|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 14, 2006 14:39:22 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 14, 2006 14:49:36 GMT -4
You see DH right away you are on shaky ground; there is no solid evidence that molten steel was even really found, therefore any investigation that assumes it was is flawed from the get-go.
This has been discussed on this forum before.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 14, 2006 15:16:37 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 14, 2006 16:23:18 GMT -4
Unless you think everything you read on prisionplanet to be the complete unbiased truth no questions asked, what exactly, other than the fact they are saying what you want to hear, makes you consider them an objective source of information about 911?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 14, 2006 17:54:05 GMT -4
Is it just me, but if Silverstein had a name like "Johnson" or "O'Conner" would he still be the focus of so many CT claims? I do believe I smell a whiff of something coming from the conspiracy sites.
By the by, to my thinking explosives are the complicated way to go about it. You already had to pay off inspectors (to make them believe a fire brought down WTC7). Why not leave the building standing and smoldering and pay off those same inspectors to say it is structurally unsound and has to be demolished? You get the same result insurance-wise (or whatever the latest motive claim is), and you skip the dicey step of hiding tons of explosives in an occupied building then dropping burning debris on it before setting them off.
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Jan 14, 2006 20:15:46 GMT -4
Somehow, without anybody knowing, you have to rig and wire something like 300 floors total for WTC1, 2, and 7 to ALL be demo'd.
Why would anybody prep buildings for demo and then crash a plane into 'em in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier to set up an arabic-language espionage program, infiltrate a terrorist organization and convince them to send a suicide team in to hijack airplanes and crash them?
I feel the need to be specific with some of you: I don't belive there were Government conspiracies here. I'm pointing out that if you have terrorists cruise-missileing jumbos into skyscrapers, bombs in the basement seem kind of redundant. Even if there WAS a government conspiracy, using terrorists as cats-paws would be a lot cheaper, easier (why do what you can sub out) AND a lot more secure. If al-Qaeda operatives came out and said "Bush paid us to do that" who's gonna believe them?
From my reading here, once Turbonium gives up on a conspiracy and DH takes it on, it's over. I think the WTC7 horse is well and truely dead now.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 14, 2006 21:37:53 GMT -4
Twinstead: "Unless you think everything you read on prisionplanet to be the complete unbiased truth no questions asked, what exactly, other than the fact they are saying what you want to hear, makes you consider them an objective source of information about 911?"
The article was based on information obtained from the State Department, FEMA and the NY Times. The links were in the articles and will take you directly to those reports/stories, should you consider them to be unbiased. You can read them directly from the source.
Bughead: "Why would anybody prep buildings for demo and then crash a plane into 'em in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier to set up an arabic-language espionage program, infiltrate a terrorist organization and convince them to send a suicide team in to hijack airplanes and crash them?
I feel the need to be specific with some of you: I don't belive there were Government conspiracies here. I'm pointing out that if you have terrorists cruise-missileing jumbos into skyscrapers, bombs in the basement seem kind of redundant. Even if there WAS a government conspiracy, using terrorists as cats-paws would be a lot cheaper, easier (why do what you can sub out) AND a lot more secure. If al-Qaeda operatives came out and said "Bush paid us to do that" who's gonna believe them?
From my reading here, once Turbonium gives up on a conspiracy and DH takes it on, it's over. I think the WTC7 horse is well and truely dead now."
I'd have commented sooner but I needed to take some time off from posting for personal reasons and may not even be able to continue for any length of time now. No need to comment that you find that good news.
My opinion is that a spectacular terrorist event with planes flying into the WTC, fire, explosions, death, as well as Al Qaeda terrorists were necessary for two reasons. Our government seeks to take away more of our rights and freedoms (which they successfully did), and they wanted a war in Iraq (I'm still not certain why). How we got from bin Laden to Iraq I still can't figure out.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 14, 2006 21:47:48 GMT -4
The article was based on information obtained from the State Department, FEMA and the NY Times. The links were in the articles and will take you directly to those reports/stories, should you consider them to be unbiased. You can read them directly from the source.
The article you presented was written in such a way as to influence the reader to a certain viewpoint. That site is woefully transparent in that respect. I am sorry you don't see it.
DH, why do find the idea of a stateless terrorist organization with the means and motivation to hijack and crash planes into the WTC so unbelievable?
Even with its inconsistencies, the official story fits the facts more than your theory does; wishing otherwise because of some ideological bias does not change that.
I really think you are no different than the worst rabid right wing jingoist who thinks that the government is right no matter what. Both of you have unshakable political beliefs that cannot be assuaged by reason.
That said, I suspect you are probably a pretty decent bloke in real life.
|
|
|
Post by kalchawla on Jan 14, 2006 21:52:15 GMT -4
RAF...if you don't like my user name...tough. Yours...the other half of "Rif" is plain enough. Kalpana Chawla was a friend of mine...like it or not ...and I use the name in honor of her on this "forum" which is more a whipping post for the mindless wonders who run this thing. I have never seen anything quite like it...always apologists to the "word" of the official version. My credentials are my own two eyes. Again, you don't like it...tough. As for being a REAL scientist...if you were a REAL scientist you wouldn't be here...Kalpana thought of herself, btw, as an astronaut first.. From this moment, if I have anything more to say here, I will not answer you..or even read anything you have to say...all of anything you have to say is your insulting negativity, just as in the past and deep into the future.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 14, 2006 21:55:41 GMT -4
PW, Guilty as charged. As in this case, my belief is usually that the "evidence" for the official viewpoint makes no sense. Most of the members here already have that opinion covered. The trouble here is that I'm not sure you actually understand the Offical version other than the twisted version that has been presented to you via the CT Websites. There are plently of people here willing to help explin why thing might not make sense to you, but at the same time you need to be open to the fact that often the way the world actually works is very counter-intuative.Often it is said not only that Truth is stranger than Fiction, but that the universe can get away with doing things on author would dare attempt. If science were easy nd things worked as we assumed they should, we wouldn't need to study it and to figure it out. The simple fact is that 99% of the time, the real world acts in a manner totally unexpecetedly to the layman, and about 40% of the time for the expert. This is why making your mind up before actually getting into the details of the evidence simply blinds you to reality. No one is claiming that the damage to the corner was the cause of the collapse, merely that is proves that the building ws indeed damaged by falling debris. There are eyewittness eports of a signifcantly larger amount of damge to the center of the south face, though unfortunately because it it was through the clouds of dust of the WTC 1,2 remains, it was never imaged, but even this is not considered the major factor in the collaspe, merely that it helped to further weaken the structure. The major cause is the fires that burned for 7 hours in the generator floor and the floors immeditely above. Fires that weakened a very complex truss and cantilever system enough that they failed. I don't object to your holding a viewpoint, I'd just like to see it based on reality rather then politics and world view. I'd like to see you approach the situation with your mind open to possiblities rather than being closed to anything that contradicts the worldview you so desperately wish to cling too. I would rather see you learning how to evaluate the facts given by both sides and non-passionately be able to decide which is right and which is wrong but hard physical evidence than by emotional manipulation, heresay and carefully doctored extracts. I want this because when you just believe want you want to belive because of your world view, people take advantage of you. I want to see you being able to sperate out what people are telling you because it's real, and what they are telling you because they know you want to hear it. It's not a case of you not measuring up, or needing to be banmned, it's a cse of wishing that you would allow yourself the opportunity of an open mind and let yourself learn, rather than standing rigidly in an idealology and refusing to accept anything that stands contary to that.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 14, 2006 22:04:55 GMT -4
Molten steel was found at WTC7. How much? Nor can demolition explosives.
|
|
|
Post by kalchawla on Jan 14, 2006 22:05:44 GMT -4
Len...my age is IRRELEVANT...but I am older than you. The years since "9/11" have been both short and long...I just looked back again today...I can't believe all that time has passed so quickly and so slowly.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 14, 2006 22:06:23 GMT -4
Molten steel was found at WTC7.
These claims have never yet panned out under investigation. Other than glib comments without physical evidence, the best they get is sme of the steel was red hot when pulled from the wreakage, wreakage that had been burning for over a week. Those conditions are easily enough to make the steel red hot. Also explosives don't leave steel hot for a long period anyways. Explosives have a rapid heat discharge, followed by rapid cooling. For steel to melt and stay molten requires continual heat, such as a fire. The conditions under the collpased buildings were very similar to the ealy iron age forges, though on a much grander scale.
Again, what evidence of explosives, or eyewitness tesimony of seeing explosives installed, or being installed into WTC 7 do you have?
edited to add: kalchawla, I'm still awaiting your response to the same question.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 14, 2006 23:25:58 GMT -4
Molten steel was found at WTC7.These claims have never yet panned out under investigation. Other than glib comments without physical evidence, the best they get is sme of the steel was red hot when pulled from the wreakage, wreakage that had been burning for over a week. Those conditions are easily enough to make the steel red hot. Also explosives don't leave steel hot for a long period anyways. Explosives have a rapid heat discharge, followed by rapid cooling. For steel to melt and stay molten requires continual heat, such as a fire. The conditions under the collpased buildings were very similar to the ealy iron age forges, though on a much grander scale. Again, what evidence of explosives, or eyewitness tesimony of seeing explosives installed, or being installed into WTC 7 do you have? edited to add: kalchawla, I'm still awaiting your response to the same question. I hope one of the science types on the forum can help here but I don't believe it's possible for "pools of ‘molten steel’” to have been “found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse" and be found in WTC 7 "more than a month after the collapse" as the article cited by DH claims. Even if the steel could somehow have been heated above 2800 F at the time of the collapse, and CT have yet to explain this, what could explain it maintaining such a high temperature for so long? Even if underground hydrocarbon fueled fires continued burning thus heating the steel, such fires have a max. temp. of about 1500 F. Neither Tully nor Loizeaux said anything about fires and it's doubtful they would have been given access to the basements if the fires were still burning or smoldering. It's strange that CTs cite Mark Loizeaux, he is president of CDI (the business is run by his family) and they think CDI was part of the conspiracy. Why would a conspirator admit to evidence of the conspiracy? The source of this information is suspect. The American Free Press and Bollyn are neo-Nazi friendly ultra-rightwing racist anti-Semites
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 14, 2006 23:34:52 GMT -4
DH, why do find the idea of a stateless terrorist organization with the means and motivation to hijack and crash planes into the WTC so unbelievable? They weren't exactly stateless they did have the backing of Afganistan and probably at least part of Pakistani intelligence. I suspect that DH sees things from an ultra-rightwing viewpoint that believes Bush is part of the "New Order " conspiracy.
|
|