Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Researchers find "highly engineered explosive" in WTC dust and rubble. It really is thermite this time   (rawstory.com) divider line 946
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

38108 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Apr 2009 at 3:05 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



946 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-04-07 04:24:31 AM  
I doubt anyone will even read this at this point of the thread, but I'm gonna throw my thoughts in here. I don't claim to "know," nor have done the proper research, into what happened that day. All I can say is the official account, which I've read a decent amount of via the Commission Report, smells of bullshiat TO ME. Did some sector of the U.S. government plan and carry out this heinous crime? Maybe--I'm not ready to say definitively yes. But I do get the sense that we've been lied to, and that much of the story has been kept a secret from the general public. The stuff about what happened at the Pentagon seems particularly ridiculous when you hear the official explanation and watch the 7 frames of video released.
In short, I just feel that the story we've been fed by the government doesn't add up. Does that make it reasonable to conclude they carried out 9/11 themselves? No. BUT WE SHOULDN'T STOP ASKING QUESTIONS, and we SHOULD be encouraging continued independent research, while keeping a close eye on the methods of and conclusions drawn from such research. That is all.
 
2009-04-07 04:29:26 AM  
www.pbase.com

www.pbase.com

www.pbase.com

I haven't had a reason to post these in years. Whoohoo!
 
2009-04-07 04:43:14 AM  
boobsrgood: Link (new window)

He admits that the camera is moving so nothing can be determined with respect to a static reference frame. He's clicking on points on what looks like a very small image of a rather large object which means there is huge errors involved; a small error in his click will be significant. He's not picking any consistently identifiable reference point as far as I can tell. He's not explaining anything about how he derives his final data which makes his claims less than believable.

I guess if you believe in this, then I would guess you'd see this as the motherlode of proof. If you are an honest skeptic, then you'd see no proof of anything. That doesn't mean your claim is false, just that you haven't proven jack.

If you can't make a claim that can't be shredded in cross examination, then you aren't going to get anywhere, which may be your goal in all this. If you are honestly interested in the truth, you should be doing this rigorous questioning of all this yourself and not buying into everything that feeds your bias.
 
2009-04-07 05:01:27 AM  
Befuddled: He's clicking on points on what looks like a very small image of a rather large object which means there is huge errors involved;

You know, if you want to come off as an intellectual, grammar would be a good start.


If you are honestly interested in the truth, you should be doing this rigorous questioning of all this yourself and not buying into everything that feeds your bias.


Unbiased. Reagan tore the solar panels off the White House as soon as he took office. The electric car was torpedoed by GM. We are still at war with two nations on the justifications woven from unrelated 9/11 mythologies. My kids will need energy, too, so I want it to come honestly for them. Robber barons are cute and all, but they need to feel their place, which is behind decent human beings.
 
2009-04-07 05:07:09 AM  
boobsrgood: Link (new window)

His "Faster than freefall explosions" look to me like the edge of a barely visible debris front falling on the far side of the building, if you watch him step through the "explosion" wave" and look at debris closer to it (as in right next to it) you can see it keeping up with, and then going a bit faster than the "explosion" wave at the end of his setting of the second set of data points. I also noticed he doesn't show the whole video at least once at regular speed as a reference point.

In other words it's sloppy analysis to be kind about it.
 
2009-04-07 05:15:38 AM  
Radioactive Ass: In other words it's sloppy analysis to be kind about it.

Yeah, but it stands as one of thousands. Triggered explosions can outrun gravity. Collapsing structural integrity? Not so much. If the building were just collapsing, inertia would send the wave in the other direction. Pretty damning, imho.
 
2009-04-07 05:56:48 AM  
albo: DROxINxTHExWIND: Someone ignoring how the Bush administration has benefit immesurably from 9/11, calling someone else out for "ignoring evidence" is unbelievable.

so the administration must of murdered thousands of their fellow citizens because they were the ones who would benefit?

using that logic, tabloids are obviously providing lindsay lohan with coke so they can take pics and sell papers.


Actually, using your logic, you might also describe the US casualties in Iraq.

/just saying
 
2009-04-07 07:15:52 AM  
Dwight_Yeast:

(snip)


If there was no fire in WTC7, then explain this photo:


As you can see, we're looking over the Winter Garden, between the World Financial Center at the south facade of WTC7, which has smoke pouring out of every floor.

What's that about? Multi-story rave? Fogging for termites?


Don't be retarded. Clearly they were fogging for thermites.
 
2009-04-07 07:39:54 AM  
the rest of the civilised world has known this for years

/I mean, the civilised world has known this for years
 
2009-04-07 08:22:46 AM  
Radioactive Ass: theredsea1: It either IS nano-thermite, or it isn't

It isn't, it's paint chips.


mama.indstate.edu
This is your last chance.
After this there is no turning back.
You take the blue pill and the story ends.
You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

www.jesus-is-savior.com
Nothing to see here good citizen. Please just keep moving along.

mama.indstate.edu

You take the red pill.
You stay in Wonderland and
I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

www.commutefaster.com

Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more.
 
2009-04-07 09:50:43 AM  
Snowflake Tubbybottom: Thermite, used in steel welding, fireworks shows, hand grenades and demolition, can produce a chemical reaction known for extremely high temperatures focused in a very small area for a short period of time.

I wonder where they could have possibly found this substance in a large super structure comprised of steel welded together and then which was collapsed by aluminum aircraft loaded with highly flammable fuel? Maybe everywhere near the site?


Steel, Aluminum and Jet Fuel makes thermite? Incredible.
 
2009-04-07 10:07:06 AM  
Oh bullshiat!
 
2009-04-07 10:08:13 AM  
Science and History are funny subjects. Their audience is very fickle.

Whenever people want to justify their beliefs (thoughts with which they are comfortable), they turn to Science and History for support. It is automatically assumed that the proper procedures were followed and "people who are smarter than you or me" are promoted as vague, faceless sources of indisputable authority in an effort to convince others to comply.

But when Science and History make people uncomfortable, their people and the processes are immediately regarded as "foolish" and abandoned. It is automatically assumed that the proper procedures were NOT followed (or are inherently faulty) and "people with an agenda" are promoted as vague, faceless sources of evil in an effort to convince others to ignore them.

/High forms of Government are treated similarly.
 
2009-04-07 10:12:35 AM  
miranda_caldwell: The Towers Were Designed to Survive Large Jet Collisions. (new window)


Why do towers fall down
when they made to withstand airplane KABOOM?


//anyone?


Why do Titanic sink
when made to withstand iceberg collision?


Befuddled: boobsrgood: Link (new window)

He admits that the camera is moving so nothing can be determined with respect to a static reference frame. He's clicking on points on what looks like a very small image of a rather large object which means there is huge errors involved; a small error in his click will be significant. He's not picking any consistently identifiable reference point as far as I can tell. He's not explaining anything about how he derives his final data which makes his claims less than believable.

I guess if you believe in this, then I would guess you'd see this as the motherlode of proof. If you are an honest skeptic, then you'd see no proof of anything. That doesn't mean your claim is false, just that you haven't proven jack.

If you can't make a claim that can't be shredded in cross examination, then you aren't going to get anywhere, which may be your goal in all this. If you are honestly interested in the truth, you should be doing this rigorous questioning of all this yourself and not buying into everything that feeds your bias.


That's what is hilarious to me. These 9-11 theories can be explained away faster than they can throw them at you, and no amount of shiatty YouTube videos is going to change that. I, personally, am not prepared to rule out that 9-11 wasn't a conspiracy of SOME kind, but you've atleast gotta provide evidence that can't be destroyed in less than 10 seconds. That's the problem with Troofers. They're so caught up in telling us that we believe everything the news tells US, that they believe everything YouTube tells THEM. Pot. Meet Kettle.
 
2009-04-07 10:16:11 AM  
wyltoknow: Crosshair: Still doesn't answer the question of how they would have gotten enough termite in to take down the building.

Because the government can DO things, man! Forget the logic, you have to open your mind to realize that the government destroyed one of its most prized sites and killed a multitude of its own citizens in order to be justified in attacking a country when they could have easily just faked a direct attack from them instead of this vague "Well maaaaybe they DID do it!" bullcrap!

Duuuuuh!


I don't think many people at all are saying 'maybe' they did it. (In case I'm not entirely clear here, practically no one thinks 'they' did it.)
 
2009-04-07 10:17:07 AM  
Dashman: Snowflake Tubbybottom: Thermite, used in steel welding, fireworks shows, hand grenades and demolition, can produce a chemical reaction known for extremely high temperatures focused in a very small area for a short period of time.

I wonder where they could have possibly found this substance in a large super structure comprised of steel welded together and then which was collapsed by aluminum aircraft loaded with highly flammable fuel? Maybe everywhere near the site?

Steel, Aluminum and Jet Fuel makes thermite? Incredible.


No. Steel & Aluminum dust x Jet Fuel residue = something that appears similar to thermite under a microscope. Couple that with the fact that *gasp* thermite could have been used during the construction of the damned buildings to begin with and you're looking at some very unconvincing evidence. Find a few specks from random "sources" and I'm skeptical. Find a paper trail that links the manufacturer of this SUPER thermite to people with the know-how and gusto to pulls this kind of thing off, and now I'm ready to grab pitchfork and torch.
 
2009-04-07 10:27:45 AM  
I learned this a long time ago.

Truthers are just folks who, ironically, can't handle the truth. The truth is that bad things happen to good people for no really good or important reason. Truthers can't fathom this. Truthers need to find a reason for everything bad that happens, instead of just accepting that it does.

So, to all the Truthers, I say this: just lay down, read a book, write a song, eat a pizza, have sex or do any one of a number of things that make the rest of us happy and for the love of God, just learn to live with being human.
 
2009-04-07 10:28:12 AM  
GAT_00
How the hell did they manage to pull this off, destroying the buildings and never letting anyone find out, and then manage to fark up the rest of his administration so badly?

This.

And how did he manage to plant explosives in the WTC killing thousands of Americans as an excuse to invade Iraq - and yet not manage to plan WMD's in Iraq so that he could "find them"?
 
2009-04-07 10:29:47 AM  
Giblet: halfof33: Wow, sparky, your quote feature broken? And if you are talking about WTC7, it is very clear that you never read the NIST report about it, so why don't you STFU?

No fires? Wow, you are worthless.


I have the NIST report up in another tab.

There was impact damage from the WTC1 collapse that affected the roof and top floor:


The fire was superficial and went out by itself within minutes.

The only other significant damage was a lot of dust in the lobby.

Assuming that you aren't just drunk or retarded (my money's on the latter), what was your point?


It is rare that we see such persistent lies, except for Truthers of course:

all the lies debunked here (new window)

The NIST report conclusion:

"Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories."

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro: "It had very heavy fire on many floors."
FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers: "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."
FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti: "the fire was going virtually on every floor."
FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca: "We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors."
FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn: "Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down."

Remember folks, Giblet is a big fat farking liar.
 
2009-04-07 10:58:24 AM  
Thermite,Thermate, no duh! Those buildings fell in 8 & 10 seconds, the supports were cut. There's no other way.
 
2009-04-07 10:59:00 AM  
I got it! I fgured it out!
Truthers follow me! I have prrof it was the government behind the whole thing!

Thermite is Iron Oxide, (aka Rust), and Aluminum.

The elemental number of Iron is: 26
The elemtenatl number of Aluminum is: 13

13
+26
----
39

3 raised to the power of 9 = 177,147 or the 47th day of 1771, February 16, 1771!

Don't you get it man? The was the birth date of John M. Hyneman, (1771-1816), Potentially an ancestor of Mythbusters Jamie Hyneman, (presumably still alive), who began the whole chain of events by fathering a line of people who would one day produce the only man on earth with the knowledge to pull off an event of this magnitude!
 
2009-04-07 11:09:27 AM  
onebusymunkee: Thermite,Thermate, no duh! Those buildings fell in 8 & 10 seconds, the supports were cut. There's no other way.

Analysis of video footage capturing the initial collapse and analysis of seismic data from Palisades, New York shows that the first fragments of the outer walls/facade that detached from the rest of the structure of the collapsed north tower struck the ground 9 seconds after the collapse started, and similarly parts of the south tower after 11 seconds. The lower portions of both buildings cores (60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the initial collapse before they too collapsed.
 
2009-04-07 11:22:44 AM  
Codething: (presumably still alive)

Great, you just ended Mythbusters by making Jamie a target of the NWO. Now where will I get my oddly amusing yet explodious fix on TV?

You bastard!
 
2009-04-07 11:27:53 AM  
Befuddled: boobsrgood: The fact that the towers and wtc7 went down at freefall speed

[citation needed]

/never once seen any troofer show proof of this claim


Your request, it's like Kryptonite to the Truthers. It's like the photo I posted of the south facade of WTC7 on fire: as soon as they see it, they disappear.
 
2009-04-07 11:32:47 AM  
boobsrgood: You are what you eat, and blind nationalism is just silly.

boobsrgood: See above. I know it hurts to learn that Uncle Sammy is a criminal, but, well, life's a biatch. Learn to deal with it. You got touched in a bad way. Life goes on.

As I said before in this thread: the US gov't has done some heinous shiat in the 20th century, but that in itself is not proof that they orchestrated the attacks of 11 Sept 2001.

It's the logical equivalent of lynching a Negro any time a crime is committed in a small town: you can justify that even if he didn't commit that crime he was guilty of something, but that still doesn't prove that he did it.
 
2009-04-07 11:33:38 AM  
Dwight_Yeast: Your request, it's like Kryptonite to the Truthers. It's like the photo I posted of the south facade of WTC7 on fire: as soon as they see it, they disappear.

The hardcore ones do that as soon as I post. They know that I can discount them at almost any level (hey, even I know that some things are unknowable).

/it's a hobby of mine
 
2009-04-07 11:34:01 AM  
Dwight_Yeast: Befuddled: boobsrgood: The fact that the towers and wtc7 went down at freefall speed

[citation needed]

/never once seen any troofer show proof of this claim

Your request, it's like Kryptonite to the Truthers. It's like the photo I posted of the south facade of WTC7 on fire: as soon as they see it, they disappear.


So it's more like a Preparation H/Hemorrhoid relationship than a Kryptonite/Superman thing, huh?
 
2009-04-07 11:44:52 AM  
Leelu84: I doubt anyone will even read this at this point of the thread, but I'm gonna throw my thoughts in here. I don't claim to "know," nor have done the proper research, into what happened that day

Then you should. Start looking into it. And by "looking into it", I mean, read some books, not watch a couple of videos on YouTube. The best way to answer questions is to find the answers yourself.

Leelu84: But I do get the sense that we've been lied to, and that much of the story has been kept a secret from the general public.

How do you feel you're being lied to?

Leelu84: The stuff about what happened at the Pentagon seems particularly ridiculous when you hear the official explanation and watch the 7 frames of video released.

What seems ridiculous? Feel free to ask some questions here, as there are a bunch of pretty well-informed people in this thread (and a bunch of Truthers) so now's a good chance to get your questions answered.

Leelu84: Does that make it reasonable to conclude they carried out 9/11 themselves? No. BUT WE SHOULDN'T STOP ASKING QUESTIONS, and we SHOULD be encouraging continued independent research, while keeping a close eye on the methods of and conclusions drawn from such research. That is all.

I don't think anyone's suggesting otherwise here. But some guy who keeps offering shaky "evidence" of a conclusion he came to years ago, like the author of TFA is not doing good science or research.

Look: I started thinking about how the Towers came down the moment I watched them come down that morning in September almost eight years ago. I (unlikely most Americans, apparently) already knew one key, crucial fact to understanding what happened:

WTC1 & WTC2 were unlike any other skyscraper built before or since.
They were built for maximum clear floorspace on every floor, which mean that structural members were kept to an absolute minimum. For as large as the Towers were, there were extremely light and very delicate.

Look into how the Towers went up -the innovative constructions techniques involved in making them possible- and you'll start to understand why they came down.
 
2009-04-07 11:50:42 AM  
Radioactive Ass: /it's a hobby of mine

Mine too. For some reason, I find the Truthers arguments extremely disrespectful to the dead.

I know they're just trying to make sense of the tragedy in their own way by creating a narrative that justifies in their minds what happened and fits in with their beliefs, but it offends me that they are willing to completely divorce themselves from reality to do so.

In thinking about it last night, I realized that I've never met a Truther who was from NYC, never met one who was in NYC at the time of the attacks.

That says a lot to me: those that actually saw this happen know what they saw.
 
2009-04-07 11:57:42 AM  
Dwight_Yeast: I find the Truthers arguments extremely disrespectful to the dead.

Are you fekking kidding me? What about the loop reel of "WMD's!" played ad nauseum following the event. Does that even bother you a little bit? What about the million dead Iraqis?
 
2009-04-07 12:01:09 PM  
Radioactive Ass: Codething: (presumably still alive)

Great, you just ended Mythbusters by making Jamie a target of the NWO. Now where will I get my oddly amusing yet explodious fix on TV?

You bastard!


You don't get it!!!! Jamey IS the New World Order tm
 
2009-04-07 12:01:51 PM  
boobsrgood: Are you fekking kidding me? What about the loop reel of "WMD's!" played ad nauseum following the event. Does that even bother you a little bit? What about the million dead Iraqis?

I can't do anything about Bush's lies about Iraq. I tried at the time, but war protesters were not listened to.

You idiots (Truthers)? That's something I can still do something about.
 
2009-04-07 12:18:05 PM  
Dwight_Yeast: No it wasn't. It burned like a roman candle for seven hours:

I've been reading your posts. After you telling everyone to read up on their "facts" you fart out this gem. I watched it that day, there is no way it burned for 7 hours then fell with fires on 2 floors**.

The official 9/11 commission never fully examined WTC 7,**besides stating there were fires on only two floors. Your post are just your feeling and opinions on the matter.
 
2009-04-07 12:26:18 PM  
DoWhatNowToWhat: I've been reading your posts. After you telling everyone to read up on their "facts" you fart out this gem. I watched it that day, there is no way it burned for 7 hours then fell with fires on 2 floors**.

The official 9/11 commission never fully examined WTC 7,**besides stating there were fires on only two floors. Your post are just your feeling and opinions on the matter.


So the report "never fully examined WTC7" but also stated that there were only fires on two floors? Which one is it? If they didn't examine it, how did they know that there were only fires on two floors?

How many floors are burning in this picture?

obscurantist.com

Also: Here are some eyewitness accounts about the WTC7 fire

These aren't my opinions. These are facts. This is what actually happened, and if you weren't so blinded by what you want to believe, you might be able to see what science and the eyewitnesses tell us.
 
2009-04-07 12:35:44 PM  
I have an open question to the Anti-Truthers out there:

At what point does one become a Twoofer nut-job?

If you accept the NIST report (the official story) as 100% true, there are obviously people who accept its truth in varying degrees. Some people might accept 95% of it, but just have some questions about some of the details, or would like clarification on a point or two. Then there are the people who will accept only 5% or so of it and will defend theories such as "there were no planes at all". Extreme ends of the spectrum are easy to classify. At what point will you take me seriously when I say that as an engineer, I have some issues with the NIST report. If I'm not a cheerleader for the official story, should I be discounted out of hand?

To those of you who read the draft report on WTC7, you know that it is significantly different than the final report. This indicates that over time, more information came to light, analysis methods were improved somehow, simple mistakes were made and caught before the final version was published, or something along those lines. Is it possible that given an opportunity, after further review, their official story might again be revised? Or did they get everything 100% correct in their final version?

To those of you who don;t know what's in the NIST reports because you didn't read them (this goes to people on all sides of the issue), I have this to say: "STFU and GBTW". You do not have an informed opinion because Popular Mechanics did a story about it, or you saw a video on youtube. Sorry.
 
2009-04-07 12:37:48 PM  
I would like to personally thank this thread for helping me add a whole host of Farkers to my "List of Absolute Idiots Who I Can Safely Write Off as Logically Retarded" (LADWICSWOLR for short). It's a living document, so don't worry if you didn't make it on this time around, you might have a chance in an IvP or GCC thread in the near future.

Thanks for playing.
 
2009-04-07 12:41:34 PM  
sxacho: At what point will you take me seriously when I say that as an engineer, I have some issues with the NIST report.

When you explain what those issues are.

sxacho: To those of you who read the draft report on WTC7, you know that it is significantly different than the final report.

I assume that you are talking about the preliminary report, and not the final draft report which came out last summer, correct?
 
2009-04-07 12:42:37 PM  
Dwight_Yeast: So the report "never fully examined WTC7" but also stated that there were only fires on two floors? Which one is it? If they didn't examine it, how did they know that there were only fires on two floors?

How many floors are burning in this picture?


I'm not saying it was pulled. I am not saying there was just one fire. All that I am saying is that it feel due to the other buldings.

The 9/11 commission report looked into the building that the hi-jackers took down. The 9/11 Commission was never ordered to look into WTC 7.

Although WTC 7 feel that day, it wasn't a direct result of the terrorist in the planes. Because there is NO OFFICIAL REPORT FOR WTC 7 you are just stating personal opinion.

/relax
//we all aren't turthers for WTC
 
2009-04-07 12:51:50 PM  
loonatic112358: shirtsbyeric: FTA: Elemental Aluminum

I thought Aluminum was an alloy.

you're kidding right?
insert me facepalming here

what metals would aluminum be composed of then?


Aluminum is an element. Commercially sold aluminum is sold as alloy.
 
2009-04-07 12:52:58 PM  
halfof33: sxacho: At what point will you take me seriously when I say that as an engineer, I have some issues with the NIST report.

When you explain what those issues are.


Not trying to be a dick here but I believe we had this conversation once before and after I listed my questions/concerns complete with cited page numbers and whatnot, you ceased responding to me in the thread while still going after other people. Perhaps you didn't see my response to you, but at any rate, I don't have it anywhere to copy and paste and don't feel like digging it all up again. This isn't my life's mission and I don't spend a whole lot of time on it.


halfof33: sxacho: To those of you who read the draft report on WTC7, you know that it is significantly different than the final report.

I assume that you are talking about the preliminary report, and not the final draft report which came out last summer, correct?


I believe so. I don't remember the version numbers or publication dates or anything, but that sounds about right. The final report I was referring to is the one with the fancy animated graphical 3-D computer simulations. Perhaps it was a draft. I don't recall.
 
2009-04-07 12:53:56 PM  
DoWhatNowToWhat: Although WTC 7 feel that day, it wasn't a direct result of the terrorist in the planes. Because there is NO OFFICIAL REPORT FOR WTC 7 you are just stating personal opinion.

In the same way that The Official Report reflects the opinions of those on the Commission, then yes, I am stating my opinion.

DoWhatNowToWhat: I'm not saying it was pulled. I am not saying there was just one fire. All that I am saying is that it feel due to the other buldings.

I don't think anyone's arguing with that. If it hadn't gotten hit by debris from WTC1 twice and the pyroclastic flow, it would still be standing.
 
2009-04-07 01:04:54 PM  
Dwight_Yeast: If it hadn't gotten hit by debris from WTC1 twice and the pyroclastic flow, it would still be standing.

If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.
 
2009-04-07 01:07:37 PM  
sxacho: Not trying to be a dick here but I believe we had this conversation once before and after I listed my questions/concerns complete with cited page numbers and whatnot, you ceased responding to me in the thread while still going after other people.

That does not sound like me... well, shoot of a couple of concerns, and I will see if I can address them
 
2009-04-07 01:17:58 PM  
DoWhatNowToWhat: I've been reading your posts. After you telling everyone to read up on their "facts" you fart out this gem. I watched it that day, there is no way it burned for 7 hours then fell with fires on 2 floors**.

The official 9/11 commission never fully examined WTC 7,**besides stating there were fires on only two floors. Your post are just your feeling and opinions on the matter.


Sigh....

"Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories."

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro: "It had very heavy fire on many floors."
FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers: "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."
FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti: "the fire was going virtually on every floor."
FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca: "We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors."
FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn: "Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down."
 
2009-04-07 01:25:04 PM  
halfof33: sxacho: Not trying to be a dick here but I believe we had this conversation once before and after I listed my questions/concerns complete with cited page numbers and whatnot, you ceased responding to me in the thread while still going after other people.

That does not sound like me... well, shoot of a couple of concerns, and I will see if I can address them


My big one about the towers was the methodology used to determine how much insulation damage actually occurred. The report read like, "We ran the simulation 3 ways. Minimal damage, severe damage, and very severe damage. We know that the damage was very severe because when we ran our simulations, the building only collapsed under the very severe damage model. While remaining intact with the other two models. Since we know that the building collapsed, the damage was very severe. QED"

I have a problem with that methodology.

Regarding building 7, there were pretty glaring discrepancies with their own diagrams showing how long the fires burned and what the lab tests showed. I don't remember specifics but the lab tests showed significant weakening of the steel after 6.5 hours of X degrees while their own models showed that the area discussed was only subjected to that temperature for 3 hours max.

Also, their graphical 3-D model shows all kinds of external buckling and twisting which didn't really happen in real life. I haven't looked into this at all. It seems so stupid and obvious that I'm sure someone's addressed it already.

That wasn't everything but I really need to STFU and GBTW.
 
2009-04-07 01:38:16 PM  
Robin_G: I learned this a long time ago.

Truthers are just folks who, ironically, can't handle the truth. The truth is that bad things happen to good people for no really good or important reason. Truthers can't fathom this. Truthers need to find a reason for everything bad that happens, instead of just accepting that it does.


Too true. In a strange way, conspiracy theories can be very comforting. It's the only way I can explain the glee with which truthers espouse their ideas, yet continue to go to work/school/bed each and every day, same as always, perfectly content to live under what is apparently an evil genocidal new world order gestapo police state. Either on some level they know that they're full of crap, and they just enjoy the flamewars, or they take comfort in the idea that we all live under an all-knowing entity that controls the minute details of every major event. I wonder how many conspiracy theorists are also atheists? Makes one wonder if they're replacing one "higher power" with another.


So, to all the Truthers, I say this: just lay down, read a book, write a song, eat a pizza, have sex or do any one of a number of things that make the rest of us happy and for the love of God, just learn to live with being human.

/fixed for realism
 
2009-04-07 01:41:10 PM  
grotto_man: Apik0r0s
What better way to draw attention away from Israeli agents celebrating the towers falling

Gee, the antisemitic conspiracy theory asswipe is a "Truther" as well.
Color me surprised.


I'm shocked. SHOCKED!!!
 
2009-04-07 02:28:31 PM  
sxacho: My big one about the towers was the methodology used to determine how much insulation damage actually occurred.

Your original question was "At what point will you take me seriously when I say that as an engineer, I have some issues with the NIST report. If I'm not a cheerleader for the official story, should I be discounted out of hand?"

Those are legitimate questions, in my view. Lets take the first one, it is a very simplified version of a paper put on by Gregory Ulrich, a Truther. My view is that NIST underestimated the damage, because they did not take into account gaps, damage, shoddy construction. They went with the as designed, instead of as built (and as maintained).

Anyone who has ever worked on a construction site knows those ain't the same thing.
 
2009-04-07 02:32:50 PM  
I think that no matter what "controversy" gets ginned up, some jackass will follow it. Troofers are those jackasses.

Wholly convinced of an outcome, even though rigorous scientific testing has shown their already implausible speculation to be definitively false.

There is no evidence of explosives. Zero. None. Not one single piece.
The buildings did not fall at freefall speed, as if that were even indicative of a controlled demolition which it is not, so that is a fail wrapped inside a fail.
There is ample, absolutely ample, evidence of al-Qaeda's intentions and planning prior to 9/11.

You have to be foolish to believe that 9/11 was an "inside job". The conspiracy theories have been analyzed and tested rigorously, and they simply do not hold up. If you want to believe in them, you are doing so because it is satisfying to you. Not because it is actually plausible or evidenced.

Little mental short cuts like "look who benefited" and "it looks like a casino falling in vegas, therefore it was a controlled demolition" are as foolhardy as a creationist rebutting evolution by proclaiming that you can't throw the pieces into a rolling drier and produce an assembled watch. It's simplistic and foolish.
 
2009-04-07 02:49:59 PM  
Apik0r0s: What better way to draw attention away from Israeli agents celebrating the towers falling

They weren't "Israeli agents", they were teenagers who had overstayed their visas. Since when is Alex Jones' "MOSSAD!!" wharrgarbl considered reliable?
 
Displayed 50 of 946 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report