Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

9/11 "Truth" Talk

This post has 43 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Esuric replied on Mon, Sep 14 2009 11:29 PM | Locked

This is how I understand it, granted, I don't spend a lot of time on this shit.

Scenario one: Cave dwelling Muslims take control of 4 airplanes and successfully carry out the biggest attack on U.S soil in history. Tower 7 falls for no reason.

Scenario two: The government, whose only comparative advantage is in violence, plans an attack on its own citizens in order to justify war and anti-liberal legislation, all of which shit on the constitution.

Hm....

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 321
Points 5,235
Seph replied on Mon, Sep 14 2009 11:37 PM | Locked

Esuric:

This is how I understand it, granted, I don't spend a lot of time on this shit.

Scenario one: Cave dwelling Muslims take control of 4 airplanes and successfully carry out the biggest attack on U.S soil in history. Tower 7 falls for no reason.

Scenario two: The government, whose only comparative advantage is in violence, plans an attack on its own citizens in order to justify war and anti-liberal legislation, all of which shit on the constitution.

Hm....

You clearly underestimate the power of box cutters

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 353
Points 5,400
nhaag Posted: Tue, Sep 15 2009 4:11 AM | Locked

I don't get a grip on the whole discussion. Is something wrong just because someone calls it a conspiracy? Is something right, just because some evidence fits into a lot of tale telling? I mean, if a conspiracy theory is just something you can not proof completly, than there are a lot of them that we don't label "conspiracy theories". Like "in capitalism workers are exploitet by the capitalists", or the whole neocon creed -there are bad guys out there that go after us because we are free etc.-.

The whole thing is a useless discussion at best and a perfect smokescreen at worst.

Regarding 9/11 i have no idea if those guys captured the planes and flew them into their targets. How could I? What I know is, that the laws of physics apply in all situations, or so i think :-) and that some of the explanations given are, to say the least, very improbable. Never in history has a steelframe building collapsed because of a fire before 9/11 and not a single one since. Does that mean it is impossible? No, it is only as probable as the flying teapot in the universe. Does that mean government has conspiered to bring about those events? No, but it doesn't mean it hasn't, too. What it means though is, that the whole story as told today is, for whatever reason, not convincing in the slightest because to believe in it you have to get rid of some pretty well known physical laws, or come up with an explanation how those laws could have eliminated each other in that event.

Beliefs that counter physical laws are not new, most of them are called "religion". Does that mean religion is wrong? No, it just means it does not go along with our every day experience, unless you are a mystic maybe. So whatever happened on and around 9/11, the official story is not consistent with our experience and thus we are asked to buy in to a belief rather than to rational thinking. But, even that is nothing new, it is just how man copes with things he can not rationally handle.

 

In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.

Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 6:08 AM | Locked

Seph:
If you're interested in the subject, I'd suggest getting The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 9/11 Contradictions and Debunking 9/11 Debunking...after reading those 3, all of this 'debunking' nonsense by Poptech will appear in a very ridiculous light

Yes please read the propaganda books from David Ray Griffin, Ph.D. Religion. Then read how ridiculously wrong his books are.

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking (PDF) (Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories)

After that learn why 911 Conspiracy Theories are poorly researched nonsense.

Bullshit! - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (Video) (9min) (Penn & Teller: Bullshit!)
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 (Video) (60min) (BBC)
The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction (Video) (90min) (The History Channel)

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower (Video) (60min) (BBC)

 

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 6:40 AM | Locked

nhaag:
Never in history has a steelframe building collapsed because of a fire before 9/11 and not a single one since.

Did those other buildings have a one of kind steel tube-frame structural design and a 200 ton Boeing 767 with 24,000 gallons of jet fuel crash into them at 500 MPH, causing severe structural damage in addition to fires that reached over 2000 degrees?

It helps if you understand the design of the WTC.

Why the Towers Fell (60min) (NOVA)

As for the fires, they easily reached over 2000 degrees which is more than enough to weaken the load bearing ability of the structural steel. Steel weakens substantially over 1200 degrees. It really helps if people know what they are talking about.

Scientific Evidence Fire Weakens Steel (Video) (National Geographic)

 

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 321
Points 5,235
Seph replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 7:12 AM | Locked

Poptech:
As for the fires, they easily reached over 2000 degrees...

One of your more ludicrous quotes...

Nevermind that even Popular Mechanics admits the jet fuel would have burned up after 20 minutes, leaving the fire to be fueled by papers, desks and office supplies, in other words, turning a jet fueled fire into an office fire; office fires rarely reach over 700 degrees. 

For goodness sake Poptech, not even the government sponsored drones at NIST or PM have ever come close to stating a 2000 degree fire. You can't even square your story with the sources you are advocating.  

It does indeed help to know what you're talking about. 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315
onebornfree replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 8:29 AM | Locked

 NHAAG said: "What I know is, that the laws of physics apply in all situations, or so i think :-) and that some of the explanations given are, to say the least, very improbable."


user posted image

 

 

user posted image

WinkWinkWink

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 9:26 AM | Locked

Seph:
Nevermind that even Popular Mechanics admits the jet fuel would have burned up after 20 minutes,

It only took less than five minutes for 700 gallons of jet fuel to weaken the steel I-beam to collapse in the experiment above.

Seph:
...leaving the fire to be fueled by papers, desks and office supplies, in other words, turning a jet fueled fire into an office fire; office fires rarely reach over 700 degrees.

700 degree Celsius is 1292 degrees Fahrenheit and Steel weakens substantially over 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.

Seph:
For goodness sake Poptech, not even the government sponsored drones at NIST or PM have ever come close to stating a 2000 degree fire. You can't even square your story with the sources you are advocating.

Before you make assumptions you need to ask what temperature scale my numbers were in, Fahrenheit or Celsius? A common mistake with "experts of basic physics". My numbers were in Fahrenheit, 2000 degrees Fahrenheit is 1093 degrees Celsius.

NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster FAQs (National Institute of Standards and Technology)

"Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns."

1000 degrees Celsius is 1832 degrees Fahrenheit.

Yes it does help to know what you are talking about.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 321
Points 5,235
Seph replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 9:58 AM | Locked

Poptech:
It only took less than five minutes for 700 gallons of jet fuel to weaken the steel I-beam to collapse in the experiment above.

Had the twin towers

A)  Been constructed out of exactly one steel beam

or

B) Been doused completely in jet fuel 

You might have a point. As it stands, it's blatantly obvious you don't. 

 

Poptech:
1000 degrees Celsius is 1832 degrees Fahrenheit.

Yes it does help to know what you are talking about.

So the fact that your numbers are wildly inaccurate using Celsius or Fahrenheit proves....what?

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 10:12 AM | Locked

Seph:

Had the twin towers

A)  Been constructed out of exactly one steel beam

or

B) Been doused completely in jet fuel

You might have a point. As it stands, it's blatantly obvious you don't.

LMAO! The plane was full of 24,000 gallons of jet fuel that spread over whole floors of the towers. The whole design of the tower relied on each floor maintaining its structural integrity. The whole building doesn't have to be engulfed in fire. The designers were clearly aware of the fire protection limitations of structural steel, which is why they sprayed on fire protection, which was blasted off enough of the steel by the 200 ton 767 impact and explosion.

Yes I have a point, Jet fuel fires can easily weaken steel's load bearing ability. 

Seph:
So the fact that your numbers are wildly inaccurate using Celsius or Fahrenheit proves....what?

What is inaccurate? The NIST claims 1832 degrees Fahrenheit, the experiment shows jet fuel fires reaching over 2000 degrees Fahrenheit in less than 5 minutes, steel is significantly weakened over 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. It proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955
laminustacitus replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 10:19 AM | Locked

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

user posted image

 

 

user posted image

The second picture shows what one should expect in a collision involving an object with a high momentum, no surprise there unless one has only taken a very basic course in physics. 

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955
laminustacitus replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 10:22 AM | Locked

Seph:

Poptech:
It only took less than five minutes for 700 gallons of jet fuel to weaken the steel I-beam to collapse in the experiment above.

Had the twin towers

A)  Been constructed out of exactly one steel beam

or

B) Been doused completely in jet fuel 

A) It only takes one structural defect to bring down a building, there need not be a total system failure, but rather a failure of just a couple floors.

 

B)The floors that failed were completelyt doused in jet fuel.

 

Seph:
You might have a point. As it stands, it's blatantly obvious you don't. 

Better yet, you, like all 9/11 truthers, need to learn some basic physics.

 

Seph:

Poptech:
1000 degrees Celsius is 1832 degrees Fahrenheit.

Yes it does help to know what you are talking about.

So the fact that your numbers are wildly inaccurate using Celsius or Fahrenheit proves....what?

What I just said above.

 

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315
onebornfree replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 10:57 AM | Locked

laminustacitus:

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

user posted image

 

 

user posted image

The second picture shows what one should expect in a collision involving an object with a high momentum, no surprise there unless one has only taken a very basic course in physics. 

Both sequences are from the same original source - the second is merely an analysis of  the last few frames of the first. 

Leave aside your contention that they both depict  no  egregious violations of Newtons 3rd law of motion for now  [lets just forget that for the moment] , although both myself and Dr Morgan Reynolds would absolutely, 100% disagree with you and anyone else who claims that it does not .Smile

The  intended point of the second clip is to draw attention to the fact that plane stays entirely stationary, with its tail coincidentally perfectly centered in the frame throughout, and that the building moves towards the plane in every frame- and not the other way round as should be expected.

This remarkable feat of photography from a self described "amateur " videographer [claimed "diamond dealer" M Herzekhani],  with a hand held camera, while on a boat full of tourists in the Hudson . Yeah rightWink

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 527
Points 8,490
twistedbydsign99 replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 11:03 AM | Locked

Poptech,

http://conspireality.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/cut-beam1.jpg

Melting steel != cutting steel.

110 stories fall at free fall speed due to pancake theory, I think not.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 527
Points 8,490
twistedbydsign99 replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 11:10 AM | Locked

Implosion charges on a steel beam.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/136218537_6d2bc1c26b.jpg?v=0

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955
laminustacitus replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 11:27 AM | Locked

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:
Leave aside your contention that they both depict  no  egregious violations of Newtons 3rd law of motion for now  [lets just forget that for the moment]...

The law of motion holds true even in that frame for the force of the impacting jetlinner is so massive that there is nothing that the stationary building can do to even weaken it. What we see in the video is a classic example vector physics when one vector completely overwhelms the other on the scale of a couple of orders of magnitude. 

 

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:
although both myself and Dr Morgan Reynolds would absolutely, 100% disagree with you and anyone else who claims that it does not .Smile

You are both !00% wrong, and deluded.

 

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:
The  intended point of the second clip is to draw attention to the fact that plane stays entirely stationary, with its tail coincidentally perfectly centered in the frame throughout

Its a high energy collision, of course the momentum of the colliding object will remain on course since it is on a couple of order of magnitudes larger than what it is colliding - again, really simple physics.

 

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:
and that the building moves towards the plane in every frame- and not the other way round as should be expected.

There is nothing wrong about the video clip, it is just what should be expected from a high-energy collision.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315
onebornfree replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 11:54 AM | Locked

laminustacitus:

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:
Leave aside your contention that they both depict  no  egregious violations of Newtons 3rd law of motion for now  [lets just forget that for the moment]...

The law of motion holds true even in that frame for the force of the impacting jetlinner is so massive that there is nothing that the stationary building can do to even weaken it. What we see in the video is a classic example vector physics when one vector completely overwhelms the other on the scale of a couple of orders of magnitude. 

 

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:
although both myself and Dr Morgan Reynolds would absolutely, 100% disagree with you and anyone else who claims that it does not .Smile

You are both !00% wrong, and deluded.

 

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:
The  intended point of the second clip is to draw attention to the fact that plane stays entirely stationary, with its tail coincidentally perfectly centered in the frame throughout

Its a high energy collision, of course the momentum of the colliding object will remain on course since it is on a couple of order of magnitudes larger than what it is colliding - again, really simple physics.

 

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:
and that the building moves towards the plane in every frame- and not the other way round as should be expected.

There is nothing wrong about the video clip, it is just what should be expected from a high-energy collision.

"You are both !00% wrong, and deluded."

Yes, and I could say that you are 100% wrong and deluded too Smile.  But where would  that get me? Thank you for your time, consideration, and input, have a nice day.

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 11:54 AM | Locked

laminustacitus:

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:
and that the building moves towards the plane in every frame- and not the other way round as should be expected.

There is nothing wrong about the video clip, it is just what should be expected from a high-energy collision.

I have no opinion on this either way, but I believe onebornfree is talking about how amazing the camera work is to be able to track a jet going several hundred miles per hour across a viewing area a few hundred feet wide without every letting that tail move away from the very center of the shot. In other words, I believe he's remarking that no amateur photographer could be that skilled (I wouldn't know; never owned a camera).

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315
onebornfree replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 12:10 PM | Locked

AJ:

laminustacitus:

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:
and that the building moves towards the plane in every frame- and not the other way round as should be expected.

There is nothing wrong about the video clip, it is just what should be expected from a high-energy collision.

I have no opinion on this either way, but I believe onebornfree is talking about how amazing the camera work is to be able to track a jet going several hundred miles per hour across a viewing area a few hundred feet wide without every letting that tail move away from the very center of the shot. In other words, I believe he's remarking that no amateur photographer could be that skilled (I wouldn't know; never owned a camera).

Yes indeed, that is what I am saying, but it goes a lot further- no professional videographer / photographer is that skilled either, the shot is a real -time physical impossibility , regardless of skill level or  equipment used .

This sequence was made entirely in a studio, using computers- the only way to achieve the observed result{s}.

However, don't believe me, track down a couple of pros who you think have no bias one way or another and get their opinion.

And thank you for your comments.

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 353
Points 5,400
nhaag replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 12:55 PM | Locked

Poptech:

As for the fires, they easily reached over 2000 degrees which is more than enough to weaken the load bearing ability of the structural steel. Steel weakens substantially over 1200 degrees. It really helps if people know what they are talking about.

I have no intention to get between to religions, yours and the 9/11 truthers that is. But your reply shows me that you have no expertise even in the basics of thermodynamics.

I wholeheartedly agree that it really helps if people "know" what they are talking about. You don't. At least as far as fire is concerned. I on the other hand know pretty well what I am talking about having teached professional fire fighters on the topic for more than 20 years. But nevermind, we all are wrong and the self-made experts are right I guess.

First, if you talk about temperature you need to add the scale? 2000 degrees what? Celsius Fahrenheit, Reomur? Even if, in this case it doesn't make a big difference, it just shows you are part of the non-expert-league.

Now let's look at the facts. No one ever denied that steel loses stability under high temperatures. In fact, steel looses 50% if warmed up to about 400 degrees Celsius. This is known and taken into account since the very first steel building has been manufactured.

Second no inflameable liquid can burn at tempratures of 1000 degrees Celsius or higher. Even if the U.S, adminsitration would decree it :-).  No fire in a building ever will reach 2000 degrees celsius. It has never happened and, given the laws of physics are valid in the U.S: too, will never happen.

Having said this I will drop out of the discussion, because it is not worth the effort to falsify rediculous statements. Go learn instead of parroting on things you do not have the slightes clue about.

Maybe you start with physics :-)

In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.

Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 5:44 PM | Locked
OneBorn,

Where does the second video come from ? The second video does show a plane that doesn't move with respect to the picture frame, but I don't think that's part of the original video.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 83
Points 1,565
solos replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 5:52 PM | Locked

twistedbydsign99:

Poptech,

http://conspireality.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/cut-beam1.jpg

Melting steel != cutting steel.

110 stories fall at free fall speed due to pancake theory, I think not.

 

Sam Hollenshead took that photo and he also has more photos of the WTC and shows it was made by a thermic lance. 

 edit: and none of the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895
Caley McKibbin replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 6:00 PM | Locked

Arguing with these nutters warrants the conversation.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 6:02 PM | Locked

nhaag:
At least as far as fire is concerned. I on the other hand know pretty well what I am talking about having teached professional fire fighters on the topic for more than 20 years.

Really and you don't know the temperature that Jet Fueled fires can reach? Maybe you should not be teaching these classes.

nhaag:
First, if you talk about temperature you need to add the scale? 2000 degrees what? Celsius Fahrenheit, Reomur? Even if, in this case it doesn't make a big difference, it just shows you are part of the non-expert-league.

Yes I am well aware of this as I did this intentionally to sucker truthers into responding (which worked beautifully).

The rest of your comments are based on wrongly assuming I was using the Celsius scale, so they are nonsense.

This video clearly shows temperatures reaching over 2000 degrees Fahrenheit.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 6:04 PM | Locked

Juan:
The second video does show a plane that doesn't move with respect to the picture frame, but I don't think that's part of the original video.

The second video is a spliced shot of the original and taken exactly when the camera started to pan right. Thus it gives the illusion the plane is not moving. Truthers do this sort of nonsense all the time.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 6:13 PM | Locked
Which proves nothing, one way or the other.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 6:21 PM | Locked

Juan:
Which proves nothing, one way or the other.

Yes it does, it proves truthers will do whatever it takes to spread propaganda. Look at the first video and it starts to pan right near the end. Some idiot truther zoomed in and spliced the video starting there. Those are not separate videos but the second is a spliced zoomed in one of the first. Truthers try to "analyze" videos using their limited intelligence.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 321
Points 5,235
Seph replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 6:23 PM | Locked

laminustacitus:

A) It only takes one structural defect to bring down a building, there need not be a total system failure, but rather a failure of just a couple floors.

B)The floors that failed were completelyt doused in jet fuel.

You're arguing that the failure of a couple floor (due to office fires nonetheless!) caused this:

 

Yeah, that sure looks like a gravity induced pancake collapse to me. But go on, explain your position, how can the failure of a few floors cause the collapse of a high rise at near free fall speed. I'm eager to listen. 

B) Even PM admits the jet fuel would have burned up after 20 minutes. But lets say jet fuel was responsible. 

How do you explain building 7? 

 

One issue which i find interesting:

How do you explain the pools of molten steel below WTC 1, 2 and 7 which, according to observers on hand was flowing freely even weeks after the attacks? What melted it, since jet fueled fires cannot?

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 412
Points 8,630
fezwhatley replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 6:31 PM | Locked

i think its somewhat simple to sypathize with truthers, on the collapse of the 3 towers. it was an absolutely remarkable event, the world had never seen before 3 skyscrapers collapse by fire and structural damage alone, so yeah there is reason for speculation

imo, the first tower to collapse looked non-conspicous since the tower was severely damaged 60% up the structure-enough to compromise it. The second tower does look at first glance impossible- but i think a conspiracy is even more unlikely.

do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895
Caley McKibbin replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 6:32 PM | Locked

No matter what you say, these nutters will always believe.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 6:55 PM | Locked
Yes it does, it proves truthers will do whatever it takes to spread propaganda.
You mean some of the people you dismissively call 'truthers' spread propaganda, just like you do ? The difference of course is that you spread pro-government neocon propaganda whereas the 'truthers' at least know that the government is not to be trusted.
Look at the first video and it starts to pan right near the end. Some idiot truther zoomed in and spliced the video starting there. Those are not separate videos but the second is a spliced zoomed in one of the first.
Yes, so the video is a strawman of sorts and as I said, it proves nothing. The video is misleading and it weakens the credibility of people who are skeptics of the government's version, BUT it doesn't prove that the government's version (that you parrot) is true.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315
onebornfree replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 8:12 PM | Locked

Juan:
OneBorn,

Where does the second video come from ? The second video does show a plane that doesn't move with respect to the picture frame, but I don't think that's part of the original video.

Yes it is a part of the original, [which was first aired on CNN 09/12/01] and , as I stated before:

"both sequences are from the same original source - the second is merely an analysis of  the last few frames of the first. "

The red line was added by a researcher to the cropped images of the end sequence [in I believe, June or July 2009] in order to demonstrate, well, exactly what it demonstrates.

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
liberty student replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 8:16 PM | Locked

Caley McKibbin:
No matter what you say, these nutters will always believe.

You mean the folks who pay their taxes, right?  Wink  Big Smile

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 8:34 PM | Locked

Seph:
You're arguing that the failure of a couple floor (due to office fires nonetheless!) caused this: Yeah, that sure looks like a gravity induced pancake collapse to me. But go on, explain your position, how can the failure of a few floors cause the collapse of a high rise at near free fall speed. I'm eager to listen.

It would only take the structural failure of one floor.

But it was not just fires fueled by 24,000 gallons of jet fuel (which can burn over 2000 degrees F) and office items but also severe structural damage caused by the impact and explosion of a 200 ton 767 flying at 500 MPH.

Yes in the real world objects fall in the direction of gravity and the collapse was not at free fall speed.

Seph:
B) Even PM admits the jet fuel would have burned up after 20 minutes.

It only took less than 5 minutes for a jet fueled fire to weaken a steel's load bearing ability to cause a catastrophic failure in experiments.

Seph:
How do you explain building 7? 

Building seven was another unique design built over an existing con-ed substation and it is all explained in this video.

Seph:
How do you explain the pools of molten steel below WTC 1, 2 and 7 which, according to observers on hand was flowing freely even weeks after the attacks? What melted it, since jet fueled fires cannot?

Can you show me pictures of "molten steel from ground zero", confirm it was steel and not another metarial and glowing red steel is not "molten".

 

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 8:38 PM | Locked

Juan:
The difference of course is that you spread pro-government neocon propaganda whereas the 'truthers' at least know that the government is not to be trusted.

Define neo-con for me.

Yes clearly Penn and Teller, the BBC, The History Channel, National Geographic, NIST and Popular Mechanics are all spreading the neo-con propaganda! ROFLMAO!

 

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 8:40 PM | Locked

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:
The red line was added by a researcher to the cropped images of the end sequence [in I believe, June or July 2009] in order to demonstrate, well, exactly what it demonstrates.

That the video pans right? Amazing! Thankfully he added the red line or you might believe some other nonsense.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 8:41 PM | Locked
Define neo-con for me.
Why should I ? Anyway, have you got a mirror ? Try looking into it.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 8:48 PM | Locked

Juan:
Why should I ? Anyway, have you got a mirror ? Try looking into it.

Because you can't you just throw the word around to attack anyone who does not support your views. You think it is some childish form of intimidation. I think it is a joke and makes you look like one.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 8:58 PM | Locked
No Poptech, neocon is a label which fits your position, because, you see, you are a neocon. If you were to say that the 'workers' should own the means of production I'd call you a commie. If all you do is lie about the amerikkkan military/government in order to paint them as honest people doing their job, then you are a neocon. Your clueless or rather dishonest remarks about empire vs. 'nation building' give you away too.
You think it is some childish form of intimidation.
Again, if you were a commie and I called you a commie, you wouldn't whine about intimidation would you ? Why do you object to my calling a spade a spade ? It's not intimidation it's simply standard usage of words.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Tue, Sep 15 2009 9:08 PM | Locked

Then define neo-con for me. Come on you can do it.

Lets call a spade a spade, you are an illiterate who does not know how to use a dictionary.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 2 (44 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS