nobody in this day and age can keep their mouth shut. people commit mass murder in this day and age just to become famous. people would talk.
and the world was allot diffrent place when hitler was running things. back then even in the us. people respected the presidency and such. now a days people dont care wether your mothere teressa or the president, if they find out some info about it, its on the news and the internet before you can snap your fingers.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
sndsgood wrote:nobody in this day and age can keep their mouth shut. people commit mass murder in this day and age just to become famous. people would talk.
and the world was allot diffrent place when hitler was running things. back then even in the us. people respected the presidency and such. now a days people dont care wether your mothere teressa or the president, if they find out some info about it, its on the news and the internet before you can snap your fingers.
The world is more technologically advanced, but has humanity's nature really changed that much? I'd say not.
And yes people used to respect the US presidency - but a 1-2 combo of Clinton-Bush fixed that.
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
it was going to happen because they let it happen
tragedy plus fear plus patriot act equals more control
Even before Nixon.
We often forget that even Kennedy wasn't well liked during his presidency. He's gotten great PR over the years, but at the time people thought he was a Communist or a Vatican lackey or both. Had he not been killed I don't think he'd be remembered all that fondly, especially not with the escalation of the Vietnam war happening under his presidency and the womanizing. Oliver Stone theories aside, the same motivations that caused Lyndon Johnson to go to Vietnam would have caused Kennedy to do the same. Again, we tend to forget that the Vietnam war was not unpopular or seen as something that would divide the country at first.
Kennedy is like Jimi Hendrix or James Dean, where people will go on and on about what "He would have done" as opposed to judging him solely on what he did and not taking into consideration that he may have stopped there and not have done much more. Like civil rights, he did a lot, but what more could he logically have done in those days? Not much. It's unrealistic to believe that some rising politician/entertainer would have kept getting better and better as time went by because that rarely happens. Marilyn Monroe's career would probably have ended in the 70's after she'd have have starred in a drive in movie about killer bananas. Today she'd be Michael Jackson's "good friend" and be married to to husband number 17. Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love would be the Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee of grunge and would very probably have a reality TV show called "Growing up Grunge".
Bastardking3000 wrote:sndsgood wrote:nobody in this day and age can keep their mouth shut. people commit mass murder in this day and age just to become famous. people would talk.
and the world was allot diffrent place when hitler was running things. back then even in the us. people respected the presidency and such. now a days people dont care wether your mothere teressa or the president, if they find out some info about it, its on the news and the internet before you can snap your fingers.
The world is more technologically advanced, but has humanity's nature really changed that much? I'd say not.
And yes people used to respect the US presidency - but a 1-2 combo of Clinton-Bush fixed that.
not just the president, that little topic could start another large debate. at one time when a parent told johnn's parents he was doing something wrong the parent would punish little johnny and call it a day. not when a parent comes up and says little johnny did something wrong little johhny's parents will scream at the other parents saying their lying and their kids and angel and their going to call the cops on the other parent for lying blah blah blah. a much grander scale then just the president. but that sorta takes us off topic.
I do beleive the media has changed allo of humanity. people will do the most pathetic childish idiotic things just to get on t.v. just to get their claim to fame. i dont beleive that was true back in the 50's and 60's
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
I find it hard to believe that there are professionals going on record speaking facts about the towers and how the collapse from the planes hitting was not possible, yet still people are piping up "NO! You're conspirators!!!" These are facts. What would cause the towers to collapse that is in a regular plane? NOTHING. How could all the supports in the center of the two towers fail in the same way dispite the building standing and all of the jet fuel being almost burnt up, and the fire obviously cooling down. The fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt, and if the towers didn't collapse when the fuel was burning at it hottest, why the @!#$ did it collapse after it had been burning and has cooled off? I fail to see anyone who doesn't believe there was some inside work done come forward with some kind of argument as to why the buildings turned to dust, why the supports ALL failed. I didn't see a big beam of steel at the site. Those things were 110 stories tall. You think that there'd be a nice 20-30 story chunk of those steel beams still intact after the fall. All I see are pieces of steel that are cut THE WAY DEMOLITION CREWS CUT STEEL in buildings they are bringing down. I don't know WHO did 9/11, all I know is those planes didn't bring the towers down. It doesn't make sense. And I feel we deserve some answers. Why did they not allow a proper investigation? To hide the proof of what happened. Imagine if you had a good section of the tower recreated out of pieces from the site with a whole bunch of cuts looking like demolition crew cuts and not many decent size chunks of concrete or whatever those towers were made out of because most of it was vaporized. A building collapsing down would not vaporize concrete. Please. Argue with me. I want to see your arguments. Maybe I can learn from them. Don't post up useless trash talk. I want someone to give me a good explanation as to why those buildings fell like that other than from an internal collapse. I bet you I won't see one.
wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good. 
LOL
sndsgood wrote:not just the president, that little topic could start another large debate. at one time when a parent told johnn's parents he was doing something wrong the parent would punish little johnny and call it a day. not when a parent comes up and says little johnny did something wrong little johhny's parents will scream at the other parents saying their lying and their kids and angel and their going to call the cops on the other parent for lying blah blah blah. a much grander scale then just the president. but that sorta takes us off topic.
I do beleive the media has changed allo of humanity. people will do the most pathetic childish idiotic things just to get on t.v. just to get their claim to fame. i dont beleive that was true back in the 50's and 60's
I'm with you on the parenting thing, but I don't think the media has anything to do with it. People just don't believe in personal responsibility these days.
1. There is ALWAYS someone to blame(occasionally something instead of someone)
2. THAT PERSON IS NOT ME.
3. THAT PERSON IS NOT ME.
4. There is never more than one person(or one thing) to blame. The blame is never to be shared.
5. Especially not shared with me.
6. I repeat - I contributed nothing to the problem. One person(or thing) is exclusively to blame.
7. THAT PERSON IS NOT ME.
The media has nothing to do with the parent's raising of people. If parents exercised actual "parenting," then the TV will have nothing to do with raising anyone. The media cannot teach you to think for yourself. The media of any age is kinda like a mirror - it does not change society quite as much as it is a reflection of society's own inner transformation - which currently doesn't reflect well. You might want to blame the mirror just because "it makes you look fat," but the mirror only reflects the truth and we are to blame. We just don't want to accept that.
That whole " 'X' is to blame" mentality is IMO the root of such problems as the way parents currently raise their children. Its just too easy to blame the media, video games, music etc - than to take your own initiative. TV/radio/newspaper/whatever never made anyone do anything. People make their own choices. With that in mind, I need to go file some frivolous lawsuit against someone I've never met - be right back.
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring
Kennedy wasn't well liked, but at least he had a clear vision, and tried to do the best he could... He was an inspirational leader, even though it took about 20 years for that to be realized.
LBJ really started the decline of respect for the Presidency, and Nixon put the final nail in the coffin: He tucked tail and escaped the White House like a scalded dog, and yes Tricky Dicky WAS a crook. Either way, he did do some good in opening dialogue with China and ended the Vietnam War (albeit only after Saigon fell and Troops and civillians were beat back into the sea). Other than that he really stained the Presidency. Ford was a place filler for the most part, but he did do some good, Canada gained entry into the G5 group of most wealthy nations with his urging.
Reagan didn't help much with Iran-Contra, and neither did Carter but I don't think he'd have been able to do much, he had the house and senate against him. Bush really ganked things up by making the economy seem like a foreign language and spurring on a recession by funnelling money into the Military Industrial Machine. Clinton was a scoundrel in his personal life: No question. BUT, he did more good for the US than the last 4 executive branches combined. Even after the bottom fell out of the Tech sector, he managed to push through better financial practices that made sure the biggest problem you'd have is that you may just pay off the national debt too fast.
George W Bush though... I don't know for certain how far he was involved in 9-11-01, but if the 9-11 Commission's report is at all accurate, he's to blame for ignoring intel that stated pretty clearly that terrorists were going to start striking in the USA with hijacked aircraft from the CIA at least 2 times, and the Clinton administrations' warnings that Al-Qaeda was going to be the most imminent threat to the USA, not loose Russian Nukes.
If you want to roll down the list of Dubya's screw ups, go ahead. Look at the stuff he's done right, and well... you might want to fold the screw up list in half just to cover yourself.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
My mom works at a daycare, so I hear about the little brats more than I'd care to. However, it definitely starts with the parents, as they are even worse than the kids. However, I've drawn the conclusion that the increasing divorce rate is to blame, as the parents fight eachother to spoil their children.
Whatever wrote:I find it hard to believe that there are professionals going on record speaking facts about the towers and how the collapse from the planes hitting was not possible, yet still people are piping up "NO! You're conspirators!!!" These are facts.
Those aren't facts, they are professional opinions, and the papers released by the government show that there are professional opinions from the other side as well. What the government has on their side is that their professionals were allowed to do
some investigation.
Whatever wrote:What would cause the towers to collapse that is in a regular plane? NOTHING.
Tons of jet fuel for a transcontinental flight might do it
Whatever wrote:How could all the supports in the center of the two towers fail in the same way dispite the building standing and all of the jet fuel being almost burnt up, and the fire obviously cooling down. The fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt, and if the towers didn't collapse when the fuel was burning at it hottest, why the @!#$ did it collapse after it had been burning and has cooled off?
What makes you think the fire had cooled down? Just because it was not as large from the outside does not mean it wasn't getting larger inside (note that this is where the main supports were). Also, about the melting steel:
1) Molten steel was mentioned by one rescue worker on site, but couldn't confirm that it was actually steel and not aluminum (lower T_m).
2) The steel doesn't need to melt to fail. An extreme increase in temperature will reduce the steel's yield strength, and suddenly the building will no longer be strong enough to support all that weight. I've been in school for years now learning about this crap, just trust me that it is possible.
Whatever wrote:I fail to see anyone who doesn't believe there was some inside work done come forward with some kind of argument as to why the buildings turned to dust, why the supports ALL failed.
The NIST argument is that the connections between the uprights and concrete floors failed (more than possible), and the extreme weight from one floor took out the next (pancake theory). The hard-core conspiracy theorists will bring up that each floor could support the weight of ten floors or whatever, but they fail to realize that that is not in
impact loading, which makes a single floor feel like more than 10 floors.
My problem here is that the videos look like they are failing at the bottom floors, not the upper. It just doesn't look like they are pancaking as NIST reports.
Whatever wrote:I didn't see a big beam of steel at the site. Those things were 110 stories tall. You think that there'd be a nice 20-30 story chunk of those steel beams still intact after the fall.
What makes you think there were beams that long used in the construction? Ive never seen a beam that large used, especially in an upright.
Whatever wrote:All I see are pieces of steel that are cut THE WAY DEMOLITION CREWS CUT STEEL in buildings they are bringing down.
I've seen the one beam (Zeitgeist movie), have you seen more? This is awfully suspect to me too.
Whatever wrote:Imagine if you had a good section of the tower recreated out of pieces from the site with a whole bunch of cuts looking like demolition crew cuts and not many decent size chunks of concrete or whatever those towers were made out of because most of it was vaporized. A building collapsing down would not vaporize concrete.
Vaporized concrete? wtf? There were MASSIVE chunks of concrete at that site. Also, the type of demolition that would have cut the beams like that would have barely touched the concrete, much less vaporized it, so you have to pick one or the other.
Whatever wrote:Why did they not allow a proper investigation?
BINGO. Everything that proceeded and followed the collapses is what needs to be focused on, from Cheney's possible previous knowledge of the plane headed for the Pentagon and the confiscated video tapes, to the "passports" that magically survived.
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
^^ I like this guy. Thank you for a debate.
Sorry it was late and I was kind of ranting. Yes there was chunks of concrete. But why was there so much dust? A pyroclastic flow. Why when the tower starts to fall do we see so much vapourised concrete pouring out over the city? Was the floors toppling down on each other (at freefall speeds, which is hard to believe that this could have happened by the tower collapsing on itself due to floor resistance and such) enough to smash that much concrete dust out into the air that fast? I doubt it. I could see the lower floors creating a cloud from all the higher floors weight smasing it, but look at the top of those towers when they start to fall. There's a huge cloud instantly. @!#$ that. Buildings are made out of concrete and steel because it is strong and holds together well, not because it's easily smashed and vaporized.
As for the molten metal. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the metal the beams are created out of, which is a fact, is it not? It could weaken them, yes. But why would they all fail at the same time in the same way? The plane hit one side of the building, not all 4 at once, in the same way. The structure fell way too uniformly to make sense as far as the plane impact is concerned.
And I strongly believe the fire would be cooling down by the time the towers fell. How would wood and paper and drywall burn hotter than kerosene? I'm pretty sure black smoke is a sure sign of incomplete combustion. The more smoke, the more incomplete burning, the cooler the fire... At least as far as I know. Depends what's burning too I suppose.
Why do the buildings blow out so fast? They fall at free fall speeds. There's reports of explosions at the base before the towers collapse that people heard. When I watch many videos of the video's falling, I can see smaller explosions further down the tower than the building is collapsing. Explanation for that?
And that video of how the planes had no windows and how different the undercarriage looked. That's new news to me. Also very suspicious, although it's not completely persuading me to believe anything.
There's too much suspicion in my mind. Why too many theories about how things add up that don't seem very possible, that the final result is more than a coincidence. Strange looking planes. Buildings falling at freefall speeds from a non-demolition collapse. Building 7 burning and collapsing. (I've seen buildings that have burned for MUCH longer than wtc7 and never collapse. And the way it collapses. Come on. That's a text book example of how a professionally demolished building falls. If it was caused by that fire that wasn't even spread throughout the whole building, wouldn't the building collapse into itself?) Let's not forget the pentagon and how there was no pieces of a plane found at the crash site. Nor was the hole in the side of the building large enough for it to have been the plane they claimed it to be. And that plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Only an idiot would believe that.
Watch . I know the video is trying to convince you into his way of thinking, but just look and judge for yourself. Don't be a fool. Why does the 9/11 commission report fail to mention so much. It's so incomplete. Wouldn't you think if this was an act of terror and not some inside plot, the government would want to figure it out. Not disallow a reconstruction of the twin towers using debris from ground zero.
I guess a lot of American's are so full of themselves and think their country is so great, that they won't even question these sorts of things. Everything I think America stood for, it no longer does. All I see in America today is fat, lazy ignorant people. And I wouldn't speak much more highly of where I live either. The American dream is lost as far as I'm concerned. Where's the freedom? Where's the opportunity? It's quickly fading. Greed has consumed any goodness left in the people who can do something about the economy. I find it sad that so many people in America are losing their homes, yet the government isn't doing anything. Yet a bank goes under, and all the sudden they're in there bailing them out. (Can't remember the exact story, I just remember a large bank went bankrupt and got bailed out immediately.) I'm glad I started learning about these sorts of things. Pearl harbor was a joke. Why wouldn't we prevent that? I'm pretty sure it's a known fact now that we knew it was going to happen. How many people are pissed about that? Why was that allowed to happen? Why was Vietnam started? I'm sure we know it's a lie now why we went in there. Why was this war started?
I can't say for sure yet, but I am convinced that there is some crooked ass @!#$s at work here, and they need to be found out and made to pay for their crimes. I really hope that within my life time they reveal the truth behind Sept. 11. I hope that future occurrences of "terrorism" will be more intensely investigated. Because 3000 civilians dead on American soil is something worth devoting MILLIONS on investigating. Not $600,000 or whatever bull@!#$ they spent on the investigation was. This @!#$ is a joke. And I can't believe some people buy into so easily. I know I believed the stories at first. It was shocking, I was 12 or 13, I was taught to believe the bs. I'm glad I learned as I grew, instead of blindly accepting what I "knew" as a fact. I hope some others can do this too.
wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good.
LOL
Whatever wrote:Yes there was chunks of concrete. But why was there so much dust? A pyroclastic flow. Why when the tower starts to fall do we see so much vapourised concrete pouring out over the city? Was the floors toppling down on each other (at freefall speeds, which is hard to believe that this could have happened by the tower collapsing on itself due to floor resistance and such) enough to smash that much concrete dust out into the air that fast? ... I could see the lower floors creating a cloud from all the higher floors weight smasing it, but look at the top of those towers when they start to fall. There's a huge cloud instantly. @!#$ that. Buildings are made out of concrete and steel because it is strong and holds together well, not because it's easily smashed and vaporized.
1) They didn't fall at free-fall speeds, time it yourself, popular myth. It would be physically impossible, even with explosives, for it to free-fall.
2) When the first contact between floors happened, the concrete would have fractured, in many places. Hell, as soon as the first floor broke from its supports. As soon as the plane hit... the concrete would have fractured. Concrete is very brittle, and the matrix substance has VERY weak bonds in tension. When the first floor to brake free started falling from its supports to the floor below it, the volume between the two would have decreased VERY quickly, creating a VERY large volumetric air flow (nowhere to go but out through the windows, away from the building). Fractured concrete creates a TON of dust, give it a shot. The high air flow rate blew it out the windows VERY fast. I don't really see a problem with this. Aslo, think of how much office crap would have been burning inside there, that's a lot of ash that would be blown out as well.
Whatever wrote:As for the molten metal. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the metal the beams are created out of, which is a fact, is it not? It could weaken them, yes. But why would they all fail at the same time in the same way? The plane hit one side of the building, not all 4 at once, in the same way. The structure fell way too uniformly to make sense as far as the plane impact is concerned.
Nobody actually said the molten metal was from the beams, the witness clearly said that he saw a pool in the debris. There is no way we would know this was actually from the beams (Because the powers that be were so hastey to get rid of it
). It could have been aluminum, like from an airplane
.
Whatever wrote:And I strongly believe the fire would be cooling down by the time the towers fell. How would wood and paper and drywall burn hotter than kerosene? I'm pretty sure black smoke is a sure sign of incomplete combustion. The more smoke, the more incomplete burning, the cooler the fire... At least as far as I know. Depends what's burning too I suppose.
Bingo, you answered your own question. Ever worked in an office building? EVERYTHING is plastic. Plastic gives off a crap-ton of smoke with very little fire. This is one of my favorite 9/11 myths to 'lol' at, especially now that I'm spending two days a week in a polymers lecture...
Oh yeah, there's a LOT of fuel on a transcontinental flight, which is why they picked those to blow @!#$ up...
Whatever wrote:Why do the buildings blow out so fast? They fall at free fall speeds. There's reports of explosions at the base before the towers collapse that people heard. When I watch many videos of the video's falling, I can see smaller explosions further down the tower than the building is collapsing. Explanation for that?
Once again, not free-fall speeds (Just Alicia Keys,not Tom Petty)...
I've heard that witness also, and all I can guess is that when a building is falling there is probably a lot of weird-ass noises. Also, some of the videos have sound. Now watch a controlled demolition video, the explosions are VERY noticeable. I've never heard anything remotely similar to that in the 9/11 videos. Once again, VERY loud, VERY noticeable, VERY characteristic.
Those were not actually demolition explosions you were seeing. How am I so sure? Why would they be near the windows? The steel support columns were in the middle of the building
.Once again, watch a controlled demolition, nothing similar except the fact that the building fell in it's own footprint.
Whatever wrote:And that video of how the planes had no windows and how different the undercarriage looked. That's new news to me. Also very suspicious, although it's not completely persuading me to believe anything.
I've never heard/seen this one. More info?
If it's about how they "switched the planes", all I have to say is that there is no way the FAA was in Cheney's pocket on this one, and SOMEONE would have seen the PLANES somewhere, whether on radar or landing. This is also the reason I find it hard to believe the "Pentagon missile" and "empty Pennsylvania hole" theories.
Whatever wrote:Building 7 burning and collapsing. (I've seen buildings that have burned for MUCH longer than wtc7 and never collapse. And the way it collapses. Come on. That's a text book example of how a professionally demolished building falls. If it was caused by that fire that wasn't even spread throughout the whole building, wouldn't the building collapse into itself?)
I'm with you on this one. WTC7 was
. HOWEVER, I have heard no theory as to why they would want to destroy CIA offices... How did this further their agenda. No deaths, no media coverage..
Whatever wrote:Let's not forget the pentagon and how there was no pieces of a plane found at the crash site. Nor was the hole in the side of the building large enough for it to have been the plane they claimed it to be. And that plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Only an idiot would believe that. Watch . I know the video is trying to convince you into his way of thinking, but just look and judge for yourself. Don't be a fool. Why does the 9/11 commission report fail to mention so much. It's so incomplete. Wouldn't you think if this was an act of terror and not some inside plot, the government would want to figure it out. Not disallow a reconstruction of the twin towers using debris from ground zero.
I'm willing and able to present what I believe to be sufficient counters to the WTC1/2 theories, but I'm not going to try and dispute 7, Pentagon, and Flight 93 incidents. I don't see how people can believe what they've been spoon-fed there.
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
Alright now that I'm looking for more and more information regarding the collapse, I'm just going to admit maybe the planes did bring it down. I'm not going to accept it as truth thought.
I guess I am guilty of thinking I know it all too.
.
As far as the planes go, eye witness accounts say people saw a gray airplane which looked like a cargo plane, due to the fact it was gray and had no windows, and there was an extra piece on the fuselage.
See video. Seems strange to me. Maybe not conclusive evidence, but as I watch other video's of planes striking the towers... The planes look gray. Suspicious to say the least. I'm willing to admit the more I'm reading into controlled demolition and how the towers fell, and now as I watch the top of the tower it falls crooked, and I remember it taking out a few other buildings in the area, as well at part of WTC7 if I recall correctly. Maybe the planes did bring it down. Maybe the planes were rigged to make sure the buildings fell. I remember reading reports of liquid metal found days after the buildings fell. Thermite maybe? I'll look into this and get my facts (or at least my arguments) straight.
Quote:
I've never heard/seen this one. More info?
If it's about how they "switched the planes", all I have to say is that there is no way the FAA was in Cheney's pocket on this one, and SOMEONE would have seen the PLANES somewhere, whether on radar or landing. This is also the reason I find it hard to believe the "Pentagon missile" and "empty Pennsylvania hole" theories.
Read The site looks like it's trying to hard to prove whatever they believe happened that day, but I remember watching something about these war games on TLC a few years back. Strange how Cheney is in charge on the day they're running through these scenario's that then actually turn into a reality. Having some planes acting high jacked and I believe one of the scenarios which supposedly wasn't suppose to use an actual plane, was a scenario in which a plane hit a tower. Would that not make things easier to pull off? Seems strange to me.
Gray, military looking planes with a strange dissimilar appearance to a 767 or whatever the actual planes are suppose to be, and these war games going on? Coincidence... Maybe? I don't believe so though.
wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good.
LOL
OH NO's Popular mechanics must be owned by bush... McCain....or..... oh hell, some non liberal, right?
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Snap! Looks like Penn and Teller are on .....hmm.. some "other" non liberal's dime.....
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
bastardking. sorry i had forgotten about this thread. i believe the media is an influence. it does stem from the way the person was raised, and the way people are raised these days allows the influence of the media to sway them. if the media and tv as a whole has no influence. kids wouldn't be buying all the trendy clothes, the music, living their lives acting like the people they see on the tv. media is a reflection on society in a sence but its not a mirror of yourself. for instance, when i watch my local news, i can hear every day about car accidents, robberies, murders and deaths, if it was a pure reflection of society you would be led to beleive that that was what a majority of society was. but in reality its just showing you that bottom 2% of society. i agree it all stems from the parenting. but if the tv wasn't there little suzy wouldn't be showing her cooch at lunchtime so she could be like brittney spears. the bad parenting is allowing the kids to be influenced by the media. 30 years ago you didnt have kids going into schools and gunnning down everyone in site, they just would have went out to the car, turned the motor on and sucked in fumes till they died, or hung themselves etc. you didnt have the clebold kid from columbine. the parents are the first persons to look to but the influence the media has was what let them to do what they did to take revenge and to get there 10 minutes of fame. basically im saying media can't nessicarily sway a well brought up child with a good upbringing. but media can have mass influence on those who were brought up on less then decent upbringing.
whatever. just wanted to post on a couple things.
the amount of dust. most demo's ive been apart of have been extremly dusty. not just concrete dust but everything else involved. usually allot of times guys are spraying 2 1/2" fire hoses spraying 100's of gallons of water a minute on the demo site just to keep the dust manageable and this is in a controlled envirement. take this to a dry site in a downtown location with the way the wind carries down the street and the amount of debri from those towers and mass dust is to be expected. now your saying all that dust is concrete related? was there info stating the content of the dust? im not sure but i'd say a great percentage of that dust is just in drywall alone. the pressure from a falling floor would destroy drywall and create huge amounts of dust, not to mention all the other miscilanious items in a building.
as far as professionals going on record talking about the incident. i work with "professionals" and sometimes your amazed at how some people manage to keep their jobs, im not trying to say any of thses guys was a quack or fake but i have people at my own work who would be considered professionals in their field that arnt worth a dime.
what would cause the towers to collapse that is in a regular plane?
just the shear weight of it. the steel is meant to hold the building up. the concrete is meant to only hold a certain amount of weight, its allot less structural part of the building then you might think. they dont design in excess loads to handle that kind of weight construction is cutthroat, you have to keep your costs as close to your bid as possible and you dont win bids by designing things to handle 10x what they would normally handle.
and just heres my take. if your a corrupt goverment and going to kill several thousand americans by doing something as devestaing as flying a large plane into the wtc, why would you setup a perfectly set demolition so the building falls right down. if i was willing to do that type of death and destruction i'd make the building fall over onto another building and really tear something up. if your wiling to kill 3000 people why would you care about killing a couple more and taking down another building? to me it doesnt make sence at all.
as for your concern about the us and mention the goverment not helping people in their homes but helping out the larger banks. their fear is that letting these institutions go under your going to send the econemy into a large spiral. look at what the dow dropped the day it was mentioned. your talking about something taking the country into a depression possibly from the backlash. where as with the people and their houses the goverment is actually bailing people out. me personally i say if you were dumb enough to buy more house then you could afford or bought a adjustable rate loan that you new could go up then you took your own risk. and hell i think the goverment shouldnt even bail out the banks, i think their just prolonging the inevitble and going to make it worse in the long run. the econemy did great for a long time and the fact is it just came back down to reality and instead of the country taking its lumps and moving forward they keep trying to fix things and i think their going to regret it in the long run.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Snap! Looks like Penn and Teller are on .....hmm.. some "other" non liberal's dime.....
I'm really getting a kick out of how everything you do not agree with is 'liberal'. These are conspiracy theories, plain and simple. They have no affiliation with either political party (although Ron Paul basically ran on the Zeitgeist platform lol).
sndsgood wrote:the amount of dust. most demo's ive been apart of have been extremly dusty. not just concrete dust but everything else involved. usually allot of times guys are spraying 2 1/2" fire hoses spraying 100's of gallons of water a minute on the demo site just to keep the dust manageable and this is in a controlled envirement. take this to a dry site in a downtown location with the way the wind carries down the street and the amount of debri from those towers and mass dust is to be expected. now your saying all that dust is concrete related? was there info stating the content of the dust? im not sure but i'd say a great percentage of that dust is just in drywall alone. the pressure from a falling floor would destroy drywall and create huge amounts of dust, not to mention all the other miscilanious items in a building.
...
just the shear weight of it. the steel is meant to hold the building up. the concrete is meant to only hold a certain amount of weight, its allot less structural part of the building then you might think. they dont design in excess loads to handle that kind of weight construction is cutthroat, you have to keep your costs as close to your bid as possible and you dont win bids by designing things to handle 10x what they would normally handle.
My dust explanation >> yours
I don't even think you read his concern, which regarded
when the dust shot out.
And no, the weight of the plane would not have been a serious concern without the heat from the fire and the abrasive nature of plane parts coming into contact with heat barriers.
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
OHV notec wrote:Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Snap! Looks like Penn and Teller are on .....hmm.. some "other" non liberal's dime.....
I'm really getting a kick out of how everything you do not agree with is 'liberal'. These are conspiracy theories, plain and simple. lol).
Good to know that you caught that
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
OHV notec wrote:Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Snap! Looks like Penn and Teller are on .....hmm.. some "other" non liberal's dime.....
I'm really getting a kick out of how everything you do not agree with is 'liberal'. These are conspiracy theories, plain and simple. They have no affiliation with either political party (although Ron Paul basically ran on the Zeitgeist platform lol).
sndsgood wrote:the amount of dust. most demo's ive been apart of have been extremly dusty. not just concrete dust but everything else involved. usually allot of times guys are spraying 2 1/2" fire hoses spraying 100's of gallons of water a minute on the demo site just to keep the dust manageable and this is in a controlled envirement. take this to a dry site in a downtown location with the way the wind carries down the street and the amount of debri from those towers and mass dust is to be expected. now your saying all that dust is concrete related? was there info stating the content of the dust? im not sure but i'd say a great percentage of that dust is just in drywall alone. the pressure from a falling floor would destroy drywall and create huge amounts of dust, not to mention all the other miscilanious items in a building.
...
just the shear weight of it. the steel is meant to hold the building up. the concrete is meant to only hold a certain amount of weight, its allot less structural part of the building then you might think. they dont design in excess loads to handle that kind of weight construction is cutthroat, you have to keep your costs as close to your bid as possible and you dont win bids by designing things to handle 10x what they would normally handle.
My dust explanation >> yours I don't even think you read his concern, which regarded when the dust shot out.
And no, the weight of the plane would not have been a serious concern without the heat from the fire and the abrasive nature of plane parts coming into contact with heat barriers.
why wouldnt' the weight of the plane be a factor. they dont figure that much weight into the saftey factor when doling out concrete floors?
and your answer was more based on the concrete where as mine mixed in the fact that there would be so much more dust then just the concrete so there lol.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
sndsgood wrote:why wouldnt' the weight of the plane be a factor. they dont figure that much weight into the saftey factor when doling out concrete floors?
and your answer was more based on the concrete where as mine mixed in the fact that there would be so much more dust then just the concrete so there lol.
Because they don't know exactly what will be located in the space (a server room weighs much more than office cubicles after all), there is significant addition known by engineering folk as a "factor of safety". The structure is also strengthened for earthquakes (probably not so much of a concern in NYC, but still factored in), storms, and the incredibly powerful winds experienced WAAY up there. Bottom line: The plane could have sat there all year and the building would have remained structurally sound, just ask NIST
Also, remember the weight of the plane was well distributed (in pieces and fluid) and over multiple floors.
Bwah, I made mention of the office contents creating "ash" after being burned... more than dust. I WIN THE INTERNET
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
Yes Taetsch, we've seen those. What are you trying to accomplish?
For the sake of not having to watch ASU's football team get crushed by Georgia, I'll play along here.
P&T: Two guys using zero facts (Dean of political science department, they couldn't do better?), strong language (F-U is not a logical counter argument, it just sounds funny and convinces you that their opponents' logic must be flawed), and emotional persuasion (firefighters) to denounce conspiracies in the same way the conspiracy theorists argue their cases. Then they pick the most obscure subjects to represent their opposition:
- no-name loon they probably found on the streets and decided to put in front of a mic
- 'software engineer' who probably doesn't even know right from left
- some guy with leopard skin leotard?
Let's not add the obvious, that P&T most likely edited anything out that shed the least bit of doubt on their argument.
If you are quoting this for emphasis because it is the best you can do against the conspiracy theorists, well, I know there is more intellectual evidence out there to support your side.
As far as Popular Mechanics goes:
- It's from a much more credible source, who applies facts and logic to support its conclusions, bravo, already an improvement.
- It cites Greeley, a professor here, bonus points for ASU reference
As you've seen so far (if you actually read my "hippy" comments), I'm not arguing whether the towers were taken out by terrorists, I'm questioning the government's responses and dissociation from standard investigation procedures.
11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/
[quote=OHV notec
As you've seen so far (if you actually read my "hippy" comments), I'm not arguing whether the towers were taken out by terrorists, I'm questioning the government's responses and dissociation from standard investigation procedures.
The first Reference is for telling you it was not blown up, as some "theory's" say, the Second reference, is for the conspiracy "theory", to those ends, P&T sum it up best,
@!#$ you!
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
