Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Xenocrates said:
You are confusing force with stress.
Loose Change
- Thread starter Rik Meleet
- Start date
You are confusing force with stress.
Xenocrates said:Interesting how Bam uses a link to support the non-explosives theory while Turner finds a major problem with it, while both Turner and Bam are (I guess) both adherents to the non-explosive theory.
You two can debate it with weach other while I check out Bam's post.
Not exactly. Bam's already made his case. I don't disagree with his points. I disagree with your point that there was more force on the entire building from wind (and I live in Kansas, I know about wind) than the impact of the 767 going at 500 miles per hour had on the building. The wind may move the buildings, and at times with quite a bit of force. But it doesn't slice through the building, demolish six floors in an instant, cause a huge fire, and have the damage and destruction that the planes hitting them had.
Cilpot
Pretentious Schmuck
My guess is that version 3 of Loose Change will be presented as a mockumentary.
The movie is finally getting known in Norway, and while I find the movie somewhat amusing I really cant stand the people who swallows every "fact" presented in the film without question. These are the same people who urge others to be critical of what the government tells you.. Not really a bad advise, but why not use the same sound sense of criticism to this movie and the theories presented within it.
The movie is finally getting known in Norway, and while I find the movie somewhat amusing I really cant stand the people who swallows every "fact" presented in the film without question. These are the same people who urge others to be critical of what the government tells you.. Not really a bad advise, but why not use the same sound sense of criticism to this movie and the theories presented within it.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Who's going to be part of the 'international' investigation? His buddies from Iran? Castro of course. Maybe he'll also get North Korea in on it.
woody60707
Deity
Paradigne said:
Not sure if you believe this or not, but i don't believe any non news sites that don't cite how they got there info. Like with this little statment "The US government attempted to sabotage the trip by putting Rodriguez, who has been decorated at the White House itself, and Walter on a no fly list."
How do i know this true? who edited and fact checked this?
Look this doesn't even make sense, how would this stop him at all? He could just go to Canada or Mexico and take a flight, hell he could just take a boat down there.
When i write a paper, i have to have a cite page, why can't they do the same? This is just same guy on the internet. He's saying don't believe the goverment, ok, but why should i believe?
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Well, I think the story is true.
Chavez has basically already declared war on the US (the US just view him as a pesky fly). His statements have about as much importance as if Kim Jong Il made these accusations.
Chavez has basically already declared war on the US (the US just view him as a pesky fly). His statements have about as much importance as if Kim Jong Il made these accusations.
woody60707
Deity
Bamspeedy said:
Yea, i can very well believe this happening, kind of surprise he didn't jump on this sooner, if he in fact did. I just don't believe it just because that site says it with out some type of cite.
Many times i will be watching MSNBC and hear them say, "the AP is reporting" ... I have a hard time believe this site has a number of reporters, so they must of got this informantion from a 3rd party some how. Or is this whole story base of the word of Rodriguez and Walter?
I know this is going off topic, but how do sites like these get their inside storys that the rest of MSM and the world miss?
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
They publish the information before verifying it, because they want to believe it. The respectable news sources don't print stories they can't confirm (at least the majority of the time). Other times, the theorists just make stuff up. It's amazing how much access the theorists have to 'an unnamed CIA agent' that they use in many of their reports (not used in this case).
For another source (that I got from google by typing in 'Chavez 9/11'), The Edmonton Sun posted this information 10 hours ago.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2006/09/13/1833673-sun.html
(It's taking me forever to get this page to load)
But, keep in mind that even respectable newspapers gets a little trigger-happy and post stories before they are verified.
Xenocrates
Deity
OK Bam I have an answer to your point about 'pull it'.
To recap, I said that Silverstein's use of the phrase pull it' was evidence of controlled demolition, despite the fact that the official report denies that. I also said that the term was used in the later destruction of building 6 and provided a tape recording of it. My post:
This is important because it means that building 7 was pre-set with explosives, as that would have been impossible under the conditions after the attack - indicating foreknowledge. However, if the building was literally pulled with cables, it doesnt prove foreknowledge. However they had to get the heavy machinery there and gain access to the building to attach the cables etc. while the building was on fire. Since the people had been evacuated, there was no rush to deal with building 7 and they could have taken their time over it and put out the fires. Theres a lot of stuff that doesnt make any sense here. Why was Silverstein even consulted? Didnt the FBI or CIA prefer to attempt to save their data? To this day we dont know what happened in building 7.
I contend that 'pull it is a generic term, which issued to mean both literally pull and destroy with explosives. I swear to you that I've heard it used to mean demolish with explosives, not in real life but on TV.
I couldn't find any details of how building 6 was taken down. And I was getting a major headache even thinking about it. Then it occurred to me that the official report says that building 7 collapsed without intervention but Silverstein said that it was pulled. Whether he meant by explosives or not is not important. If Silverstein was using 'pull' to mean any kind of demolition, that proves that the official report is a lie.
The question is really what did Silverstein mean? He now says he was referring to pulling out the fire department. In the context of the quote, I think that is hogwash. This was discussed on:
[URL="http://911blogger.com/node/2278?page=3"]http://911blogger.com/node/2278?page=3[/URL]
which I summarised in post 55 (this is a damn good interview, did you listen to it?).
I have no other speech from Silverstein to compare this with, so I cant PROVE that he used pull it to mean pull the firemen or even the fire brigade out of building 7 but according to the conventions of English, he should have been referring to the building and not to the people. The sentence immediately following about making the decision to pull and watching the building collapse backs this up. When you use AND, it indicated that the decision to pull and the collapse were causally linked. E.g. " I went shopping and bought a loaf of bread". The removal of the fire brigade and the collapse would NOT have been linked. These days I'm stronger on grammar than I am on physics!
But maybe Silverstein mis-spoke, or has an unorthodox style. Maybe so, but would Mr Sherlock Holmes assume that? Would Poirot? Would Columbo? No they wouldnt, and neither will I.
The debate broadened too much, which was partly my fault. It was fun locking horns with each other, but we didnt make a fat lot of progress. I shouldnt have let you get away with ignoring my excellent audio link
I think I cast doubt on the honesty and accuracy of Popular Mechanics and the official report.
If Stephen Jones's work confirms that Thermate was used this argument is pointless, so let's wait until more emerges about that. OK? I need to recover now. No more 9/11 for a few weeks for me.
To recap, I said that Silverstein's use of the phrase pull it' was evidence of controlled demolition, despite the fact that the official report denies that. I also said that the term was used in the later destruction of building 6 and provided a tape recording of it. My post:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm"]http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm[/URL]
The tape recording in the above link shows beyond doubt that they used the term 'pull' to mean 'demolish' for building 6. There's more bunk in the debunk than there is in the bunk (if you see what I mean). Sorry to disagree with you and everything BTW.
This is important because it means that building 7 was pre-set with explosives, as that would have been impossible under the conditions after the attack - indicating foreknowledge. However, if the building was literally pulled with cables, it doesnt prove foreknowledge. However they had to get the heavy machinery there and gain access to the building to attach the cables etc. while the building was on fire. Since the people had been evacuated, there was no rush to deal with building 7 and they could have taken their time over it and put out the fires. Theres a lot of stuff that doesnt make any sense here. Why was Silverstein even consulted? Didnt the FBI or CIA prefer to attempt to save their data? To this day we dont know what happened in building 7.
I contend that 'pull it is a generic term, which issued to mean both literally pull and destroy with explosives. I swear to you that I've heard it used to mean demolish with explosives, not in real life but on TV.
I couldn't find any details of how building 6 was taken down. And I was getting a major headache even thinking about it. Then it occurred to me that the official report says that building 7 collapsed without intervention but Silverstein said that it was pulled. Whether he meant by explosives or not is not important. If Silverstein was using 'pull' to mean any kind of demolition, that proves that the official report is a lie.
The question is really what did Silverstein mean? He now says he was referring to pulling out the fire department. In the context of the quote, I think that is hogwash. This was discussed on:
[URL="http://911blogger.com/node/2278?page=3"]http://911blogger.com/node/2278?page=3[/URL]
which I summarised in post 55 (this is a damn good interview, did you listen to it?).
I have no other speech from Silverstein to compare this with, so I cant PROVE that he used pull it to mean pull the firemen or even the fire brigade out of building 7 but according to the conventions of English, he should have been referring to the building and not to the people. The sentence immediately following about making the decision to pull and watching the building collapse backs this up. When you use AND, it indicated that the decision to pull and the collapse were causally linked. E.g. " I went shopping and bought a loaf of bread". The removal of the fire brigade and the collapse would NOT have been linked. These days I'm stronger on grammar than I am on physics!
But maybe Silverstein mis-spoke, or has an unorthodox style. Maybe so, but would Mr Sherlock Holmes assume that? Would Poirot? Would Columbo? No they wouldnt, and neither will I.
The debate broadened too much, which was partly my fault. It was fun locking horns with each other, but we didnt make a fat lot of progress. I shouldnt have let you get away with ignoring my excellent audio link
I think I cast doubt on the honesty and accuracy of Popular Mechanics and the official report.If Stephen Jones's work confirms that Thermate was used this argument is pointless, so let's wait until more emerges about that. OK? I need to recover now. No more 9/11 for a few weeks for me.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Xenocrates
Deity
Ziggy. Popular mechanics denied that the words 'pull it' were used in demolition work. Why did they do that?
Your links don't explain Silverstein's remarks. Nowhere in them does someone use 'it' to refer to a group of men. Nowhere is there an answer to the use of the word 'and' in Siverstein's remark. I already said that Silverstein could have poor grammar, but I am not willing to assume it.
Your links don't mention, as far as I saw, the cause of the fire or the reason for it's intensity. This is an important question.
They also don't answer the questions raised in my audio link.
All that doesn't mean that the implication - that building 7 collapsed due to gravity and that Silverstein talks like a buffoon - is wrong. Maybe there's nothing sinister about building 7's collapse, but the case isn't made yet.
I'm ducking out now and no one's going to tempt me back; I've got work to do. My name will vanish from the list of people present in 5.4.3.2...
Your links don't explain Silverstein's remarks. Nowhere in them does someone use 'it' to refer to a group of men. Nowhere is there an answer to the use of the word 'and' in Siverstein's remark. I already said that Silverstein could have poor grammar, but I am not willing to assume it.
Your links don't mention, as far as I saw, the cause of the fire or the reason for it's intensity. This is an important question.
They also don't answer the questions raised in my audio link.
All that doesn't mean that the implication - that building 7 collapsed due to gravity and that Silverstein talks like a buffoon - is wrong. Maybe there's nothing sinister about building 7's collapse, but the case isn't made yet.
I'm ducking out now and no one's going to tempt me back; I've got work to do.
My name will vanish from the list of people present in 5.4.3.2...
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I think it's a difference in filling the gaps. It's still unclear why the buildings collapsed and there are two (more of course) explenations. Since either of us can't say with certainty it's one way or the other, we dabble in probabilities.
Engineers have expressed the opnion it is possible the buildings collapsed as a result from the fire. They didn't prove it, it likely can't be proved, but merely stated the possibility is there.
In the frenzy and hectic circumstances there are many things which are confusing, went wrong. Using the choice of wording at that time as an indication something is amiss in such circumstances is not very convincing to me.
Ah well, good luck with the work
Engineers have expressed the opnion it is possible the buildings collapsed as a result from the fire. They didn't prove it, it likely can't be proved, but merely stated the possibility is there.
In the frenzy and hectic circumstances there are many things which are confusing, went wrong. Using the choice of wording at that time as an indication something is amiss in such circumstances is not very convincing to me.
Ah well, good luck with the work
One of my main reasons to state that the "murder on 3000 people - case" should not be closed yet.ZiggyS said:
woody60707
Deity
Rik Meleet said:
Why, What more can be learned or explained by doing more testing that isn't known right now.
Right now their is no smoking gun to showt that something else may of happen. I am not saying we know everything that happen, we likly never will, but we will never know who fired the first shot at Lexington, it doesn't mean that the jews did it.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
@ Xenocrates:
1) Silversteins language use of language is obvious to anyone who isn't trying desperately to cling to a ludicrous conspiracy theory:
He said 'pull it' meaning, simply, to pull the FD team out of the building. Simple huh?
2) The alternative is that the demolition of the building was carried out in a few hours, in the midst of a raging inferno, with no prior planning, and the order to go ahead with the demolition was given, in technical jargon by a real estate developer. How plausible is that?
3) Another alternative is that it was all set up in advance. In which case, why fuss about with the FD teams in the first place? Why bother pulling them out when this was not done in the other two buildings? Was there a sudden change of heart on the part of the conspirators?
4) If the building was demolished deliberately, what possible reason would there be to disguise the fact? Simply declare the building dangerous and blow it afterwards. There is just no need for a conspiracy.
WTC collapsed because of the blaze inside and the 20 storey hole in one side - it suffered considerable damage in the collapse of the Towers, which is never seen on camera because it was on the inside of the complex - photographers were either looking at 7 from the wrong side or through the pall of smoke in the complex. The decision to pull the team out of 7 was taken in part because they were concerned that it was going to collapse. Hence "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.", IOW they connect the two things, because the decision was made for precisely that reason.
1) Silversteins language use of language is obvious to anyone who isn't trying desperately to cling to a ludicrous conspiracy theory:
He said 'pull it' meaning, simply, to pull the FD team out of the building. Simple huh?
2) The alternative is that the demolition of the building was carried out in a few hours, in the midst of a raging inferno, with no prior planning, and the order to go ahead with the demolition was given, in technical jargon by a real estate developer. How plausible is that?
3) Another alternative is that it was all set up in advance. In which case, why fuss about with the FD teams in the first place? Why bother pulling them out when this was not done in the other two buildings? Was there a sudden change of heart on the part of the conspirators?
4) If the building was demolished deliberately, what possible reason would there be to disguise the fact? Simply declare the building dangerous and blow it afterwards. There is just no need for a conspiracy.
They made a mistake? You really love overlooking simple explanations don't you?
WTC collapsed because of the blaze inside and the 20 storey hole in one side - it suffered considerable damage in the collapse of the Towers, which is never seen on camera because it was on the inside of the complex - photographers were either looking at 7 from the wrong side or through the pall of smoke in the complex. The decision to pull the team out of 7 was taken in part because they were concerned that it was going to collapse. Hence "they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.", IOW they connect the two things, because the decision was made for precisely that reason.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
One of the (rather poor) websites Xenocrates has given as evidence stated that the fire could well have been sustained somewhere under about 800 degrees. This is well above the 650 degree point where steel loses 50% of its strength. Given that the fires burned at such temperatures for over an hour and that there was structural damage to the buildings, why do people continue to claim that the case is not adequately proven?ZiggyS said:
It is kind of like the claim that someone once 'proved' that bumblebees could not fly, the evidence that they can is that they do; the best evidence that the collision and fire caused the collapse of the towers is that they were hit, they burned, and they fell. Theory confirms this could have happened, so wh y the skepticism?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I meant they may have proved it can happen, but how do you prove it did happen? I simply agree it's the most likely scenario by far.
By the way, I was talking about WTC 7, in which the case is not so very clear. It wasn't hit by a plane but by debris. The other buildings allready collapsed causing a lot of confusion.
The Twin Towers obviously collapsed due to structural failure.
By the way, I was talking about WTC 7, in which the case is not so very clear. It wasn't hit by a plane but by debris. The other buildings allready collapsed causing a lot of confusion.
The Twin Towers obviously collapsed due to structural failure.
Leatherneck
Drive-by poster.
It amazes me that some people think on various forums throughout the web still think that it was an inside job. Even after non-political mags like PM disprove the tin foil hat crowd.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
How do I prove it did happen? I bloody watched it on the TV, along with half the planet. Are you in the habit of seeing things and wondering if they happened?ZiggyS said:
WTC7 was seriously damaged in the collapse of the towers, see the end of my post 116. Firecrews reported a gaping hole in the front of the building 20 storeys high.
BTW conspiracy theorists like to say that WTC7 collapsed into a 'convenient' little pile. Spot the biased use of language. It actually toppled slightly to one side and the 'little pile' was 12 storeys high. Not a great demolition job.
