[9/11] Let's have a discussion.

Lord Elessar said:
HITLARBUSH got re-elected because of 9-11. He was then able to pack the Supreme Court who in turn "gave" us the right to arm bears.

duhhhh don't you know anything?
Click to expand...

url
 
oy vey. I've watched every single truther Alex whoever loose change zeitgiest POS there is, and every one of them stand only on omission of data.

Except the latest Alex whoever POS I got 15 min in and turned it off. Fear mongering attention whores that have gone from mildy entertaining to downright scary in that they are starting to believe their own bullshit.

The ONLY theory I would come close to buying would be that this was actually pulled off by Israel and not bin Laden, only because they've done this shit before trying to rope the US into war. We damn near nuked Cairo in 1968 over the USS Liberty attack.

JMO
 
iten said:
Jesus, I'm getting mobbed by conspiracy nuts here.
Click to expand...

I asked a basic question about your statement and suddenly I must be a nut. This is exactly the reason why "conspiracies" thrive. Government has their version. Group A believes one thing, Group B labels and ridicules Group A. Group C, D, and E believe entirely different things but get lumped with Group A by Group B. Etc.. Bickering and arguing ensue. Rational dialog can never be established.



GreasyBoy said:
oy vey. I've watched every single truther Alex whoever loose change zeitgiest POS there is, and every one of them stand only on omission of data.
Click to expand...

Alex is a fucking nutjob. However, I can see why they stand on omission. The government report is the final word on the investigation. When basic questions are overlooked or not spoken to in the final report it breeds theories and speculation.

That doesn't mean they're right. Simply that they have questions that haven't been addressed.
 
Is it unpatriotic of me to point out that BushCo impeded (not to say obstructed) the investigation? The point of the Commission wasn't to find any one answer, but to convince the public in the integrity of the investigation itself. But as soon as we tortured Khalid Sheik Mohammed, that was simply an impossibility.

Mission MASSIVE FAIL.
 
Stealth said:
I realize I am probably wasting my time, but this is for anyone that's interested in learning the actual scientific facts of 9/11:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
Click to expand...

I've actually read this. It's meaningless, and has virtually no one who is remotely qualified to make all of it's claims.

Here is a better book, which debunks the whole book you just mentioned.

I've read both. You should too.

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X
 
DiSk said:
I've actually read this. It's meaningless, and has virtually no one who is remotely qualified to make all of it's claims.

Here is a better book, which debunks the whole book you just mentioned.

I've read both. You should too.

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X
Click to expand...

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Click to expand...

damn those unqualified structural engineers! :rolleyes:
 
anyone ever notice that if you remove the / from 9/11, it's 911, which is the number for the police department/emergency service?
 
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
Click to expand...

This is true ^^ (A colleague of mine was one of the consultants on the investigation that developed the NIST report)

Along with the other stuff as well... It's a very interesting read, probably public viewing somewhere on the net. I can't distribute the report itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top