|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Feb 21, 2007 22:52:25 GMT -4
9/11 MysteriesI challenge all you sincere, open-minded 9-11 Official Hoax Believers (not professional disinfo agents) to watch this in it's entirety and not come away at least questioning parts of the official theory of the collapse. Of course, I'm not holding my breath. The pancake theory can't explain why the core disintegrated at an equal speed to the outer frame. Even the 2002 PBS computer animation shows the core still standing while the the levels collapsed around it. That's just one of the points covered in this excellent documentary. Here's another good video showing just how quickly the spin-meisters and "experts" had the official story prepared and ready to go just minutes after the towers collapsed. Pay close attention to that first "man-on-the-street" interview. Notice how he shows no shock or emotion about the devastating events that had just transpired. He almost sounds cheerful as he goes over the talking points of what happened and why. It's interesting how the official story of the collapses and who dunnit has hardly changed a bit since these first cover stories were presented on television just 30 minutes after the attacks.
|
|
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 Feb 22, 2007 6:56:32 GMT -4
I watched the 1st 20 – 30 minutes and gave up because it was so full of errors. If I find the time I’ll dig up a post outlining them I made on another forum. But don’t hold your breath. If there are any specific claims from the video you think especially compelling tell us what they are and at what point they are made and maybe I’ll reply, I doubt anyone else will otherwise either.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 22, 2007 9:12:53 GMT -4
Here's another good one. At the 48 minute mark they talk about thermite. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8989407671184881047&q=9%2F11Here a good case is made about the use of thermite to bring down the towers. www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdfHere what looks like thermite can be seen pouring out of the towers. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11There was still molten metal in the wreckage long after 9/11. www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/626_molten_metal.jpgworcester.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/6795_comment.php(excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -any metal smith can tell you that slag does not drip like shown since most slag is blown away and only a ribbon of slag remains above and below the cut typically with maybe a short drip or 2.. -any metal smith can also tell you that any cut would have been traced completely around the outside of the column, torch cutting does not leave slag on the outside of a cut, only on the backside. YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE SLAG dripping on the outside. This proves it was not torch cut and that it was Thermate, with no air pressure behind it which is why there is slag "running" down the inside and outside. -any metal cutter would also question why the rear cut is not a straight line, or why the cuts are not straight or horizontal all the way around. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've used a cutting torch to cut steel before and my experience squares with what this person says. I've never seen molten steel drip like the way it did in the picture. Also, the drips would have been on the inside. I believe the thermite theory put forward by Steven Jones.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 22, 2007 9:18:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 22, 2007 11:21:14 GMT -4
Rocky,
What you call "thermite pouring out of the towers" is more likely to be glowing ashes. You haven't made much experience with fires, I take it?
Regarding the image of "molten metal", well.... That's not molten metal. That's glowing metal in that image you provide. Molten metal is a liquid. You'd need a bucket to cart that away.
I assume you simply believed what someone showed you, rather than using actual knowledge.
Concerning the Loose Change forum...
I speculate that you consider it "good stuff" because it agrees with your viewpoints, rather than it presenting scientifically sound information, emperical evidence, and logical thinking. It fails miserably in such fields. The people there believe the Pentagon can withstand bunker busters, but cannot prove this speculation (as built, bunker busters didn't even exist. And the refurbishment was merely to make it with stand something like a car bomb, not a military grade weapon). They fail to see the fallacy of the logic of claiming that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a 757, ignoring the debries, the bodies, the DNA, ect.
And, as usual, rather than speaking your own voice, you have to resort to playing the salesman, showing off links and not telling us your own opinions. You're simply parroting what others have said.
What this tells me is that you lack critical thinking skills. You take in whatever sounds good to you, and ignore contradictory evidence, making up ideas why the evidence is invalid.
As you may have read, you hold people to a double standard. You jump on those that disagree with your viewpoint, "testing their objectivity" as you put it. But, have you ever tested the objectivity of Steven Jones? How about that of Dylan Avery? Have you tested their objectivity? If not, why not?
I must assume that you haven't, because their views happen to agree with your views.
Show me that I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 22, 2007 11:57:15 GMT -4
Another Crack YouTube Investigationtm
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 22, 2007 13:58:42 GMT -4
Another Crack YouTube Investigation tmMeaning, an investigation performed while under the influence of.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 22, 2007 16:11:08 GMT -4
I believe the thermite theory put forward by Steven Jones. Why? Now, I'm serious. What I want from you is your own reasoning behind this. In your own words. I don't want links. I don't want videos. I want you to write for me why you trust Steven Jones. This is not intended to be an opening for a tirade from you about American imperialism, Americans' not knowing their government's actions, or anything else that isn't about Steven Jones and his expertise. Tell me what Steven Jones knows about building demolition. Tell me why you're sure he's objective, including what tests you've put him to. Tell me what you know about thermite, that you can fairly evaluate that it has the properties here assigned to it. Tell me why you believe what you believe, or I must assume that it's anti-government bias again.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 22, 2007 21:39:45 GMT -4
...and David, when has thermite ever been used in a CD?
That video had squat to do with the pancake theory and everything to do with overinflating some comments/speculations put forth by folks...that's it...nothing sinister there. Bozo? Hey, that's real openminded and objective.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 22, 2007 22:25:05 GMT -4
Oh, good grief! Not the diagonal cut beam again!
CUTTING TORCH! CUTTING TORCH! CUTTING TORCH!
If you've really used a cutting torch, then you'd know that the allegations are bunk. Ergo, you've never used a cutting torch. Liar liar, pants on fire. Prove you're in Spain, and I'll retract my taunt.
First, note the hole at the top edge - that's where the cut started. Look for another hole elsewhere - that's where the cut was restarted after a rest.
Second, the torch was just an ordinary cutting torch, not one sized for 3" thick steel. The cut would take a really long time. They guy was bouncing around in a bucket, hanging off the edge with his arm going numb. That's shown by the angle change of the grooves in the cut on the near side of the beam (toward camera) and the rather erratic quality to the cut toward the bottom.
Third, the short side has slag on the outside because this was a demolition cut of a bent beam - the part that was cut off fell over, at some point in the process, and the slag is where that piece of metal was a big thick folded thing, being cut straight down instead of perpendicular to the face of the beam. The amount of slag is also an indicator of the small size of the torch - it was not up to the task of vaporizing the metal.
Fourth, thermite is not going to make a nice sharp cut with pencil-diameter grooves.
How do I know these things? Because I know how to read - you and the other 9/11 theorists who keep trotting out this particular image are illiterate to the language of toolmarks. Sitting aroung theorizing is not a substitute for getting your hands on a piece of wood, or metal, or stone, and doing the work that needs doing. When you work with tools and materials, you learn to read the work of other tradesmen.
But I suspect you're the angry truck driver again, so you wouldn't really know these things.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 22, 2007 22:42:05 GMT -4
Fifth, if you look at the point where the beam raises out of the debris, you can see slag on top of the debris proving that the cut was made -after- the buildings fell.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 23, 2007 6:16:20 GMT -4
Tell us why it's more likely. That was a very simplistic response. On every form there are going to be a few flakes. If you take what a few flakes say and use it to represent all of the posts on the forum, you're making a big mistake. There are thinking people on the forum too. You knew this as you were writing your post. Inside job is right--it's a waste of time to talk to you people. Sometimes I really feel like following his example--just post stuff for the viewers and let them hear your rebuttals and let them decide for themselves. We've talked about this twenty times or more. Plane parts can be planted. Witnesses can be planted. DNA reports can be falsified. You and all of your friends just dismissed this picture in favor of those arguments above. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgwww.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.htmlI think I can hear the viewers laughing. You know that if I e-mail Steven Jones, I won't even get an answer. He probably gets a few thousand e-mails every day. I watched his explanations of what happened and I think everything he put forth makes sense. Also, the cut in this picture is not consistent with the cut from a cutting torch. worcester.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/6795_comment.phpI think all of the points Steven Jones made sense. Why don't you pick a few and say why they don't make sense? I'm not going to spend an hour summarizing what people can watch on the video anyway. Tell us how you know this. Anyway, slag doesn't run that far. I don't sit around and theorize. I took a welding class back in 76. We did arc welding, mig welding, tig welding, and gas welding. We had to cut our own metal for the arc and mig welding. I've never seen slag run that far. Not necessarily. Ther might have been some thermite still burning after the building fell. I really get the distinct feeling that you people don't even believe the arguments you're putting forth yourselves. All of you said that the object on the left of this picture was too blurry to make out when it's obviously the nose of an aircraft that's too pointed to be the nose of a 757. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgI don't see how anybody can take you seriously after that and you know what I'm thinking. www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 That documentary in post #1 is great. It covers a lot of points that the earlier documentaries missed. www.question911.com/linksall.htmThe earlier ones in that link are good too. They all make a few point that the others miss. I recommend watching all of them if you have time. Painful Deceptions Loose Change In Plane Sight The great Conspiracy
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Feb 23, 2007 6:20:43 GMT -4
Questions...
The aircraft impacts were sufficiently damaging to the cores to break very strong multi strand steel elevator cables. Is it not plausable that some kind of damage would also be seen in the core structure itself? Some sort of damage happened to the core, jet fuel got in there and cables were snapped. The comparison to the other highrise tower fires have been seen before. Which of these other towers were hit by very high speed jetliners, or suffered equivilant structural damage in addition to the fires? How many of these other skyscraper fires had the same lightweight tube construction as the WTC towers? How many had 30-50 stories of acre sized floorspace above the impact/fire sites? How many used light steel trusses to hold the floors? The weight of the 767 given is low, but still somewhat inapplicable. It was the speed that allowed the aircraft mass to penetrate the core...be that fuselage or engines. I don't think they anticipated a 500mph impact in the tower design. That's at least 4 times the energy of a 200-250mph impact. And just how hot does the fire have to be to weaken the remaining steel holding the additional stresses of the already damaged buildings?
The big video froze up on me part way thru, I'm reloading it to see more...
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 23, 2007 9:17:38 GMT -4
Tell us why it's more likely. So its "us" now? What happened to "me"? Now, the reasoning; Consider the contents of the building at that time/; office supplies, furniture, wood, ect. Oh, and the stuff from the plane too; the chairs, luggage, ect. Also, consider that the sparks appear to come from the cladding. That is made of aluminum, which as you may know can burn at high temps as experienced in the collision. Also, to assume thermite was used implies a rather complicated scheme to set it up. The simpler explanation is it was not thermite, but some other source. Occam's Razor, Rocky. Occam's Razor. The flakes you refer to that told me that stuff were admins. From my POV, the quality of the admins reflect the quality of the forum. You are correct in that there are thinking people on this forum. They're the ones that disagree with you and/or actually engage in conversations. And of course, the claims can be debunked, thus providing both sides. For yourself Rocky, it doesn't look good, as the fallacy of your logic has been shown many times. You have not shown evidence that this is what happened, nor have you shown in a plausible manner how this was carried out. You have to think in reality, not in "conspiracy world". Been covered dozens of times. You know the drill here... Possibly. But whom are they laughing at? The ones that present evidence, and utilize science and Occam's Razor, or the ones that post link after link, use faulty logic, and offer only speculation without evidence? So you have no way of testing his objectivity, huh? But did you bother to look at the alternatives? Did you check to see any rebuttals for his arguments? For that matter, what are his credentials? What does Steven Jones know about CD? What does he know about structural engineering? If you have time to watch the video one day, you certainly have time to summarize the following day. How hard can it be? No, but you do speculate and take in any CT theory that appeals to you. So you think you're a psychiatrist now, huh? Or do you think you're a human lie detector? If you can see it, then you need glasses. ;D I don't have time for garbage, thanks.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 23, 2007 10:04:59 GMT -4
Somewhere in the video, I don't remember where, Steven Jones proves that it couldn't have been aluminum. He melts some aluminum and it retains its silvery color. I shouldn't be wasting time answering your posts. I wasn't referring to anybody in particular. I was referring to the "Loose Change" forum. You're long on rhetoric and short on substance. Why don't you tell us what you think of this picture again; it'll be good for a few laughs. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgIf something has multiple explanations, it's not proof. It in no way refutes the picture of the nose of the plane in the photo above that's obviously too pointed to be the nose of a 757. I've watched lots of footage of him puting forth what he thought was the most likely explanation for things and he makes a lot more sense than the official version and you people. There's no need for me to summarize it. People can just watch it. No--that makes sense to me. No--because your arguments are so silly. I meant the viewers--not you people. This post of yours was pure attitude and rhetoric--no substance. I really don't see how my answering posts like this helps anything. All it does is take up space. I'm going to start being much more selective in the posts that I answer from now on.
|
|