Saiphes:You come in here, blatently plugging your own blog, with an aire of condescending superiority and you expect to be welcomed?
He did not appear to have an aire of condescending superiority to me.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Juan: Conza88:Trying to link lewrockwell.com to your delusional No Pants Theory is just another notch on your frayed belt of bs. It's a fact that Reynolds has been published at LRC. On the other hand, Reynolds' explanations are too fantastic IMO. Onebornfree, the microwave (is that the wavelength?) weapons he talks about don't exist do they ?
Conza88:Trying to link lewrockwell.com to your delusional No Pants Theory is just another notch on your frayed belt of bs.
Thank you for the question. If you are talking about Directed Energy Weapons [DEW] I'm not sure what he knows exactly - and neither is Mr Reynolds as far as i'm aware!
Mr Reynolds appears to have devoted a lot more time to the issue of media network video fakery and no planes [NPT or no plane theory], as opposed to what actually caused the 2 main buildings to collapse.
As far as these microwave, or DEW are concerned that you mention, what he and I would probably both agree on is that because of the rapidity of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 - both collapsed at free fall or greater speeds - seismic evidence from Columbia University indicates a collapse time of 10 secs for WTC2 {ie the 2nd tower to be hit but the 1st to fall}, and 8 secs. for WTC1 {ie 1st to be hit and second to fall} ; there had to be some sort of demolition involved, and since conventional demolitions do not turn buildings, steel girders, office furniture etc. literally to dust in around 10 secs., and would not be able to cause a top to bottom collapse into the buildings own footprints [ie straight down] in virtual free fall time, but would instead take many _minutes_ to achieve some [but not all!] of those results, _some_ type of high tech , secret weaponry had to be involved to get the end result [ ultra-fast collapse times,very little debris- mostly just dust].
At this point in time the most likely candidates appear to be DEW [ie your "microwaves"] or perhaps mini-nukes, but the jury is still out- nobody is really sure [ or if they are "sure" they are most likely jumping to unsustainable conclusions, in my opinion.]
Besides it is not necessary to know what actually caused the collapse.
All you need to know are few basic physical facts about those collapses, and that it is physically impossible for 1300ft tall, 500,000 ton steel and concrete structures to literally turn to dust in 10 seconds flat or less - top to bottom- or even, if you want to be more conservative and discount the seismic evidence,15 seconds; either through internal fire, as the government claims, or by conventional demolition, as others [ie professor Steven Jones, "Loose Change" people, Alex Jones etc.] vociferously claim.
Some sort of new weapon technology was definitely in operation that morning, as far as myself and Mr Reynolds are concerned, that much I'm sure of .
P.S. I understand yours [and anyone elses] reticence/ incredulous disbelief of NPT, despite the fact that many of you claim to be free-thinking "anarchists" or "libertarians" etc.
Speaking from personal experience, even though I never believed one word of the governments story from the git go [on principle, I never believe anything the government tells me is true] , it _still_ took me 8 years of daily analysis and close scrutiny of all purported evidence as it became known, to reach the inescapable conclusion [just like Morgan Reynolds and others] that there were no planes involved and that the network media faked the whole production "lock stock and barrel".
But for most, and perhaps for yourself, such outrageous conclusions will remain psychologically unacceptable, even for most self- described "anarchists" and libertarians here, it would seem. Too much damage to the "world view" I suspect.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
onebornfree: http://onebornfree.blogspot.com/2008/10/shortest-simplest-most-devastating-most.html and: http://onebornfree.blogspot.com/2008/07/truth-no-planes-hit-wtc-1-2-or-pentagon.html
http://onebornfree.blogspot.com/2008/10/shortest-simplest-most-devastating-most.html
and: http://onebornfree.blogspot.com/2008/07/truth-no-planes-hit-wtc-1-2-or-pentagon.html
Wow, pretty amazing stuff. I have always thought the images were really weird, with an entire plane just "disappearing" into the building. Very interesting stuff indead. I do not think it would take much to convince me that there were no planes. But wow, what a conspiracy theory!
Spideynw: onebornfree: http://onebornfree.blogspot.com/2008/10/shortest-simplest-most-devastating-most.html and: http://onebornfree.blogspot.com/2008/07/truth-no-planes-hit-wtc-1-2-or-pentagon.html Wow, pretty amazing stuff. I have always thought the images were really weird, with an entire plane just "disappearing" into the building. Very interesting stuff indead. I do not think it would take much to convince me that there were no planes. But wow, what a conspiracy theory!
Yes, if the theory [NPT etc.] makes sense - that is, if the physics, [eg. Newton's 3rd Law of motion] make sense - it [NPT] will shatter one's world view, that's for sure.
And if those 2 you looked at whetted your appetite/curiosity, and you are looking for something else that's really going to "bake your noodle" [ as "The Oracle" says in the movie "The Matrix" ] , you might wish to take a look at this video which is a devastating, close, frame by frame analysis of the actual supposed "live" footage broadcast by the networks that morning- taken from their very own archives [which of course they have now "updated" since this video analysis started making waves!].
whatever happend to David Lawrence Angell?
please call his family and let them know the truth.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
onebornfree: "Examples, please." Off the top of my head, any article that predicts future economic events based on current actions. Also anyone who advocates a government-run gold standard.
"Examples, please."
Off the top of my head, any article that predicts future economic events based on current actions. Also anyone who advocates a government-run gold standard.
You do make a good point about gold, Libertarians that wants to go to a gold standard are mostly elderly Libertarians like Ron Paul and they are called gold-bugs. I don't know if calling them gold-bugs is offensive or not so I apologize if I offend anyone.
Who ever issues the gold back currency owns the gold (it's stored in thier vaults). However, gold backed currency is better then fiat currency. I don't think Gold would be worth as much as it now if currency was back by it.
Perhaps the government or whomever wants gold to be rare thus raise the price of gold (like they do with drugs and the so called war on drugs). At least Gold-bugs want to make gold more common by backing currency with it. Besides I would trust my freedom and liberty more with Ron Paul then I do Obama (bin laden) or some other poli-tic (poly=more than one-tic=a blood sucking parasite).
Michael S:You do make a good point about gold, Libertarians that wants to go to a gold standard are mostly elderly Libertarians like Ron Paul and they are called gold-bugs.
It's not because they're old, it's because gold makes the most sense as a form of money.
Michael S:Who ever issues the gold back currency owns the gold (it's stored in thier vaults). However, gold backed currency is better then fiat currency. I don't think Gold would be worth as much as it now if currency was back by it.
No, technically whoever has the bank note owns the gold, and gold would be worth much more if it was a legal currency, because there would be much more demand for it. Right now people invest in it as a hedge against inflation.
onebornfree:Yes, if the theory [NPT etc.] makes sense - that is, if the physics, [eg. Newton's 3rd Law of motion] make sense - it [NPT] will shatter one's world view, that's for sure.
WOW! Is this thread still alive??? I begin to suspect that there's a conspiracy behind that phenomena... And probably a "Post-Danish, Liberal-Conservative, Shintoist, 911 "I-never-believed NY-existed" kind of conspiracy to that!!!
Airplanes are built extremely light weight. They have no stopping power whatsoever in case of a collision. They don't have chock absorption zones like cars have. An airplane hitting a building will conduct almost no resistive force at all from the nose impacting the obsticle, to towards its rear. Each aluminium or titan segment will rush forward with the same speed until it too hits the concrete or whatever is left of the obsticle after the forward tons have penetrated it. The raw videos look totally realistic to me. If the aircraft had bounced off the building, like a high speed car bounces off a mountain wall it encounters, then that would've looked totally Disney like...
It's not fascism when the government does it.
“We must spend now as an investment for the future.” - President Obama
banned: Michael S:You do make a good point about gold, Libertarians that wants to go to a gold standard are mostly elderly Libertarians like Ron Paul and they are called gold-bugs. It's not because they're old, it's because gold makes the most sense as a form of money. Michael S:Who ever issues the gold back currency owns the gold (it's stored in thier vaults). However, gold backed currency is better then fiat currency. I don't think Gold would be worth as much as it now if currency was back by it. No, technically whoever has the bank note owns the gold, and gold would be worth much more if it was a legal currency, because there would be much more demand for it. Right now people invest in it as a hedge against inflation.
I thought you got banned? HAHA just kidding...
I didn't say all of them where old or because they are old lol. I said most of them are old meaning they where around when the money was back by gold.
Supply and demand doesn't apply to gold? I thought the more of something available like commodities the lower the price/cost. For an example: If there is a drought in an area where most of the corn was grown in a country and the farmer, lets say could only grow 1/3 of corn then he or she normally grows that would raise the price of corn not drop the price of corn. Would it not? Also, I thought precious metals,gems and etc, gets their value from being rare (with the exception of diamonds-diamonds get their value from it's cut (an uncut diamond is worth next to nothing). Unless you know something I or we don't
Did not mean to hijack the thread...carry on!
ProudCapitalist: onebornfree:Yes, if the theory [NPT etc.] makes sense - that is, if the physics, [eg. Newton's 3rd Law of motion] make sense - it [NPT] will shatter one's world view, that's for sure. WOW! Is this thread still alive??? I begin to suspect that there's a conspiracy behind that phenomena... And probably a "Post-Danish, Liberal-Conservative, Shintoist, 911 "I-never-believed NY-existed" kind of conspiracy to that!!! Airplanes are built extremely light weight. They have no stopping power whatsoever in case of a collision. They don't have chock absorption zones like cars have. An airplane hitting a building will conduct almost no resistive force at all from the nose impacting the obsticle, to towards its rear. Each aluminium or titan segment will rush forward with the same speed until it too hits the concrete or whatever is left of the obsticle after the forward tons have penetrated it. The raw videos look totally realistic to me. If the aircraft had bounced off the building, like a high speed car bounces off a mountain wall it encounters, then that would've looked totally Disney like...
So if I understand your position, you are saying that a video which purportedly shows a large airliner disappearing , whole [ie in one complete piece, like a hot knife through butter, inside a 500,000 ton steel and concrete building, without slowing down after initial impact, and with no parts falling off at impact, with the result that it leaves a "cookie-cutter" hole to mark its passage, is fully consistent with your understanding of the construction of jetliners as outlined here by yourself , and with your understanding of the known laws of Newtonian physics, correct?
Michael S: I thought the more demand for something like commodities the lower the price/cost.
You'd better think again then.
Michael S:For an example: If there is a drought in an area where most of the corn was grown in a country and the farmer, lets say could only grow 1/3 of corn then he or she normally grows that would raise the price of corn not drop the price of corn. Would it not?
I think you're confusing supply and demand.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
ProudCapitalist:WOW! Is this thread still alive???
Yes it is, largely because of your trolling and flame baiting. I suggest that if you don't like it you ignore the topic and allow whoever wishes to discuss the ( in my opinion, absurd) theories that the OP expounds to do so without inconveniences.
Michael S:Also, I thought precious metals,gems and etc, gets their value from being rare (with the exception of diamonds-diamonds get their value from it's cut (an uncut diamond is worth next to nothing). Unless you know something I or we don't
Gold's price is strongly influenced by the fact that it was once used as money, and because its a great storage for value. If gold were only valued because of its rarity, beauty, and industrial uses then its price, as once predicted by Milton Friedman and the monetarists, would be far below the $ 890.00 it is now.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
GilesStratton: Michael S: I thought the more demand for something like commodities the lower the price/cost. You'd better think again then. Michael S:For an example: If there is a drought in an area where most of the corn was grown in a country and the farmer, lets say could only grow 1/3 of corn then he or she normally grows that would raise the price of corn not drop the price of corn. Would it not? I think you're confusing supply and demand.
oops I didn't mean demand I meant the more something is available the lower the price. it's been a loooong day. I'll edit it, thanks
I'm not confusing supply and demand. I mentioned/covered the supply part I didn't mention the demand part...
GilesStratton: ProudCapitalist:WOW! Is this thread still alive??? Yes it is, largely because of your trolling and flame baiting. I suggest that if you don't like it you ignore the topic and allow whoever wishes to discuss the ( in my opinion, absurd) theories that the OP expounds to do so without inconveniences.
Oh, so it's LARGLY ME holding this thread alive, after my three postings here???
I started out with arguing that no mises.org domain should devote itself to debating buildings crashing into airplanes. There are probably alot of engineering forums around which can hold such a discussion that much better. Therefor I choose to keep my level in this "debate" exactly as high as the topic is relevant to Austrian Economics!
(Especially since this area of the domain is obviously totally unmoderated!)
onebornfree:So if I understand your position, you are saying that a video which purportedly shows a large airliner disappearing , whole [ie in one complete piece, like a hot knife through butter, inside a 500,000 ton steel and concrete building, without slowing down after initial impact, and with no parts falling off at impact, with the result that it leaves a "cookie-cutter" hole to mark its passage, is fully consistent with your understanding of the construction of jetliners as outlined here by yourself , and with your understanding of the known laws of Newtonian physics, correct?
Of course!
And parts were indeed falling off at impact! ALL OF THEM! But they retained their multi hundereds of MPH speed ahead. So they entered the building. Every single one of them. Like a hot knife cuts through butter.
During WW2, do you know how torpedoes and mines sank ships? By detonating about 30 meters under the ship. The explosion displaced water under the ships hull so that the ship fell into that same vacuum. That fall cracked the hull and the ship was broken as the water swashed back from all sides. Torpedoes and mines didn't impact ships directly to blow a hole in them. That was very passe already by the 1930s. Engineering caluclus, which might seem counter intuitive to the ordinary man on the street, were already then in mass production.
An airplane is a very light weight container of fuel and passengers (plus engines). If it crashes into somehting, it kills and burns. You can't stop those tons of blood and fuel (and the residue of the aluminium of the aircraft body itself) with a thin steel wall made to support only the vertical loads of similiar wall segments having being built upon it. Especially, which Krazu Kaju linked to in the very beginning of this thread, since the heat of the burning fuel caused the steel to bend and hence the residue of the walls to bend and collapse.
What did you expect would happen to a great airplane hitting a twin tower? It to bounce off the wall and fall to the ground below for the garbage collection to scrap up and take care of?
ProudCapitalist:I started out with arguing that no mises.org domain should devote itself to debating buildings crashing into airplanes
That's not your decision. As far as I'm aware, anyway. Since it is clear that this topic has received the attention of moderators, I think it's a fair enough assumption that this topic constitutes a legitimate discussion. That is, of course, if members were to keep it on topic instead of flame baiting the OP simply because he has some views that don't quite fit with yours.
Do I think it is a silly topic? Yes. Do I wish that it would die? Yes. Do I think that it within the realm of discussion? Yes.
Who sets the value of gold and how do they value it? well if gold was far below $890 an ounce then I would buy and I wouldn't have to worry about starving to death if shit really does hit the fan with the economy, politics and etc!.
Could not it be possible for someone or anyone to inflate the price of gold on purpose so i or any of my other poor brothers and sisters would starve to death? Like these population control weirdos(the U.N comes to mind) that claim the population on earth is to great? they would win, they get the gold and they get to exterminate some of the population at the same time. That was only hypothetical and dramatized but it could happen.Anything could happen
I'm normally a optimistic, I really am.
ProudCapitalist: onebornfree:So if I understand your position, you are saying that a video which purportedly shows a large airliner disappearing , whole [ie in one complete piece, like a hot knife through butter, inside a 500,000 ton steel and concrete building, without slowing down after initial impact, and with no parts falling off at impact, with the result that it leaves a "cookie-cutter" hole to mark its passage, is fully consistent with your understanding of the construction of jetliners as outlined here by yourself , and with your understanding of the known laws of Newtonian physics, correct? Of course! And parts were indeed falling off at impact! ALL OF THEM! But they retained their multi hundereds of MPH speed ahead. So they entered the building. Every single one of them. Like a hot knife cuts through butter. During WW2, do you know how torpedoes and mines sank ships? By detonating about 30 meters under the ship. The explosion displaced water under the ships hull so that the ship fell into that same vacuum. That fall cracked the hull and the ship was broken as the water swashed back from all sides. Torpedoes and mines didn't impact ships directly to blow a hole in them. That was very passe already by the 1930s. Engineering caluclus, which might seem counter intuitive to the ordinary man on the street, were already then in mass production. An airplane is a very light weight container of fuel and passengers (plus engines). If it crashes into somehting, it kills and burns. You can't stop those tons of blood and fuel (and the residue of the aluminium of the aircraft body itself) with a thin steel wall made to support only the vertical loads of similiar wall segments having being built upon it. Especially, which Krazu Kaju linked to in the very beginning of this thread, since the heat of the burning fuel caused the steel to bend and hence the residue of the walls to bend and collapse. What did you expect would happen to a great airplane hitting a twin tower? It to bounce off the wall and fall to the ground below for the garbage collection to scrap up and take care of?
Well allrighty then- thank you for your input! Yes I see- a commercial airliner is exactly like a torpedo , and aluminum cuts steel, how silly of me :- )
Juan: Conza88:Trying to link lewrockwell.com to your delusional No Pants Theory is just another notch on your frayed belt of bs. It's a fact that Reynolds has been published at LRC.
Conza88: Trying to link lewrockwell.com to your delusional No Pants Theory is just another notch on your frayed belt of bs. You and your ever so frequent love of fallacies really should get a room. Preferably in a pysch ward. </ad homs> It's Guilt by association this time. But more importantly, none of the articles written by Mr Reynolds on Lew Rockwell prescribe to your NPT delusions. Just the opposite actually. The hilarious part is, it doesn't actually support your argument in anyway, shape or form. So what if he has written for LR before? Doesn't change squat. Again for the short minded: none of the articles written by Mr Reynolds on Lew Rockwell prescribe to your NPT delusions.
Trying to link lewrockwell.com to your delusional No Pants Theory is just another notch on your frayed belt of bs. You and your ever so frequent love of fallacies really should get a room. Preferably in a pysch ward. </ad homs> It's Guilt by association this time. But more importantly, none of the articles written by Mr Reynolds on Lew Rockwell prescribe to your NPT delusions. Just the opposite actually.
The hilarious part is, it doesn't actually support your argument in anyway, shape or form. So what if he has written for LR before? Doesn't change squat.
Again for the short minded: none of the articles written by Mr Reynolds on Lew Rockwell prescribe to your NPT delusions.
Correct. The thread was basically killed (because onebornfreeofreality) won't address any of my questions, because he can't. But then some clown had to go and bump it because he had nothing but trolling in mind.
onebornfree:Well allrighty then- thank you for your input! Yes I see- a commercial airliner is exactly like a torpedo , and aluminum cuts steel, how silly of me :- )
Aluminium cuts through steel as a knife cuts through butter, at high enough speed, yes. Especially tons and tons of aluminium loaded with passengers, fuel and enginges and several times ordinary highway car speed limits, hitting a wall made to sustain constant vertical weight.
This is obvious to everyone except you "911:er"...
If there's any successful conspiracy around here, it is the conspiracy to make all conspiracies for ever untrustworthy through the ancient antique modus of arguing called "banging your head into the wall"!
Conza88:Correct. The thread was basically killed (because onebornfreeofreality) won't address any of my questions, because he can't. But then some clown had to go and bump it because he had nothing but trolling in mind.
Oh, well, sorry then! I'm sure the Troll would've told you his deepest secrets if only I hadn't interupted your fruitful conversation there...
As you were!!!
Michael S:Supply and demand doesn't apply to gold? I thought the more of something available like commodities the lower the price/cost. For an example: If there is a drought in an area where most of the corn was grown in a country and the farmer, lets say could only grow 1/3 of corn then he or she normally grows that would raise the price of corn not drop the price of corn. Would it not?
I think you might be confusing low prices with low monetary value. Things will be priced low against something with high monetary value. If currency was backed by gold, gold would be worth much more than it is now since demand for it would be greater, and prices relative to it would diminish.
The thread was basically killed (because onebornfreeofreality) won't address any of my questions, because he can't. But then some clown had to go and bump it because he had nothing but trolling in mind.
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."
It just makes me VERY SAD that serious criticism of unsound economic policies, are allowed to be shitted upon like this by some sect of mad 911:ers and their insane "Elvis-is-still-alive-but-only-kidnapped-by-aliens" theories.
What has anything of this to do with Ludwig von Mises???
Haven't these crack pots their own forums by the millions by now?
Economic theory hardly has anything to do with buildings colliding with (non existing???) airplanes, or does it?
ProudCapitalist: Conza88:Correct. The thread was basically killed (because onebornfreeofreality) won't address any of my questions, because he can't. But then some clown had to go and bump it because he had nothing but trolling in mind. Oh, well, sorry then! I'm sure the Troll would've told you his deepest secrets if only I hadn't interupted your fruitful conversation there... As you were!!!
See, no, that is the point. He WOULDN'T have, just as he continued to ignore it previously. So if you hadn't been a tool & bumped the thread - then we really wouldn't be having this discussion. However, you acting like a child who has had too much red cordial... backfired. So here we are. Get a grip perhaps?
Juan:The thread was basically killed (because onebornfreeofreality) won't address any of my questions, because he can't. But then some clown had to go and bump it because he had nothing but trolling in mind. You wouldn't happen to be talking about me would you ? "Anyway, here are some comments by Reynolds - who has nothing published on LRC about NPT."
No I wasn't talking about you. And fixed.
Look, it doesn't change anything. Planes or no planes. It doesn't alter squat. The War on 'Terrorism' is still under way and so is the move towards world government.
It happened 8 years ago. Get over the differentiation. It is meaningless in the greater scheme of things. The discussion going on atm is unproductive, irrelevent, unhelpful & irrational.
See, no, that is the point. He WOULDN'T have, just as he continued to ignore it previously. So if you hadn't been a tool & bumped the thread - then we really wouldn't be having this discussion.
Oh well, if you're such a troll-master, then why didn't you tell the world? There's a tremendous lack of your kind everywhere on forums. Well, at least if you stop telling me that it is to "bump" a thread one day after the last post. And accusing me of putting any kind of energy into the same thread by ridiculing the thread-troll. If you think your "last" post was so fucking efficient, then why don't you recite in his face? Is it because you are just looking for an excuse?
The thread was basically killed (because onebornfreeofreality) won't address any of my questions
That's ridiculous! What troll admits not having addressed questions??? The issue to begin with should've been enough for the topic to have been closed. mises-org shouldn't "debate" buildings crashings into airplanes. That's it. But unfortunately, this little section of the internet seems totally unmoderated. Hmm, I might earn some spam-dollars by inviting some "business partners" here...
The newbies section is meant to have laxer moderation anyways. I don't see why the thread should be closed, it's a legitimate topic for debate, but if it degenerates into the discussion of extraneous matters and/or flaming, I will close it.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
ProudCapitalist: Oh, so it's LARGLY ME holding this thread alive, after my three postings here??? I started out with arguing that no mises.org domain should devote itself to debating buildings crashing into airplanes. There are probably alot of engineering forums around which can hold such a discussion that much better. Therefor I choose to keep my level in this "debate" exactly as high as the topic is relevant to Austrian Economics!
Unfortunately, yes. It was dieing... and you came along with your shock buster "satire" and kept it alive. It has nothing to do with the amount of postings, but timing.
ProudCapitalist:Oh well, if you're such a troll-master, then why didn't you tell the world? There's a tremendous lack of your kind everywhere on forums. Well, at least if you stop telling me that it is to "bump" a thread one day after the last post. And accusing me of putting any kind of energy into the same thread by ridiculing the thread-troll. If you think your "last" post was so fucking efficient, then why don't you recite in his face? Is it because you are just looking for an excuse?
I appreciate your attempt at satire, but all you are doing is 'feeding' & 'encouraging' it.
ProudCapitalist:That's ridiculous! What troll admits not having addressed questions??? The issue to begin with should've been enough for the topic to have been closed. mises-org shouldn't "debate" buildings crashings into airplanes. That's it. But unfortunately, this little section of the internet seems totally unmoderated. Hmm, I might earn some spam-dollars by inviting some "business partners" here...
Your actions are going against your stated self interest.
ProudCapitalist: onebornfree:Well allrighty then- thank you for your input! Yes I see- a commercial airliner is exactly like a torpedo , and aluminum cuts steel, how silly of me :- ) Aluminium cuts through steel as a knife cuts through butter, at high enough speed, yes. Especially tons and tons of aluminium loaded with passengers, fuel and enginges and several times ordinary highway car speed limits, hitting a wall made to sustain constant vertical weight. This is obvious to everyone except you "911:er"... If there's any successful conspiracy around here, it is the conspiracy to make all conspiracies for ever untrustworthy through the ancient antique modus of arguing called "banging your head into the wall"!
OK. I'm glad we cleared that up.
Leaving aside the entire issue of truth/lies about the events of 911 from your point of view vs. mine [ for the sake of argument lets just forget it entirely for the moment], let me ask you this:
[1] In general, roughly how much of the governments story do you believe when it gives its version of events, percentage wise on any other subject ? [100%, 75%, 50% 25% or less] [remember, completely outside of the issue of 911!].
[2] In general [again completely forgetting about 911 for the moment], how much of the medias story do you believe roughly [on any subject outside of 911], percentage wise?
The question is not whether or not physics is valid, but whether or not those are the original videos. As I already stated, I am prone to agree with you. If I remember correctly, my first impressions of seeing the planes smash into the buildings was one of disbelief, literally.
onebornfree:And if those 2 you looked at whetted your appetite/curiosity, and you are looking for something else that's really going to "bake your noodle" [ as "The Oracle" says in the movie "The Matrix" ] , you might wish to take a look at this video which is a devastating, close, frame by frame analysis of the actual supposed "live" footage broadcast by the networks that morning- taken from their very own archives [which of course they have now "updated" since this video analysis started making waves!].
Wow, just some amazing points!
Regardless, I would doubt most people would be prone to believing something like this. I still think the best way to get people to understand that government is wrong is that the only qualification for politicians is that they won a stupid popularity contest. The other thing I think is important is to get people to think about what the purpose of law should be. The logical conclusion is to punish people for harming others or stealing from others, and that is it.
I can't have our friend spideynw go without the benefit of a few Pro-Planes arguments :)
Thank you all for making me review my physics classes and research this - it has, at least, been interesting.
The alawson link goes over these videos and debunks most of them - yet he supports the building 7 conspiracy.
http://www.youtube.com/user/alawson911
My own thoughts, in no particular order are these:
1) A cylinder is one of the most stable shapes for edge contact. I understand the thicknesses differ - perhaps greatly - , but no thicknesses were mentioned.. only the implication that "steel is obviously stronger than aluminum" - false.
2) Aircraft Alluminum alloys indeed have equal strength to many steels.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7075_aluminum )
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A36_steel )
3) the beam of 18 inches in the direction of the forces has less mechanical advantage than a wing of 10+ feet front to back as far as being snapped like a twig is concerned..
3b) Not sure how much shearing strength comes into it, but since the joints are ( 1/3 | 2/3 )near the very stable floors, it could be a factor: metals shearing strength is less than tensile strength - thinking logically, the wing isn't experiencing shearing strength (and since the whole plane is moving, shearing is irrelevant..but the beams are where they meet the floor structures or where the joints may be..
( http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Matter/shear_tensile.htm )
4) Behind the relatively small "skin" steel tubes of what i estimate to be 14" wide (and between the floors) each is empty space. If something withstands, it would rotate on the way through conserving momentum.
5) Does a karate expert's fist visibly slow down when it punches through a board or a brick?
6) suppose the wing does break into fragments.. does it really have an incentive, moving at over 500mph, to just bounce off? Edgewise contact and the lining up of mass on a (geometrical) plane is why there's a karate chop, and not a karate slap.
7 from this image, it appears that the steel perimeter beams are one floor in length each, every triplet either longer on the top, or longer on the bottom.
( http://archrecord.construction.com/news/wtc/archives/wtc1964.pdf )
52 seconds into this ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6196566969538709965 ) video you can see those tripplets broken in that way - splitered inward at the joints like a wooden fence. The fuselage doesn't need to break concrete, only deform enough to fit between the floors. The wings don't need to break concrete, just bend and snap around it.
Remember, these joints are made to be pushed and pulled - the horizontal stability comes from the floors, or so I read in a design document.
The roadrunner hole doesn't seem that improbable to me.
8) from a conspiracy standpoint - wouldn't it have just been easier to have someone fly the damn planes? Either have a mole help set up the operation or threaten someone's family?
Finally, there are tons of videos following the crash, and it would take some very fancy explosives to cause all the steel of the structure to blast inward rather than outward. The question is not only whether the planes made the roadrunner hole, but whether you can say that the hole never existed, but if it did exist, how do you build an explosion that blasts a building inward in that shape?
All of this talk of one choosing their theory then justifying it at all costs to protect the ego works both ways. An NPTer would refuse to consider the existence of planes.
lawson911's final point about the bunkerbuster missile was lost on me until now: What if it was a specially outfitted plane packed with dense DU? Who cares. it's still a plane.
Yours,
Saiphes
Saiphes:I can't have our friend spydienw go without the benefit of a few Pro-Planes arguments :)
You should watch the video he posted september clues new 1st half.aspx.
Pretty interesting stuff. Again, it depends completely on whether or not it is really original footage.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550&ei=YRGmSLHVDYPi4gK-vZQR
point by point refutation
Saiphes: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550&ei=YRGmSLHVDYPi4gK-vZQR point by point refutation
Excellent! Thank you.
Oh - sorry, I misspelled your name - I have a friend that goes by Spydie
Some people simply cannot believe that events like 9/11 attacks can be really that simple so they tries to find meaning into things, hence conspricy theories.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Saiphes: Oh - sorry, I misspelled your name - I have a friend that goes by Spydie
No worries.
Spideynw: The question is not whether or not physics is valid, but whether or not those are the original videos. As I already stated, I am prone to agree with you. If I remember correctly, my first impressions of seeing the planes smash into the buildings was one of disbelief, literally. onebornfree:And if those 2 you looked at whetted your appetite/curiosity, and you are looking for something else that's really going to "bake your noodle" [ as "The Oracle" says in the movie "The Matrix" ] , you might wish to take a look at this video which is a devastating, close, frame by frame analysis of the actual supposed "live" footage broadcast by the networks that morning- taken from their very own archives [which of course they have now "updated" since this video analysis started making waves!]. Wow, just some amazing points!
"The question is not whether or not physics is valid, but whether or not those are the original videos. "
I'm not sure I understand your point, but here goes .
If the videos show what is impossible physics in the real world, then logically they cannot be "original" if by that you meant not fake. Impossible physics= fake video.
Therefor any and all 911 "amateur" videos [which were invariably actually shot by video professionals, as has been repeatedly uncovered], and which show flight 175 effortlessly gliding whole inside WTC2 without slowing down and without losing any parts on the outside must be fake due to the impossibility of the simple physics involved [ie Newtons 3rd Law of Motion].
" you might wish to take a look at this video which is a devastating, close, frame by frame analysis of the actual supposed "live" footage broadcast by the networks that morning "
"Wow, just some amazing points!"
By the way if you have closely watched September Clues [linked to above], you will have seen those incredible Fox "nose out" shots, in which the nose of fl. 175 magically makes it through to exit the opposite wall of WTC2 in one piece[ nose cones of these airliners are made mostly of plastic].
What is not covered in "September Clues" [at least not the versions I've seen] is the fact that there was no corresponding exit hole for the nose cone seen in photos taken immediately after this supposed event - which is another nail in the coffin of the entire flight 175 myth, as far as I'm concerned.
Spideynw: Saiphes:I can't have our friend spydienw go without the benefit of a few Pro-Planes arguments :) You should watch the video he posted september clues new 1st half.aspx. Pretty interesting stuff. Again, it depends completely on whether or not it is really original footage.
Ah, now I understand what you are driving at with the word "original". You are asking whether or not that this footage [ie the network footage analysed in "September Clues" has been altered [ie by the maker of "September Clues" in this instance], since the original broadcast by those networks,[fox, CNN, NBC, CBS ABC etc.] yes?
[n.b. the various videos that show fl 175 effortlessly gliding into WTC2 are _not_ from network archives, and are not analyzed in "September Clues"- those were created by independent "amateurs", who were all in actual fact persons with extensive professional video editing backgrounds. Some of those "amateur" videos _did_ however make it into network broadcasts later that day and the next, but are not to be confused with actual network footage.]
According to Mr Shack, [the creator of the "September Clues" video series] all he has done is to down load and analyze complete, original network footage as stored in all on-line network archives- and anybody and everybody has access to exactly the same archive material as he has used in his analysis - with, I believe, one exception - the Fox "nose out" footage, which has disappeared from the Fox archives since Septembr Clues started making waves- for obvious reasons.
Mr Shack has not altered or re-edited the original archive footage in any way, just as he states in the videos themselves.
You know, you can write to Simon Shack [aka "socialservice"] himself and often he will personally answer any sensible questions you might have about his series. If you cannot find how to contact him from his site let me know and I'll look it up for you.