Guest guest Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 > > " So your saying that tower 7 suffered a complete structural failure > because one side was hit by falling debris?? Why did the entire > building fall peferctly evenly. If one side was damaged would'nt it > have collapsed on that side?? Why would the central pillors all > collapse at the same time. I think you are suffering from denial. > Watch the videos of tower 7 collapsing, does one side of the > building fall first?? It was clearly brought down by controlled > demolition. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 Wow, if that is all you can pick apart from my message, I must have done pretty good! Burned/Bombed...Destroyed! Then blamed someone else. Same idea. > > > In a message dated 9/12/2007 3:50:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > pfreeman@... writes: > > Also remember, Germany blew up it's own chancellory and blamed it on > forigners so they could start WWII. > > > > The Reichstag was not blown up, it was burned. They did not blame > foreigners, but the Communists within Germany. It was not the excuse for going to war, > but it was used to eliminate domestic political opposition. The war came > years later. > > > > > > ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 Wow, if that is all you can pick apart from my message, I must have done pretty good! Burned/Bombed...Destroyed! Then blamed someone else. Same idea. > > > In a message dated 9/12/2007 3:50:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > pfreeman@... writes: > > Also remember, Germany blew up it's own chancellory and blamed it on > forigners so they could start WWII. > > > > The Reichstag was not blown up, it was burned. They did not blame > foreigners, but the Communists within Germany. It was not the excuse for going to war, > but it was used to eliminate domestic political opposition. The war came > years later. > > > > > > ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 Well, , here is a good phrase to look up: Ad-Hominem I found it recently and find it very applicable. > > > In a message dated 9/12/2007 4:54:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > pfreeman@... writes: > > Wow, if that is all you can pick apart from my message, I must have > done pretty good! Burned/Bombed.done pretty good! Burned/Bomb > else. Same idea. > > > > Actually, it was the only part I deemed worthy of a response. The majority > was conspiracy theory hokum, but the history matter is fact. > > > > > > ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2007 Report Share Posted September 13, 2007 Methinks you both have different viewpoints. No problem there. We all think about things differently. And we all have the right to express what we thing. However, one must remember that from the moment the towers fell, the whole attack was scruitinzed in every detail by everyone from government officials to casual observers. While the scientific community does have folks like those provided in the links about the conspiracy who believe as you do, overwhelmingly, it would seem that the scientific community (both free and government controlled) side more with 's thinking. is a history buff, a military buff, and has some knowledge of politics. He has been studing in most of these areas most of his life. For him to explain his view coherently would take an essay, but in essence, if the geo-political situation over the past twenty-five years were able to be rehashed here, and if the science of the 911 attack were delved into in detail, I think you could understand why it is fervently believes his opinion on the matter is true. I happen to agree with him also, for reasons he has cited and for different reasons. Tom Administrator Well, , here is a good phrase to look up: Ad-Hominem I found it recently and find it very applicable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2007 Report Share Posted September 13, 2007 > It just amazes me that some people have such a deep hatred of the US or even just of Bush, that they are more willing to believe such tortured arguments as those theories, over a group of motivated and well financed terrorists flying planes into buildings, because they too hate the US. ....and admitted doing it. Unless this conspiracy theory includes Bin Ladin 'in on it' too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2007 Report Share Posted September 13, 2007 A Dutch man was blamed for the burning of the Reichstag. > > > > > > In a message dated 9/12/2007 3:50:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > pfreeman@ writes: > > > > Also remember, Germany blew up it's own chancellory and blamed it > on > > forigners so they could start WWII. > > > > > > > > The Reichstag was not blown up, it was burned. They did not blame > > foreigners, but the Communists within Germany. It was not the > excuse for going to war, > > but it was used to eliminate domestic political opposition. The war > came > > years later. > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************** See what's new at > http://www.aol.com > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2007 Report Share Posted September 13, 2007 To me this discussion is interesting not because of the subject being discussed but the dynamic of arguement. there is a group of us that quickly become arguementitive, there is a group of us that will plough through the points on and on until silence or resolution. I think this is an interesting model of Aspie interaction. Mostly the discussion is male. If someone truly wanted to understand Aspergers and how it related to NT or rather doesn't relate to NT communication, someone should just absorb our discussions. In a research way not a judgemental way. But so much research is done by guessing. there is no guessing here. This is real. I like the realness, honesty of feeling (while I might not want to argue or disagree with anyone it is because this is not a hot button of mine) many have seen my hot buttons and I act in a simialr way. I attend college courses and today someone sat in my seat. ARGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!! It was a bit disconcerting as this is the 3rd class and in my mind ambiguity is only on a first and second meeting basis. I of course sat next to her as close to MY place as was reasonable. Oh well :[ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 When you said how they could not fall like that I absolutely agree with you. They simply could not ever fall like a planned demolition when the airplanes hit the tops! That was actually one of my first thoughts too. Logical sure. The CIA could have been on those planes indeed. You bring up some interesting points and questions to ponder on that one. That's some really cool info. I guess I never thought about it that much but, it's not surprising that this whole thing was rigged. I guess the question is why? pcfree45 <pfreeman@...> wrote: OK, it has been 6 years since that fateful day..and I still have questions.Maybe it is because I am Aspie and I don't let emotions cloud the logic (was Mr. Spock Aspie?) but there are educated people such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth that say the events put forth do not add up. When a tenured physicist says that it is impossible for the twin towers to fall based on the explination given, why doesn't anyone listen? When three of Newton's laws of physics would have to be suspended for them to fall in the way that the government put forth, why doesn't anyone speak up? When we see a passenger jet hit a mountain at full speed and there are parts of the jet scattered everywhere, bodies everywhere yet in Pensylvania all that is left is a black hole in the ground, why doesn't anyone say "hey! what's up here?" When photos of the Pentagon, before it collapsed shows windows intact on each side of the hole..intact where the wings & engines should have hit the building, why doesn't anyone speak out? When firemen are recorded inside the twin towers stating that on the floors where the fires were supposed to be raging so hot for so long to burn through insulation and weaken the steel yet they are recorded as saying that there are just bodies and burning furniture and that "two lines should knock that down" why do we still believe jet fuel brought the towers down? When a man on a National Geographic channel special says his office was cut in half by a wing of one of the planes, yet he was not burned and he was pulled to safety, doesn't that dispell the raging fire theory?When firemen in the towers report multiple explosions, ones they could feel, on floors way below the impact site, why are we not asking more questions?Is it because NT's are confused by emotions? "Our country would never do such a thing!" Haven't we let more than 3,000 of our citizens die in a country that, by this administrations own admission, had nothing to do with 9/11? Does anyone understand the concept of "collateral damage?"And doesn't it bother anyone that the man who ran the company profiting the most by this war, Haliburton, being paid with monies borrowed from China, owns stock options that equal the amount of stock he sold to become our vice-president and thus still will profit from this whole venture?But what about the families of those that died on the Pentagon & Pensylvania jets? Doesn't seem odd how few were on those flights? They were probably all CIA and are now living under new identities somewhere else in this country. When you work for the CIA, don't you offer to "give up your life for your country?" even if it is not your physical life? But witnesses saw the jet in the sky over Pennsylvania! It is hard to determine size when it is against the open sky. Something small is deemed "high in the sky" when it could actually be a smaller remote drone with corpses placed on board to provide "body parts" but disintegrates on contact to not leave enough to determine it's true nature? And doesn't seem odd that the Captain of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon was the also involved in the study years earlier at the Pentagon, while he was in the Air Force, to determine the outcome if a plane did hit the Pentagon?Sorry, my Aspie Logic just can't let go of these and more inconsistencies... Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 In a message dated 9/14/2007 12:50:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes: If you look at the footage, everything above where the planes hit collapsed first and the weight of it all then caused the towers to collapse downward below where the planes hit. The foundations held just fine as the towers above collapsed downward. Remember what I said about structural engineering. Every piece that you put into a building is not static, but it has stored, potential energy equal to the force required to bring it up to its final position. All the floors, walls, supports, furniture, everything above the level of the impact, thousands of tons, were still bearing down on the building. The way the planes hit, large sections of the outer curtain, which was the primary support for the whole building, were destroyed. That shifted the load of those cut columns to the rest, especially those closest to the destroyed sections. All the remaining sections suddenly had to carry much greater weight than they had before. Those closest to the damage suddenly had a tremendous load to bear. The fires then weakened them, hastening the collapse. When steel fails, it isn't like cracking a twig or something. It takes a lot of force to break a steel beam and when it goes, all of that energy is released. The result is quite a bang. Given the forces involved the tower, that is thousands of tons of pressure on the beams, when they failed, it probably did look like explosions, because really they would have failed with an explosive release of energy. I'm sure that a Google search could turn up plenty of video of steel being tested to failure. Watch some and you will see how violent the breaks are. Again, remember the potential energy. All of the material above the impact floors was raised well over 500 feet into the air. Those items contain the energy that was used to fight gravity and raise it to that level. There is also the sheer mass of the it all. If that dropped even a fraction of an inch, the energy release just from that distance multiplied by the weight and energy would be huge. In fact, once it got started, it would be very hard to stop. Quite simply, once it started, the supports on the first floor it impacted simply didn't stand a chance of stopping it. After, that floor added its mass and energy to the collapse against the next floor and so on. As can bee seen in the video clips, the outer columns began to sheer away form the building. Once that started, the spine of the building was well and broken and the collapse accelerated even more. The Towers were designed to be struck by aircraft that were about 2/3 the size of the ones that hit them and that weren't as fast. It is amazing that they stood up at all. See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 If you look at the footage, everything above where the planes hit collapsed first and the weight of it all then caused the towers to collapse downward below where the planes hit. The foundations held just fine as the towers above collapsed downward. For planes to hit the exact floors where charges were laid is improbable. For charges to go off on the groundd floor triggering a collapse on the top floord downward is improbable. As there were no explosions on the top floors, there were obviously no charges up there either. This suggests that there were no charges in the towers. Tom Administrator When you said how they could not fall like that I absolutely agree with you. They simply could not ever fall like a planned demolition when the airplanes hit the tops! That was actually one of my first thoughts too. Logical sure. The CIA could have been on those planes indeed. You bring up some interesting points and questions to ponder on that one. That's some really cool info. I guess I never thought about it that much but, it's not surprising that this whole thing was rigged. I guess the question is why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 No. I'm not a trained engineer. However, a friend of mine is a civil engineer who has been in that capacity for many years. We have talked about the collapse often. Now, you are parsing my statement. You are right that it will take more energy to lift a bigger beam than a smaller one. That goes without saying. You are also correct that gravity pulls by the same amount on a feather or a rock. What you are missing is that once in motion, the rock is going to have far more energy than the feather. Where did that energy come from? It was imparted to the rock and feather by picking it up and raising it against the force of gravity. If no energy was imparted to the rock and feather in the first place, they would both still be sitting on the ground. Energy would dissipate with impact. However, we are talking about 30 + floors collapsing onto the 64th or so floor. The connections between that floor slab and the inner and outer columns would be far in excess of what it could bear. It could sustain the load just fine when the building was intact, but once it got moving, it could not withstand that. I know that there was an inner section of supports. That sustained damage in the crash as well. As for why there was no skinny stick 100 stories tall still standing, a civil engineer could tell you. The floor slabs on each level were tied into the outer curtain as well as the inner core. They have to be strongly connected or the structure will be weak. If the floor slab goes, it is going to do damage when it pulls away from those connections. Now, a few floors might shear cleanly and remain standing. I have seen that in parking structure failures. However, the more floors that go, the greater the shearing forces further down. Eventually the inner core would have been compromised and would collapse. But all it takes is to watch some of the collapse footage. It is clear that the roof is falling pretty much in one piece for quite a distance. Obviously the inner core had been broken already or it would have been poking up through the roof, if what you suggest was correct. It is interesting that Al Quida used much of this same thinking. Bin Laudin himself said that he only expected the upper floors above the impact to collapse, if that. Remember, they had made other attempts on the World Trade Center and had done little damage to it. He was hoping to have the Towers standing but cut by a third, thus forcing us to have to complete tearing them down. I still find it disgusting that people will waste so much effort torturing reality to make it fit their preconceived notions, when a known terrorist group claims responsibility, we learn who the attackers were and how they did it, that they got pilot training, etc, etc. But there have always been conspiracy junkies. They claimed the USS Maine was blown up by Spain and provoked the Spanish-American War. They say Churchill steered the Lusitania into the Uboat to bring the US into WWI. They say there was someone on the Grassy Knoll. The Moon Landings were filmed in studios in the Mohave Desert. There are Alien Bodies in Area 51. That all of our advanced technology comes from the Alien Ship from Roswell. Etc, Ad nauseam. It would be amusing if we weren't facing a real threat. See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 " I attend college courses and today someone sat in my seat. ARGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!! It was a bit disconcerting as this is the 3rd class and in my mind ambiguity is only on a first and second meeting basis. I of course sat next to her as close to MY place as was reasonable. Oh well :[ " I hate when that happens. In most college classes, anyone could sit wherever they wanted and most people sat in the same places each class. But we did have the odd class where seats were assigned. At those times sometimes people forgot where they were suppposed to sit and the professor did not correct them because he didn't want to rock the boat. By then end of the semester, everyone was sitting wherever they darned well pleased. So what was the point of assigned seating in the first place? Tom Administrator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 With all due respect, , the following reply leads me to believe that you are not a trained engineer. I, on the other hand spent 25 years in the automotive field dealing with energy management (how cars absorb energy in collisions) and today I work for a large fire-apparatus dealership in dale where I design & build specialty fire fighting apparatus. I went to school to learn this. Ok, let's look at what you are saying...the energy that is used to raise the steel up in the air is stored in the beam waiting to pull it back down to the ground. This is seperate than the weight that the beam is when it rests at ground level. So the heavier the beam, the more energy is stored to pull it to the ground faster. Right? Heavier takes more energy to raise it proportionatly to it's weight. So, with more energy to raise it, the more " stored energy " to bring it down. With more energy, the beam then should fall faster the higher it goes proportionate to it's weight. Right? But the old classic experiment of a rock and feather dropped at the same time (in a vacuum so there is no air resistance to affect the fall) the feather and rock will fall at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. Gravity it the force pulling the item to earth and gravitational force is the same on both the rock and the feather. Now if you want to talk inertia, yes, the travelling rock develops energy as it moves and another law, a body in motion tends to stay in motion, then as the weight of the floor hits the subsequent floor, the inirtia will be a greater force on the impacted floor hence the " domino " effect. But, inertia is then absorbed by the subsequent floor taking away some of that energy because, as with the law of motion, the other side of the law, a body at rest tends to stay at rest, this absorption is the " resistance " that acts to slow " free- fall " yet with all the static resistance in the structure that has held the building up for decades, the building fell with no resistance within one second of total free-fall for the entire heighth of the building. Energy disappates with time. Heat a bar of metal and it cools with time...energy is released. There is talk that the molten metal found was from the heat generated in the collapse. But the absorption of heat in the metal would be energy taken away from the inirtia of the fall...resistance heat. But the free-fall speed says that there must have been little resistance. So where did the heat energy come from? I can see the fire adding energy but the amount of molten material found in the basement... an organic base fire(ie: Kerosesn/jet fuel) gets hot enough to soften steel, not melt it to a liquid and keep it hot enough on the travel from the top of the tower to the sub basement and keep it molten for up to two weeks (as was found when the debris was cleared). The other flaw in your reasoning is that the outer " mesh " is only half of the main support of the towers. It was designed like a honeycomb where energy load is supported in diagonal supports in both directions. The other main supports were the 4 inner elevator support shafts. As the floors fell, I can see them shearing off these center supports but by the time the floors hit the ground, I would expect to see this center support be standing even to the smallest degree. The floors would drop around it like a record drops on a turn-table spindle. So at least a few floors of this center support would be standing. If you look, these supports were non- existant after the collapse. The only way even the bases of these supports would be gone is if they were clipped off at the foundation. Workers in the basement of the building reported that what they thought was the sound of a generator exploding was actually the elevator shafts blowing out. This reported by an employee that came running into a service room with his body badly burned and screaming the elevator just blew. It was surmised that this was the express elevators hitting the bottom after the cables were cut but the workers there reported that they felt the plane impact after the explosion. SInce the elevators could not travel faster than the sound wave of the plane impact and the burned employee had time to get up after the blast and run to the other employees before the plane impact, this discredits the falling elevator theory. Like I said. I AM an engineer and the events do not sit well with me. With all due respect, what is your trained profession, ? > > > In a message dated 9/14/2007 12:50:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > no_reply writes: > > If you look at the footage, everything above where the planes hit > collapsed first and the weight of it all then caused the towers to > collapse downward below where the planes hit. The foundations held > just fine as the towers above collapsed downward. > > > > Remember what I said about structural engineering. Every piece that you put > into a building is not static, but it has stored, potential energy equal to > the force required to bring it up to its final position. All the floors, walls, > supports, furniture, everything above the level of the impact, thousands of > tons, were still bearing down on the building. > > The way the planes hit, large sections of the outer curtain, which was the > primary support for the whole building, were destroyed. That shifted the load > of those cut columns to the rest, especially those closest to the destroyed > sections. All the remaining sections suddenly had to carry much greater weight > than they had before. Those closest to the damage suddenly had a tremendous > load to bear. The fires then weakened them, hastening the collapse. > > When steel fails, it isn't like cracking a twig or something. It takes a lot > of force to break a steel beam and when it goes, all of that energy is > released. The result is quite a bang. Given the forces involved the tower, that is > thousands of tons of pressure on the beams, when they failed, it probably did > look like explosions, because really they would have failed with an > explosive release of energy. I'm sure that a Google search could turn up plenty of > video of steel being tested to failure. Watch some and you will see how violent > the breaks are. > > Again, remember the potential energy. All of the material above the impact > floors was raised well over 500 feet into the air. Those items contain the > energy that was used to fight gravity and raise it to that level. There is also > the sheer mass of the it all. If that dropped even a fraction of an inch, the > energy release just from that distance multiplied by the weight and energy > would be huge. In fact, once it got started, it would be very hard to stop. > Quite simply, once it started, the supports on the first floor it impacted > simply didn't stand a chance of stopping it. After, that floor added its mass and > energy to the collapse against the next floor and so on. As can bee seen in > the video clips, the outer columns began to sheer away form the building. Once > that started, the spine of the building was well and broken and the collapse > accelerated even more. > > The Towers were designed to be struck by aircraft that were about 2/3 the > size of the ones that hit them and that weren't as fast. It is amazing that they > stood up at all. > > > > > > ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 In a message dated 9/14/2007 10:27:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes: Conspiracy theories are still only conspiracy theories regardless of one's education and background.RavenCo-Administrator Concisely and well stated. See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 pcfree45 wrote: " ... <snip> ... I, on the other hand spent 25 years in the automotive field dealing with energy management ... <snip> ... I AM an engineer and the events do not sit well with me ... <snip> ... " Conspiracy theories are still only conspiracy theories regardless of one's education and background. Raven Co-Administrator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 > Now, you are parsing my statement. You are right that it will take more > energy to lift a bigger beam than a smaller one. That goes without saying. You > are also correct that gravity pulls by the same amount on a feather or a rock. > What you are missing is that once in motion, the rock is going to have far > more energy than the feather. Where did that energy come from? Ok, , that is where you stray. What you are talking about is inertia. Again, basic physics says that " a body at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by another object. " Then, " a body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by another object. " If I rememer correctly, this is called conservation of energy. Check with your engineer friend on this one. Yes, there is weight in the mass but it is static as it is not moving. As the object has it's support removed, being acted upon by another object, it starts to fall and will accelerate in speed. Unless it comes in contact with another object, the next floor below, It will continue to accelerate, gaining momentum from gravitational pull till it reaches it's maximum speed, free-fall. When it hits the floor below it, that floor, which is at rest, is acted upon by the falling object and the energy transfer from the moving floor above transferres it's energy to the floor below causing it to start to move and also dispell energy needed to shear the floor from its support. This transfer of energy is the resistance the upperfloor must deal with and thus the removed energy from the top floor slows its decent. Each time a floor is snapped loose from it's mount, the energy needed to do this plus the energy needed to change that floor's state from stationary to moving, draws energy out of the matter above. This is where the problem I have with the fall. As the floors are sheared off the outer structure, it pulled the side walls in. But the force of the fall and the floors falling toward the center structure would have pushed the center beams together and left at least some kind of center support standing since the floors would have torn a hole in the middle of them like the hole in the record example I mentioned. There was no center support standing. Not even 10 feet of structire. Nothing at all except a few pieces of outer structure. And remember, these center supports were wrapped in concrete. They were not just open steel. I watched them be built while growing up out east and have seen documentaries on the construction. I remember watching them pour the concrete around these inner supports, at least at the lower floors. Still, the concrete was pulverized and nothing remained. I have a problem with that. BTW, I don't believe in Aliens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 What we are having a problem here is with the scientific terms used. A hypothesis is an idea that is not supported by any data. A theory is a hypothesis that has data to support it. Evolution is a Theory but is not a fact. Some even see evolution as a " conspiracy " theory because it attacks the Christian belief that has been around much longer and has been accepted by many more over the centuries. But since data has been collected that supports it, evolution is seen as a theory that is very plausable. When we talk about aliens, we are not talking theories, we are talking hypothesis because there is no data that can be examined by anyone. With the Trade Center disaster, there is more data to be tested and observed. Unfortunatly the " crime scene " was destroyed before the final investigation was completed. Luckilly, debris (just as the bone chips) have been found on other buildings and some of the clean-up crew were able to get some samples of steel out of the area so as to be testable. So we are dealing with data that does not add up and conflicts with the " official " report. Conspiracy referrs to who might have perpetrated the event. Was Watergate a conspiracy? Yes! Did we not believe that it happened just because it was a " conspiracy? " No. Hitler conspired to eliminate the Jew. If someone tries to deny that " conspiracy theory " we call them the wacko! For some reason, we have this idea that conspiracies do not exist, but history shows that many have conspired to cause great evil in the past. We, as Americans, can not accept that we could have a government as evil as other countries. But human nature says " absolute power corrupts absolutely " and this administration has been on a power grab since 2000. So have conspiracies existen in the past? Yes. Is there data that conflicts with the official story of 9/11? There appears to be a growing database of facts. So is this just a hypothesis like aliens and JFK? Or has it risen to the level of Theory just like evolution? Probably not to the degree of evolution but it is growing. Will we ever all agree? Heck, there are still those who don't agree on the Holocost so I will say that it will take some time either way. " ... <snip> ... I, on the other hand spent 25 years > in the automotive field dealing with energy management ... <snip> ... > I AM an engineer and the events do not sit well with me ... <snip> ... " > > Conspiracy theories are still only conspiracy theories regardless of > one's education and background. > > Raven > Co-Administrator > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 Well you certainly make sense as well. It looked like a planned demolition but, I think that the whole thing was a distraction kind of like the worn out jfk thing. If I hear one more person talk about the jfk thing I'm going to regurgitate on their face. No just kidding but, really wer'e past that unknowable conspiracy. I haven't read about buildings enough although I'm pretty good on bridges and fairly decent on airplanes. I have built buildings but, each one is individual and the world trade center was a totally unique skyscraper. But, think about the wind velocity, the eerie calm that day, the size of the planes and the inertia upon impact. These don't add up to create a third of the building to just all of a sudden collapse let alone a domino effect. Steel just doesn't act that way. environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: If you look at the footage, everything above where the planes hit collapsed first and the weight of it all then caused the towers to collapse downward below where the planes hit. The foundations held just fine as the towers above collapsed downward.For planes to hit the exact floors where charges were laid is improbable. For charges to go off on the groundd floor triggering a collapse on the top floord downward is improbable. As there were no explosions on the top floors, there were obviously no charges up there either. This suggests that there were no charges in the towers.TomAdministratorWhen you said how they could not fall like that I absolutely agree with you. They simply could not ever fall like a planned demolition when the airplanes hit the tops! That was actually one of my first thoughts too. Logical sure. The CIA could have been on those planes indeed. You bring up some interesting points and questions to ponder on that one. That's some really cool info. I guess I never thought about it that much but, it's not surprising that this whole thing was rigged. I guess the question is why? Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.