrence saying it in a clip from BAD BOYS II. But now I'm just being an ass.
Reply
post #30 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:15am
Thread Starter 
I found it, at least until the final segment, not so much conspiracy-minded as a breakdown/dissection of the event from a different perspective from the official version. Here is what the doc's writer/director says:
Quote:
This movie was made because there was a demand for it. Although many Americans would like to blame Arabs for the attacks of 9/11 and feel justified in seeking revenge for such violence, there are also a great many who wish to find out who was behind the event without assuming that what our media keeps telling us is correct. The very suspicious collapse of the towers and Building 7 -- defying the laws of physics -- and the continued refusals of authorities to formally and scientifically defend the official story is greatly disturbing. Why is there no forum for discussion of 9/11 except on the Internet and as organized by ordinary people themselves?

Therefore, this movie was created for the citizens of the world, in the effort to present an alternative and perhaps more plausible 9/11 thesis. The sharing of ideas is the best gift we have to give each other!
Not a definitive conspiracy, but a presentation of questions and mysteries surrounding the implosions.
Reply
post #31 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:15am
Call me racist, but all those Bad Boys movies look the same to me.
Reply
post #32 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:18am
Thread Starter 
I'm embarrassed to admit I've only seen the first one.

And Reggie Wanker, doesn't Danny repeat the line also?
Reply
post #33 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:20am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amphibatron View Post
Sorry, yt, but I just can't do it. This is just another conspiracy documentary that concentrates solely on the idea that the structure couldn't have weakened and collapsed due to the fire while completely ignoring the very obvious fact that they were already severely damaged by planes flying into the buildings. You add the two together...
So, if you know all this for a fact, what harm could it be to watch this doc? I mean, obviously if you have other plans or are in the middle of watching BSG or something I could understand. I just watched it because I had some rare down time and had just heard the director being interviewed on the radio. But I found it very well done and extremely compelling. A little (actually a LOT) hard to watch toward the end though.
Reply
post #34 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
So I'll be honest with you, I don't know if I can watch the whole thing. Maybe I should try, but if I do, will you read the multitude of papers on the subject and be willing to discuss them? Published papers in engineering journals just carry 10000000x more weight than YouTube videos and anecdotes. Why is that more interesting?
Because, and I'm not trying to be backhanded or a dick to you specifically YT, they are nearly universally made up of false syllogisms and juxtaposition theory. This, all put together, makes very good movie logic: where A + B = C and eureka!

Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel + Twin Towers built on core of strong steel = It couldn't have been the jet fuel!

Every bit of these arguments that attack the known theory, are broken into sections, or separate paths of attacks, rather than an overall cohesive scientific theory that explains anything. WTC, Moon landing, JFK all scrutinize individual facets of the event without looking at them in a larger context. Instead, it gives the impression of having disproved or thrown doubt onto individual pieces of the outstanding theory. With that done, it presents a string of logic that sounds good, seems to "make sense" but honestly employs the true objective backing of a fucking James Bond villain.

Not to mention, there are two things that cut this sort of documentary's knees out from under it from the very start:

1 - Film, Cinemas, Movies, Documentaries, moving-images that tell a narrative, whatever.... they are all inherently manipulative. You've never seen a truly objective documentary or TV show in your life. Never. The idea of visual storytelling lies in juxtaposing images to give an impression - being that there is an infinite ways of doing that with every subject, any choice you make is loaded on some level.

Not to mention, if you are trying to tell me that narration that woman read was a "methodical, non-speculative, just-the-facts dissection"... You've got to be kidding me.

2 - The idea that you could possibly show a sound, thorough, and truly opinion-changing-worthy presentation on a subject involving this much physics and unique circumstances in an hour and a half... When the reports and documents they are "debunking" fill thousands and thousands of pages...

Come on.

At the end of the day, the biggest factor in all this that should help to put any conspiracy theory to rest, is the inarguable, constantly proven fact that people as a rule, cannot keep their fucking mouths shut.
Reply
post #35 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:27am
So Zdenek Bazant is a professor at McCormick, Mathew Verdure is a professor from the Ecole Polytechnique in Palaiseau, France not members of the Illuminati. Their paper(s) are based on solid structural engineering principles, and to the dismay of the conspiracy theorists, are full of mathematics that I will guess 99.9% of them don't understand (and that includes just a basic, I don't know "differential equations" problem here).

This has nothing to do with interference of government into engineering, as a matter of fact this is quite a good example against what the 9/11 conspiracy nuts are doing. They are injecting politics and non-science and arguing against the very people who have dedicated their lives to studying these fields.

I saw a list of academics a while ago that "supported" the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense a while ago, not to mention the backgrounds of many of the "leaders" in this community. Not to insult their professions but most of had an educational/academic background of sociology, literature, political "science"*, philosophy, etc.

The opinions of these people in these matters (and that of hobbyists) is not to be taken seriously.

Little demonstrations like the one Amphibatron described, are an insult to people in these fields and still don't even begin to touch the arguments of well researched papers like the one I posted.
Reply
post #36 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
No, silly, that was on purpose too.
Halliburton cleaned up in New Orleans (as opposed to cleaning up New Orleans) after the disaster, as did Blackwater, your mercenary superstore. Meanwhile, many countries offering us free assistance were told, more or less, to fuck off, we got it under control.

Incompetence can be quite profitable. So much so that one has to wonder at some point when incompetence really IS incompetence, and when it's something more evil. History's full of rude lessons for those who would underestimate the human capacity for evil, particularly when it's profitable for the right people.
Reply
post #37 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
And Reggie Wanker, doesn't Danny repeat the line also?
Yep, IIRC.
Reply
post #38 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
So, if you know all this for a fact, what harm could it be to watch this doc? I mean, obviously if you have other plans or are in the middle of watching BSG or something I could understand. I just watched it because I had some rare down time and had just heard the director being interviewed on the radio. But I found it very well done and extremely compelling. A little (actually a LOT) hard to watch toward the end though.
Did you watch all 3 parts? I only watched the first part, I couldn't really stomach much more of it after that. I'm all for questioning the government, I not only believe it is a good thing I believe it is a citizens duty to do it. That being said, I'm a big fan of common sense and logic and the conspiracies behind 9/11 just don't hold much water. I think the majority of the people who believe these things didn't watch it for themselves live when it happened.

Oh and BSG totally kicked ass tonight.
Reply
post #39 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:38am
Thread Starter 
I absolutely agree that filmed media is by definition subjective. What I liked about this piece was that it presents questions that, clearly, I'm not a scientist and can't definitively answer, but it's strange to me that a crime of this magnitude was swept away so quickly and given only the most cursory investigation. Clearly there are serious questions and yet those questions go unanswered, and people are shouted down who seek to raise them.

Obviously no one in this thread other than me takes this doc seriously, but that doesn't mean that I personally feel cowed into surrendering to the official story, and I don't think anyone should. It probably is down to how we're individually wired anyway.

That said, for those of you who won't watch, there are some snippets on the official site that I will post here for posterity.
Quote:

Many have wondered about this angle-cut steel column photographed at Ground Zero, molten slag visible on its edges. Compare this with the placement of linear shaped charges on steel beams in conventional controlled demolitions -- a blasting method used to cut steel so that the building "walks" or falls as desired.

Molten Metal -- "The Myth" purports that the heat of jet fuel burning was enough to melt or soften the steel in the towers. But metal HAD melted at the base of the towers -- found to be flowing underground for many weeks afterward. Some theorize (see Professor Derrick Grimmer) followed by Professor Steven E. Jones that thermite (a compound of iron oxide and aluminum) may have been used as an incendiary in what looks very much like a controlled demolition of the towers. When ignited, thermite reaches temperatures of 4500 dF in two seconds.


Watch this bright molten material pouring from the corner of the South Tower. What could have bubbled and dripped like this? Compare to thermite melting steel.


Rubble explosion -- What is this sudden bang and flash caused by? Exploding out of the rubble, it is white hot and the camera filming it is immediately shut off.

The Slurry Walls -- Three feet thick and built to hold back the Hudson River and ocean, the slurry walls under the World Trade Center were found to have shifted as much as 18 inches after September 11th. What caused so much disturbance in the towers' deep basements?

William Rodriguez -- Standing in the basement of the North Tower at 8:45 a.m., William Rodriguez felt a large explosion underfoot (several stories below) a few seconds BEFORE the impact of the plane 95 floors above. The explosion badly burned co-worker Felipe David, also in the North Tower subbasement. Witnesses reported cracked marble and broken glass in both lobbies of the Twin Towers, even though the airplanes had struck hundreds of feet above.

Steel columns formed the core within and the frame on the outside of the towers. Video of the towers' collapsing shows row after row of explosions ("belts" of these, as some have described) -- popping, flashing, ripping floor by floor down the buildings' sides. The exterior steel frame would have had to be "cut" or exploded, too.

Building 7 -- A 47-story skyscraper, this WTC structure completely collapsed in 6.5 seconds late in the afternoon on September 11th -- and was not hit by a plane. The characteristics of a controlled building implosion are obvious, although official sources insist that fire was the cause. Compare the near pristine state of Building 7 (1-1/2 blocks away from the towers) with the ravaged condition of other WTC buildings directly below them. These structures did not collapse or pulverize.


This 8-ton H-beam was found in the shape of a perfect horseshoe. How could this have happened? Explosives are actually gases pushing outward in a sphere. Applying great force, they can bend construction steel into circular shapes.
Source
Reply
post #40 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
So, if you know all this for a fact, what harm could it be to watch this doc? I mean, obviously if you have other plans or are in the middle of watching BSG or something I could understand. I just watched it because I had some rare down time and had just heard the director being interviewed on the radio. But I found it very well done and extremely compelling. A little (actually a LOT) hard to watch toward the end though.
Because I only needed to watch up to the part where they showed a pot boiling on a stove and asked why, if the pot or the stove doesn't melt, did the towers collapse. Why would I waste any more of my time watching something like that?
Reply
post #41 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:43am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
So Zdenek Bazant is a professor at McCormick, Mathew Verdure is a professor from the Ecole Polytechnique in Palaiseau, France not members of the Illuminati. Their paper(s) are based on solid structural engineering principles, and to the dismay of the conspiracy theorists, are full of mathematics that I will guess 99.9% of them don't understand (and that includes just a basic, I don't know "differential equations" problem here).

This has nothing to do with interference of government into engineering, as a matter of fact this is quite a good example against what the 9/11 conspiracy nuts are doing. They are injecting politics and non-science and arguing against the very people who have dedicated their lives to studying these fields.

I saw a list of academics a while ago that "supported" the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense a while ago, not to mention the backgrounds of many of the "leaders" in this community. Not to insult their professions but most of had an educational/academic background of sociology, literature, political "science"*, philosophy, etc.

The opinions of these people in these matters (and that of hobbyists) is not to be taken seriously.

Little demonstrations like the one Amphibatron described, are an insult to people in these fields and still don't even begin to touch the arguments of well researched papers like the one I posted.
True, but all scientific theories should be up for rigorous discussion, defense, debate, right? Maybe this guy nailed it and it happened exactly that way, and maybe not. All I'm saying is that as a person who is not an engineer and not a mathematician, I found this doc interesting and provocative, and I'd like to hear what others in this forum think after watching the whole thing.
Reply
post #42 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:46am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Did you watch all 3 parts? I only watched the first part, I couldn't really stomach much more of it after that. I'm all for questioning the government, I not only believe it is a good thing I believe it is a citizens duty to do it. That being said, I'm a big fan of common sense and logic and the conspiracies behind 9/11 just don't hold much water. I think the majority of the people who believe these things didn't watch it for themselves live when it happened.

Oh and BSG totally kicked ass tonight.
I watched the whole thing live as it happened, and I'm sure like a lot of conspiracies there's true questions and evidence mixed in with wackiness that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I agree that questioning the government and authority in general is the duty of a democratic society, and I feel that the murder on 911 remains unsolved. This doc takes on only one aspect of the overall event, and I think that is a good way to start dissecting this unbelievable criminal event. If the government won't actually investigate, who will?
Reply
post #43 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:48am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amphibatron View Post
Because I only needed to watch up to the part where they showed a pot boiling on a stove and asked why, if the pot or the stove doesn't melt, did the towers collapse. Why would I waste any more of my time watching something like that?
Well, it does continue beyond the 17 minute mark and goes into other questions.
Reply
post #44 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:48am
Is this a joke post? Are you funnin' with us, yt?
Reply
post #45 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:51am
To suggest that there was just "cursory" investigation is ludicrous. I shouldn't need to explain why.
Reply
post #46 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:52am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amphibatron View Post
Is this a joke post? Are you funnin' with us, yt?
No, I'm completely serious. That said, I'm going to watch BSG now. I really do hope some of you watch this. It's not the ultimate 911 conspiracy document, but I think it raises some provocative ideas and questions, and I hope that even those of you who have iron-clad faith in your knowledge of what happened will consider watching it!
Reply
post #47 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
True, but all scientific theories should be up for rigorous discussion, defense, debate, right? Maybe this guy nailed it and it happened exactly that way, and maybe not.
Huh ... "this guy" is an expert is structural engineering, thermodynamics, geo-mechanics, building collapses, etc. His opinion in this matter actually matters, that's why in engineering school we never saw a lecture on physics by a sociologist or a "demolitions hobbyist".

The video is not even close to a debate to the published material out there that studies the collapse.

In the end the paper provides a model, described right there in front of your eyes, that explains how the collapse evolved. There is nothing yet that you have provided that disproves that model or even really addresses it.

The pictures you posted are hardly an analysis of anything, and all they are doing are saying "look this happens in a controlled demolition, so ... it was one!". If you read at least the intro of the paper I linked to (or heck, the title) you'll see that yes there are similarities but that doesn't explain the causes.
Reply
post #48 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:54am
yt, skepticism != paranoia.
Reply
post #49 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:56am
Cue Isildur's Bangs in 3..2...
Reply
post #50 of 470
5/10/08 at 2:57am
This conversation is soooo 2003.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse